You might be a democrat if.....

[xtc]

You Might be a Democrat if...

You vote Democrat because it's easier than getting a job!
You think the rich can get richer off people who have no money.
You've named your kids "Stardust" or "Moonbeam".
You've tried to argue that all of societies problems are based on the fact that McDonald's, by law, only has to pay $5/hr.
If you utter the phrase "There ought to be a law" at least once a week.
If you have ever used the phrase "protecting prisoner's rights".
If you find yourself nodding vigorously and saying "someone finally said it right" during an episode of Oprah.
You call the execution of a homicidal maniac "murder" but call murder "pro-choice".
You've ever referred to the Military/Industrial Complex during a conversation.
You know you never laughed as a kid, the world was in just too bad a shape.
All of your 1970's "Beware of Global Freezing" signs now have "Beware of Global Warming" on the back.
Your friends told you how much fun you had at the Grateful Dead show, but your not sure what year you saw them.
You file suit against the mall rent-a-cops for posting signs stating that your bags are subject to inspection.
You've ever argued that "you can't legislate morality".
Referred to the Founding Fathers as "those aristocratic, chauvinistic, lily white, slave owning, land stealing oppressors of indigenous personnel".
You argued that a few more months of sanctions and Saddam Hussein would fold like rookie poker player.
You know more than 2 people who have a degree in "Womyn's Studies"
You've ever said "But look at all the good Ted Kennedy has done for the women of this country!"
You blame things on "The Man."
You believe that Bart Simpson only needs a little more affection.
You've ever stared at a wall and said "Now THAT is definitely man's inhumanity to man!"
You argue that the only flaw with Marx is that Russia was an agrarian society.
You've ever called the meter maid a Fascist.
You are giddy at the prospect of the return of bell bottoms.
You argue that the Second Amendment only refers to Federally organized militias.
You view Jane Fonda as a courageous heroine with strong convictions.
You view Hootie and the Blowfish as the bedrock of culture refinement for the 90's.
After looking at your pay stub you can still say "America is undertaxed".
You've ever said "We really should call the ACLU about this".
You've ever referred to "the glass ceiling".
You know 2 or more people with "concrete proof" that the Pentagon is covering up: Roswell, the Kennedy assassination, the CIA's role in creating AIDS.
You came of age in the '60s and don't remember.
You've ever owned a VW bug or ridden in a Microbus.
You own something that says Dukakis for President, and still display it.
You believe it because "Dan Rather wouldn't lie about something this important".
You ever based an argument on the phrase, "But they can afford a tax hike because..."
You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "is a victim of Draconian budget cuts."
You've ever argued that with just 1 more year of welfare that person will turn it around and get off drugs.
You think Lennon was a brilliant social commentator.
You keep count of how many people you know in each racial or ethnic category.
You are outraged that Baseball Players make millions and the poor clerk at the unemployment office only makes 28 bucks an hour doing such good work.
You believe that an elected official attending religious services is a violation of the separation of Church and state.
You believe that a few hundred loggers can find another career, but the defenseless spotted owl must live in its preferred tree.
You believe our government must do it because everyone in Europe does.
You think that Al Gore macherena thing was a laugh riot.
You feel that Green Peace is misunderstood.
You keep your PC dictionary with you at all times so as not to offend.
You think communism will catch on once society has evolved.
You've tried to argue in favor of anything based on "Well, they're gonna do it anyway so....".
You've ever stated "How does what he does in his personal life have any bearing on doing his job?"
You don't understand all the commotion about Whitewater, Vince Foster, selling US foreign policy for campaign contributions, it's just politics, right?

[DeV]

You think "proletariat" is a type of cheese.

You've named your kids "Deduction one" and "Deduction two"

You've tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.

You've ever referred to someone as "my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend"

You've ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to welfare.

You're a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.

You think Huey Newton is a cookie.

The only union you support is the Baseball Players, because heck, they're richer than you.

You think you might remember laughing once as a kid.

You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.

You call mall rent-a-cops "jack-booted thugs."

You've ever referred to the moral fiber of something.

You've ever uttered the phrase, "Why don't we just bomb the sons of bitches."

You've ever said, "I can't wait to get into business school."

You've ever called a secretary or waitress "Tootsie."

You answer to "The Man."

You don't think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but you watch it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.

You fax the FBI a list of "Commies in my Neighborhood."

You don't let your kids watch Sesame Street because you accuse Bert and Ernie of "sexual deviance."

You scream "Dit-dit-ditto" while making love.

You've argued that art has a "moral foundation set in Western values."

When people say "Marx," you think "Groucho."

You've ever yelled, "Hey hippie, get a haircut."

You think Birkenstock was that radical rock concert in 1969.

You argue that you need 300 handguns, in case a bear ever attacks your home.

Vietnam makes a lot of sense to you.

You point to Hootie and the Blowfish as evidence of the end of racism in America.

You've ever said civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties.

You've ever said "Clean air? Looks clean to me."

You've ever called education a luxury.

You look down through a glass ceiling and chuckle.

You wonder if donations to the Pentagon are tax-deductable.

You came of age in the '60s and don't remember Bob Dylan.

You own a vehicle with an "Ollie North: American Hero" sticker.

You're afraid of the liberal media."

You ever based an argument on the phrase, "Well, tradition dictates...."

You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn't want to contribute to society."

You've ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when they don't even have shoes.

You confuse Lenin with Lennon.

[Betheny]

Oh jeeze.

I <3 DEV. If only I was a lesbian...

[Wezas]

xtc = pwned

[xtc]

u people & ur pwned lol.

It is a light hearted piece in the vein of backlashes one. I think both are funny.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
You've ever argued that "you can't legislate morality".

That's one of my favorite statements.


You believe that Bart Simpson only needs a little more affection.

:lol:


You argue that the Second Amendment only refers to Federally organized militias.

In a way. Let everyone own a gun (handgun, shotgun, rifle). Let the "well organized militia" (armed forces) keep the automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc.


You ever based an argument on the phrase, "But they can afford a tax hike because..."

I've used the phrase "They can afford to pay more," meaning more than others pay. Does that count?


You've tried to argue in favor of anything based on "Well, they're gonna do it anyway so....".

Giving condoms to kids is bad!

Well, they're going to have sex. May as well protect them.

Yup, you're right, I have.


You've ever stated "How does what he does in his personal life have any bearing on doing his job?"

Yea, but I use it in terms of blow jobs and cocaine. I'm not choosy.

Jorddyn

[CrystalTears]

You've named your kids "Deduction one" and "Deduction two"

This had me rolling, mostly because my fiance is studying accounting. When he was learning about taxes, he came back home one day and announced that our child is going to have the middle name T.B. When I asked what T.B stood for he said "Tax Break!". :lol:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Maimara
Oh jeeze.

I <3 DEV. If only I was a lesbian... :heart:

You can't post one without the other. I found them both pretty funny.

[GSTamral]

You might be a Republican if...

You believe people, including union members, should be accountable for the job they do. Bad work leads to dismissal, good work leads to promotions, not everything based on seniority

You believe that after 7-9 years of school to get postgraduate degrees should pay off, and the people who don't do it, and then complain that you are living better off have no basis for doing so.

You believe America is still the land of opportunity, where one can come to this country, start a business and make it successful, and not have to worry about losing the family business when you die because of death taxes.

You believe that you know how to spend your money better than the government does.

You believe that employing 15% of the population to do nothing but administrative work (the government) is ridiculous, and makes everyone else work harder to support an expanding government that in truth, produces nothing.

You hate lawyers.

You want to put a limitation on 2 million dollar lawsuits over coffee being too hot.

You might be a Democrat if...

You believe all workers, no matter how unskilled the position, and how little effort is required, should be paid enough money to afford all the comforts in life.

You believe that schooling and effort should not have that large of a bearing on salary earned, and that those who work hardest, go to school more, and work aggressively should pay the most taxes to support those who don't.

You believe that people who die with wealth should not be allowed to keep their family businesses, and all the money they saved up for their children taken by the government. This includes forcing the sale of family homes, and forcing the sales of college savings investments if they die early.

You believe the government is all knowing, and knows exactly where to spend all the money, and should expand to incorporate at least 50% of the population.

You love it when someone who spills hot coffee on themselves can sue and get rich quick by going after the evil corporations.

You want lawsuit winnings to be based on how much the defendant makes per year, as opposed to an amount guided by the actual crime committed.

You believe the rich should stay rich, and nobody else can get rich due to barriers of entry, lack of incentive for corporate hires, and lack of corporate investments caused by higher corporate tax rates.

You believe the US should be a manufacturing economy, and try to compete with countries using 25 cent per hour labor, but we must pay our own employees at least 25 dollars an hour.

You believe Europe is the perfect place, with socialized health care, 3 dollar per liter gas prices, 10-15% unemployment (even though 5.4% in the US is too high), and a system that pays unemployed people for lif

[Ilvane]

Tamral, yours wasn't funny.;)

-A

You've ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when they don't even have shoes. :lol: I like that one..so true, so true.

[Warriorbird]

You might be Tamral... if the chip on your shoulder is only dwarfed by your slavish devotion to Horatio Alger.

[Warriorbird]

You Might Be a Republican (bias clarified)

"You believe people, including union members, should be accountable for the job they do" (Unless they're managers... one of your relatives... yourself... or your Republican President). "Bad work leads to dismissal, good work leads to promotions, not everything based on seniority" (Unless of course it's a non business related field, in which case you want none of this to be true.)

"You believe that after 7-9 years of school to get postgraduate degrees should pay off, and the people who don't do it, and then complain that you are living better off have no basis for doing so "(Unless someone gets a degree in something other than business. In that case, screw them. Oh yeah. Making education available to more people is a bad thing. We're all about elitism while claming to be all about Horatio Alger.)

"You believe America is still the land of opportunity, where one can come to this country, start a business and make it successful, and not have to worry about losing the family business when you die because of death taxes "(Because despite your claims of fiscal conservatism you don't know a damn thing about estate planning.)

"You believe that you know how to spend your money better than the government does. " (Yet most likely many of your associates don't make over 200 grand a year... yet you try to bamboozle them into thinking they're getting a tax break. And Pat Buchanan rather pointedly illustrates that your beloved Presidential candidate isn't actually a fiscal conservative. This eludes you.)

"You believe that employing 15% of the population to do nothing but administrative work (the government) is ridiculous, and makes everyone else work harder to support an expanding government that in truth, produces nothing." (Yet, of course... you believe in escalating billions and billions of government spending on wars we didn't need to be involved in.)

"You hate lawyers." (Yet most of them belong to your own party.)

"You want to put a limitation on 2 million dollar lawsuits over coffee being too hot." (Because, damnit, if you're not making a buck off of it, no one else can.)

You might be a Democrat if

"You believe all workers," shouldn't starve.

"You believe that schooling and effort SHOULD have a large bearing on salary earned."

"You believe that people who die with wealth are allowed to keep it."

"You believe that the government isn't all-knowing. Thusly, spending everyone's taxes on wasteful expenditures isn't the wisest idea."

"You DON'T love it when someone who spills hot coffee on themselves can sue and get rich quick" because, after all, getting rich quick is a Republican ideal.

"You DON'T want lawsuit winnings to be based on how much the defendant makes per year, as opposed to an amount guided by the actual crime committed. " only a paranoid nutjob would think that. You believe that people should be accountable for what they do, however.

"You believe the rich should stay rich." Other people could become rich to, but the Republicans believe in trickle down economics which is contrary to basic things like greed and human nature.

You believe in things like maintaining at the very least a minimum wage and not shipping all our jobs to Third World Countries. You don't think Americans need to be living off of 25 cents an hour unlike, say, Tamral.

You believe Tamral has a rather confused view of your feelings towards the desireability of Europe. You like the notion of more people having healthcare.

[Keller]

I hate the 3 euro/liter prices in Europe too! God, it takes like 300 euros to fill up my Hummer, and I can only drive to and from work three times! We need more big business in Europe; less of these mushy-democracies where politicians do the will of the masses and not the people with mass capital.


My addition ---

You might be a Republican if....

You believe that stem-cell research is tantamount to abortion knowing full well that HUNDREDS of fertilized eggs are THROWN away daily at fertilization clinics across the US.

You want to reduce legislation against mercury pollution (allowing THREE times the already allowed values) knowing that 1 in 6 women of child bearing age ALREADY has unhealthy amounts in their blood which cause birth-defects and brain damage. Then oppose abortion, allowing corporations to force women to have unhealthy children. YA FREEDOM!

"the life of an unborn child is sacred. of course once they're born you can beat them, you can starve them, when they turn 18, send 'em to the electric chair, or kill 'em in a war against some starving country--who had a population explosion because we cut off their access to birth control to make sure there'd be someone to kill somewhere to keep the pentagon from going broke" -- Jello Biafra (yes, there are intelligent people with non-english sounding names).

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Keller]

[TheEschaton]

should be paid enough money to afford all the comforts in life.

Since when are rent, and food, and heat for your apartment, considered "the comforts of life"? Working 40 hours a week in a minimum wage job at $6 an hour (an overestimate) is $240 a week $960 a month. To live in the city where these minimum wage jobs are, rent, in any mid-size city can range anywhere from $500 to $750 a month (in the upper range, like Boston) for a 2 bedroom apartment. Which leaves you something like 210-460 a month to pay all your utilities, food costs, and God forbid a medical emergency comes up....wouldn't want to "spoil" people with all those comforts.

Unless, of course, there's a second parent who can work the 40 hours as well, but people such as yourself, Tamral, don't seem to want the "moral fiber of the American family" to be put at such risk as having mothers outside the kitchen, eh? Imagine, the kids taking care of themselves! The horror, the horror....you can't have it both ways, jackass.

Edited to add: But silly me, I forgot to add in the tax burden on that $960 a month. Perhaps we should institute a flat rate so that the guy who makes $960 a month only pays 15% to give him a $912 a month, and the guy who makes 1 million a month only gets, <gasp> 850,000 a month. That's enough for him to pay! Come on, you can't expect him to live like an animal!


-TheE-

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by TheEschaton]

Aw geeze, this made me :lol:

Where are you guys getting this wonderful material?

[Nakiro]

You might be a democrat if...

You believe the government owes you some type of service because of your economic position in life.

You believe that tax cuts to the richest 1% are immoral, despite the fact those who earn the least are taxed less than 4% of their yearly income.

You believe that social security should provide for your entire retirement.

You believe that you are entitled to government funded health care system.

You believe government aid should be restricted to institutions that hire based on ethnicity rather than merit.

You believe corperations or individuals that earn over 200,000 dollars a year should be taxed at a rate of 47%.

You believe programs which utilize 47 cents of every dollar for non-berucratic work efforts are effective.

You are comfortable knowing that you will never achieve or strive to achieve an income over 65,000 dollars a year and would rather have your prefered lifestyle paid for by the economic upwardly mobile.

You believe in handouts instead of handups.

You believe the private sector is incapable of helping the lower class.

You think there is something immoral about earning money from owning a successful business.

You measure equality in America through a ethno-economic perspective.

You believe that raising minimum wage should be enough to support a family of three.

You have no idea, nor care, what a short-run production function actually is.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

should be paid enough money to afford all the comforts in life.

Since when are rent, and food, and heat for your apartment, considered "the comforts of life"? Working 40 hours a week in a minimum wage job at $6 an hour (an overestimate) is $240 a week $960 a month. To live in the city where these minimum wage jobs are, rent, in any mid-size city can range anywhere from $500 to $750 a month (in the upper range, like Boston) for a 2 bedroom apartment. Which leaves you something like 210-460 a month to pay all your utilities, food costs, and God forbid a medical emergency comes up....wouldn't want to "spoil" people with all those comforts.

Unless, of course, there's a second parent who can work the 40 hours as well, but people such as yourself, Tamral, don't seem to want the "moral fiber of the American family" to be put at such risk as having mothers outside the kitchen, eh? Imagine, the kids taking care of themselves! The horror, the horror....you can't have it both ways, jackass.

Edited to add: But silly me, I forgot to add in the tax burden on that $960 a month. Perhaps we should institute a flat rate so that the guy who makes $960 a month only pays 15% to give him a $912 a month, and the guy who makes 1 million a month only gets, <gasp> 850,000 a month. That's enough for him to pay! Come on, you can't expect him to live like an animal!


-TheE-

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by TheEschaton]

Or the dumbass who is living beyond his means could be responsbile, move out of the city, and get a job in an area where he can afford the standard of living his minimum wage job could provide.

Its not the government's fault, nor anyone elses, that rent is high in the city.

Paying him more will only make matters worse. The amount of people he has to compete with will remain the same and the price will eventually rise.

Putting on rent controls, as we have seen in every past instance, is also disasterous.

Or the dumbass who is living beyond his means could be responsbile, move out of the city, and get a job in an area where he can afford the standard of living his minimum wage job could provide.

^

Because bumfuck massachusetts is brimming with minimum wage opprutunities.

Seriously, I liked this thread until I read you're bullshit.


You believe the government owes you some type of service because of your economic position in life.

Considering the government expects alot out of you as a citizen I'd say they could have the deceny to at least secure a fair opprutunity to get ahead.

Look at your next statement as an illustration


You believe that tax cuts to the richest 1% are immoral, despite the fact those who earn the least are taxed less than 4% of their yearly income

So, they can't expect help from the government but they should give up more of their money?

Heh nice.


You believe that social security should provide for your entire retirement.

I know I better get something out of the money I put into this money sink hole.


You believe that you are entitled to government funded health care system.

Read all previous statements.


You believe government aid should be restricted to institutions that hire based on ethnicity rather than merit.


Your grasp on reality is fleeting. While I personally abhor affirmitive action, your understand of how it works is pathetic.

Fuck the rest of this. It's retarded. I'm going to sleep.

[Nakiro]

I'd respond, but I think your last statement answers why I won't.

Goodnight.

Because you're retarded. Yes, we know.

[Wolfmage]

Originally posted by Nakiro
Or the dumbass who is living beyond his means could be responsbile, move out of the city, and get a job in an area where he can afford the standard of living his minimum wage job could provide.

I can't say I agree with this, because it's not always a simple matter to just pack up and move. You're going to need money to do that. And unless you're living with someone for free, that 40 hour a week minimum wage job is most likely not going to give you enough to pay bills and save up. Even here, where I live (in Kentucky) where it's considered mostly rural (although I live in the biggest city here) paying bills would be difficult to damn near impossible on minimum wage. I have friends who live in some of the less populated areas and complain about the difficulty of making ends meet. They're working these minimum-wage jobs, and not trying to live above their means, and struggling.

[Keller]

where to begin .....

I guess with your assault on affirmative action (hereafter refered to as AA). AA is flawed. It should be based on economics and not ethnicity. However, until I graduate from law school and actually get into politics, I can't do anything except bitch about that. That said, we're stuck with what we have -- a system of advantage to a group of primarily disadvantaged people. To me it's a matter of dessert (not the meal-ending treat, the degree to which person A deserves thing B). I reiterate, for emphasis, that AA SHOULD be based on economics and not ethnicity. It's not. However, by far a majority of non-white people in America are poor, leaving them as the primary benefactor of this program. That said, it works halfway decently to even the playing field for the rich and poor alike. Even the playing field I say? Yes.

The playing field is uneven. Rich kids, who don't have afterschool jobs, who have supportive/encouraging parents, and who can afford skilled tutors naturally have the upperhand when it comes to grades and SAT scores (and yes, GRE, MCAT, and LSAT too!). So do they DESERVE that seat at, say, Texas, when a less fortunate student, who had no choice in being born into the circumstances s/he was, has even marginally similar marks? It is wrong to take that advantage away from the rich kid?

I know everyone has their story about how their friend Justin didn't get into Boise State because some black kid took their spot. But, didn't Bertrand IV, son of Bertrand III, major donor to BSU, take Justin's spot just as much as Dimetrie, the black kid did? I don't Dubya complaining about Daddy getting him into (and yes, out of) Yale, do you? Use your brain, God gave it to you for a reason.

Hoping that we all haven't regressed to the 19th century, we can agree that there is nothing different about minorities, specifically blacks, as far as intellectual capacity goes. So until we see a proportionally number of blacks, latinos, asians, whites, etc, in our schools as in our country, then we've not evened the playing field -- then we've done a disservice to our country.

[Farquar]

Damn Tamral, I hope you don't actually beleive that crap in your post. I've never seen so much sensationalist BS in my whole life.

First off, I almost screamed out loud when I heard Bush reinstituted steel tariffs, among others, a few years back. Looks like he's the one hung on on keeping the U.S. as a manufacturing economy.

I love when people with no knowledge, legal or otherwise, complain about the McDonald's coffee case, cause then I get to make em look stupid.

What don't you know about the case:

1. McDonalds KNEW that their coffee was 30-40 degress hotter (180-190 F) than coffee you'd make at home or buy anywhere else (150 F).

2. McDonlads had received 700 or so complaints about burns prior to that particular lady's lawsuit.

3. McDondalds management refused to turn down the temperatures on the coffee machines. Why you ask?

First they figured if you make it super hot, it would stay hot longer, and people would be happy and buy more coffee.

Second, it would cost too much money to recalibrate their machines. Lets say it would have cost them 15 mil to recalibrate alll their coffee machine in the US. Then their statisticians found out that if they left the machines alone, maybe 1,000 people in the US would get badly burned, and that the average settlement would be $10,000. That comes out to 10 mil, which means they save 5 mil if they let people burn. Which path do you think they chose?

4. That lady, 81 years old, received third degree burns all over her pelvic region, and spent 8 days in the hospital where she underwent numerous skin grafts.

5. She OFFERED to settle her claim for $20,000 to pay her medical bills, but McDonalds refused.

6. The 2.7 million dollar punitive damage award (about two days worth of McDonald's coffee sales), was later reduced to $480,000.

What's the moral of this story?

If you're gonna trash something, at least know something about it that you didn't read passing through the grocery isle.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
Use your brain, God gave it to you for a reason.Ok, here goes: people shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin, therefore Affirmative Action is 100% wrong.

[Keller]

I asked you to use your brain, not your morals that you only found 40 years ago.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
I asked you to use your brain, not your morals that you only found 40 years ago. Given that I haven't even been alive for half of 40 years, that would be quite a trick.

I abhor affirmitive action because it is counter productive and breeds more resentment than its worth in the long run. I realize the important of "forcing" inequlity in the short run, but it shouldn't have been around as long as its been and people need to start thinking about the future and find something to replace it.

[Keller]

I was obviously refering to the national morality on race that we adopted in the 60s.

It's slightly frustrating that you ignored the rest of my post to make the comment you did. Please reread and refute the logic or the argument, not just pick out one thing you can make a single comment on and think you've won the debate.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
I abhor affirmitive action because it is counter productive and breeds more resentment than its worth in the long run. I realize the important of "forcing" inequlity in the short run, but it shouldn't have been around as long as its been and people need to start thinking about the future and find something to replace it. Affirmative action, if properly administered, is a useful tool in dealing with the issue of race relations. Affirmative action doesn’t just benefit minorities. One reason for the heated controversy is because of the confusion over how the term is defined and implemented in workplace and education. It was put in place to make sure there is no discrimination in employment or education. It is needed.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
I was obviously refering to the national morality on race that we adopted in the 60s.By referring specifically to me. Yeah, that makes sense.
Please reread and refute the logic or the argument, not just pick out one thing you can make a single comment on and think you've won the debate. Affirmative Action treats people differently based on ethnicity. You admit this. Treating people differently based on ethnicity is wrong. That is a fact. Affirmative Action is wrong. That is a logical conclusion (A is B, B is C, A is C).

Your whole first paragraph about what "should be" is great, but unimportant when people are suffering under what is. Your second paragraph contains the ideas that rich white kids don't advance on their natural merits and only rich white kids have supportive/encouraging parents. I felt that was too ignorant to respond to. Your third paragraph has a shot at Bush. Yawn. The fourth paragraph has some twisted grammar in the final sentence, but the idea you communicate (as I understand it) is flawed. Affirmative Action doesn't make an organization get a specific number of minorities. They tried that (quotas) and got rid of it. I assumed everyone was already aware of this.
and think you've won the debate.Don't quit your day job. You're a terrible mind reader.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Treating people differently based on ethnicity is wrong. Sadly, that statement is not in your favor when it pertains to the issue of AA.

[Hulkein]

<<Sadly, that statement is not in your favor when it pertains to the issue of AA.>>

Yes it is.

It was put in place to make sure there is no discrimination in employment or education

Negative, it tries to make up for the inequities in the hiring practices of companies and the lack of education in minorities to impace them in a position to provide similar advantages to them and their own.

Let a single generation have a few jobs and let them into schools so that their kids don't have to live with the stigma of being improverished and "racially challenged" but you start having kids who had every opprutunity that the next kid have getting an advantage based upon an outdated ideal and system then you have done nothing but create the situation you were trying to avoid.

I fully acknowledge the fact that it *was* a neccessary evil, but will never be a long term solution because it creates the resentment that produces the racial hatred it is trying to reverse. It's a self defeating concept.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
I fully acknowledge the fact that it *was* a neccessary evil, but will never be a long term solution because it creates the resentment that produces the racial hatred it is trying to reverse. It's a self defeating concept. I agree with you in that it will never be a long term solution. The playing field is not yet level. We are making progress, slowly but surely and hopefuly sometime soon we won't need to have programs like this instituted. For now, despite some of the gains made by AA, discrimination still exists. If society values fairness and equality which is what affirmative action seeks to ensure, then we all benefit until there is no longer a need.

This program creates resentment because that in itself is the root of its existence. It is not affirmative action itself, but affirmative action for African-Americans and Latinos, that is under current attack. What some people fail to realize is that white women benefit the most from AA.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
<<Sadly, that statement is not in your favor when it pertains to the issue of AA.>>

Yes it is. It really isn't. I'd like you to prove me otherwise if so.

The realities of the situation are immaterial to the public opinion of them. Because the public are the people you are trying to illicit a change in.

[DeV]

The public opinion cannot refute the fact that discrimination still exists for women and minorities. Until it ceases, proponents will argue for its necessity.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
It really isn't. I'd like you to prove me otherwise if so. Seeing as how I was going to say the same thing as Hulk, I might as well answer.

If Affirmative Action ignored ethnicity, there wouldn't be a field for "race" on any application. There is a field for race on college applications, so Affirmative Action does not ignore ethnicity.

Until it ceases, proponents will argue for its necessity

^

which is why it's a self defeating concept. It is neccessary as long as racism exists, but by being it creates racism.

It's a no win situation.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by RangerD1
which is why it's a self defeating concept. It is neccessary as long as racism exists, but by being it creates racism.

I really doubt affirmative action does anything to increase racism. Certainly, it can be used as an excuse to justify it for those already racist. But being the cause of it by itself? Doubtful.

Unfortunately, it is still needed even though it's inherently flawed. It needs some serious tweaks. But as we as a country become more tolerant and less fearful of those who are different, the need for it will decrease. Racism is still a big problem but I think few can realistically argue that it's not less of one than it used to be. As I said on another issue, it's improving just not quick enough to keep from causing pain to those alive now.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
It really isn't. I'd like you to prove me otherwise if so. Seeing as how I was going to say the same thing as Hulk, I might as well answer.

If Affirmative Action ignored ethnicity, there wouldn't be a field for "race" on any application. There is a field for race on college applications, so Affirmative Action does not ignore ethnicity. Back in the 40-60's when racism was in full swing do you mean to tell me there was no fied for "race" on college applications? This is not something new, and in essense helped us to get where we are today, unfortunately. There is a field for race when registering to vote as well.


Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Treating people differently based on ethnicity is wrong. Not hiring people based on their ethnic background, despite their qualifications, is wrong. Not accepting minorities and women into Colleges and Universities based on their ethnicity, regardless of their achievements, is wrong.
Alot of advancement has been made over the years just when it pertains to college acceptance of women and minorities. I wholeheartedly agree that AA needs to eventually become obsolete.

Just in case you planned on using the argument that two wrongs don't make a right... Solution: Cancel out one, and you won't need to utilize the other.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Until it ceases, proponents will argue for its necessity

^

which is why it's a self defeating concept. It is neccessary as long as racism exists, but by being it creates racism.

It's a no win situation. Racism has been here long before affirmative action came into play. If I were to say anything I would feel that affirmative action or programs like it might be here as long as racism/sexism in the workplace and elsewhere exists.
It is a situation that will be won, with time.

I really doubt affirmative action does anything to increase racism. Certainly, it can be used as an excuse to justify it for those already racist. But being the cause of it by itself? Doubtful.

Justification is what allows someone to justify acting upon their feelings instead of harboring them where they can do no harm. Believe me, there are plenty of people ou tthere who feel "cheated" by the system because some black kid got a break for the first time in his life. I don't agree with the sentiment but pretending that it isn't there is more pernicious to the cause than anything else.



But as we as a country become more tolerant and less fearful of those who are different

Exactly, and when you give people a reason to fear you don't help the situation. The fear that they or something they have a vested interest in will be short changed because of another's race is not as uncommon as you may believe.


I'm in the military and I'm one of the only black people in my unit. I've dealt with more than my fair share of racism, but I've also met alot of people who have admitted that they have never even known a black person before me and was shocked at the way I really was.


Racism is still a big problem but I think few can realistically argue that it's not less of one than it used to be

I never claimed otherwise.

It is a situation that will be won, with time.

^

Not if you advocate programs and initiatives that make matters worse in the long run.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
It is a situation that will be won, with time.

^

Not if you advocate programs and initiatives that make matters worse in the long run.
In the last seventy years the majority of direct beneficiaries of affirmative action policies were not minorities; they were white males. Preference for those perceived to be in need is a basic concept of American society. We have to support those who are still left out. It's hypocritical to consider affirmative action for minorities wrong while treating affirmative action for bankers, farmers and white men of power, as entitlements.

Plz post resources that state the major benefactor of Affirmitive action is white males. A little while ago you said it was white females.

[DeV]

Please re-read my sentence. I said within the last 70 years. Affirmative action is not something new. <-- One of the myths.

In this day in age the major benefactors are white women.

I will not post sources as it is time consuming and you'd be surprised at the amount of information you could find regarding Affirmative action just by looking for it. I will however, post what I know, what I have learned in college and from reading.

The New Deal, put in place under Franklin D. Roosevelt is just the beginning of what started a massive affirmative action approach to social crisis. That is a great place to start.

[DeV]

I am sort of side-stepping the main issue here which deals with workplace and education as it stands today and directly relates to the legal term: affirmative action.

[Wezas]

There is no racism.

People just need to realize that anyone who is not white is severely crippled and must be put down.

-Ben

I *have* done alot of research on affirmative action. I am asking you to point out whatever lead you to believe that White anything has benefeited the most from it.

I'm fully aware of racist hiring and education acceptence practices throughout american history. Let's not cloud the issue by stating the obvious but irrelevent.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
I *have* done alot of research on affirmative action. I am asking you to point out whatever lead you to believe that White anything has benefeited the most from it.
And I am asking you to research Franklin D Roosevelts' 'The New Deal' with regards to affirmative action. You will find the information I have briefly spoken about.

This debate is not cut and dry, there is no black and white area. The gray area is expansive and dates back even further than the 60s. For the sake of arguing I felt it necessary to include the programs put into place prior to the 60s.

[Keller]

To whomever I was debating with before ....
Paragraph One - AA should be based on economics and not race. Do you disagree?
Paragraph Two - Yes, parents who've not had scholastic success and who work at least one full time job to buy generic kraft-style dinners and have no appriciation for the education system typically do not push their children to achieve. In addition, they have no opportunity for tutors or special prepratory classes (which cost upwards of $1000, I teach them). I am not saying that all white kids are not deserving ... just that a poor kid (majority of minorities are poor) who has not had the same advantages prior to admittance to college should be given preference over the white kid who usually had an advantage. Of course this system sucks because there are poor white kids who get the royal shaft and rich minorities that get an unfair advantage. But like I said, there is not a better system yet -- so deal with the one we have. If you want, argue that is should be based on economics -- but don't be a nitwit and pretend that someone does not already have the advantage.
Paragraph 3 - My "shot" at Bush. As I was writing the post last night, I got red-in-the-face pissed when I realized that Bush lobbied against affirmative action yet benefitted from it at Yale. A legacy, the program he was admitted under, is affirmative action for rich alumni's kids.
Paragraph 4 - In this paragraph I never once advocate quotas, as much as you wish I would have. Twist anything I wrote if you want, but that still does not change the fact that I do not advocate quotas. The point of the paragraph was to say that unless you believe minorities are inherently less inteligent and capable than whites, until we see an equal proportion of them in all applicable fields we are still dealing with one group having a unnatural advantage. That is wrong.

I understand your argument, and it does make sense. It's just not applicable because you can't base EVERYTHING on race from 1619 (the year the first slave arrived in the US, there were free blacks before this) until 1964 and then turn around and say it's not fair now. Too fucking bad.

Are you serious? If you're gonna make a bold statement like "More white men have benefeited from affirmative action, than anyone else" then *you* have the burden of proof. Post *your* numbers or at least a reference a little bit less in scope than "FDR's New deal which encompasses a little over a decade and beyond of American history." I have better things to do than read all this:

http://newdeal.feri.org/texts/browse.cfm?MainCatID=40


hoping to find some measure of what the fuck you're trying to say.

Either you say it or you don't. Saying "Well I know it and you don't so nyah", is an asses argument and belongs no where in intellectual debate.


As it were, we are talking about affirmitive action in its present incarnate. What The good ol boy network might have done 60 years ago is immaterial because the aim of AA is not retribution but equality. To achieve equality then you have to teach people that every person has a relative worth, regardless of their sex, gender or religion.

You do *not* accomplish this by arbitrary giving people positions and opprutunties that they are not qualified for, nor do you make people hire a certain amount of people based upon race, in either way. You don't do this by initiating vindictive policies to "Teach somebody a lesson"

The same actions that bred resentment and outrage in your race is undoubtedly gonnda breed the same thing in others. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

The way you *do* accomplish this is by giving everyone a fair opprutunity to succeed for themselves regardless of whatever stigma or social handicap their particular, race,culture or class may have. So, yes it is neccessary to have programs that give people a break so that their children can start at the same line as their contemporaries.

That doesn't mean that 2-3 generations down the road I should be getting more of an opprutunity than the next man even If we come from similar circumstances.
*Edited to add

Also to clear up a misconception that I have seen several times: Affirmative action does not refer to the preferential choosing of one person or another for any ol reason. It means the preferential choosing of MINORITIES, in an attempt to correct social injustices.

[Edited on 9-21-2004 by RangerD1]

[DeV]

It is a bold statement that I stand by. I even gave you a starting base on where to look. How about you prove me wrong. If you're not going to bother to read it, sorry buddy, I am not going to sit here and argue the point with you especially if you are unwilling to check out the facts, FOR YOURSELF. If you seriously think that without programs like this in place women and minorities will be able to advocate for themselves and completely have their gender and ethnicity overlooked in all areas, you are mistaken.

You prove me wrong and until then, the statement stands. Affirmative action in this day is age is the current debate, true. However, I like to look at the bigger picture. Your whole point revolves around allowing people to fairly judge others in a society that has been proven to be inept time and time again.
Until discrimination is erradicated, you WILL continue to have affirmative action and programs like it, in use. Like it or not. I gave you the New Deal which you yourself stated emcompases a good number of years and you are still to believe the early stages of affirmative action/pre-affirmative action benefited a majority who were not white males. If not them, then who? That in essense is the beginning of what we are being faced with today. If you have taken nothing from this debate, then there is nothing more I can agree to disagree with you about.

Also, please, can it with the bullshit myths.

FACT: Quotas, on one hand, are dismissable because they are illegal. What is permitted under current affirmative action instead are benchmarks, targets and goals. Goals and timetables are set by employers for the employment of people of color and women, along with time frames for achieving these goals. Employers are encouraged to make good faith efforts but there are no legal penalties if they make good faith efforts and are unable to meet the goals. Those who oppose affirmative action claim that this type of perspective still leads to quantification of proportions, making one's ethnicity equal a number. However, when ranges, targets, or goals are in place, their implementation always occurs in relation to a pool of already qualified applicants. No one is telling anyone to hire or admit persons who are unqualified; rather, employers and admissions officers are being told that when a pool of qualified applicants have been assembled, choices within it can take "minority" status into consideration in cases where gross, disparate underrepresentation is obvious and long standing. There is, however, a misconception that affirmative action entails admitting or hiring unqualified people of color and women.



The same actions that bred resentment and outrage in your race is undoubtedly gonnda breed the same thing in others.
If the experts thought this argument was sufficient, well then, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

I will agree to disagree with you because I am not trying to convert you, and you definitely won't convert me into a believer based on your views.



http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

How about you prove me wrong.

Black people are by far the wealthiest people in the US and have gained more than any other group . It started with slavery. As such, AA is not neccessary.

Now prove me wrong.


Do you see how retarded that sounds?

I'd hate to think what would happen if you brought this type of argument into an academic envrionment. I know I'm right therefore it's your job to prove me wrong. That's a load of horse shit.



If you seriously think that without programs like this in place women and minorities will be able to advocate for themselves and completely have their gender and ethnicity overlooked in all areas, you are mistaken.

I've stated several times that I beleive it a neccessary *temporary* evil. Please try and keep up.


You prove me wrong and until then, the statement stands


Ditto.



No one is telling anyone to hire or admit persons who are unqualified

Except that in several instances companies lose government investment vital to their corporate or neccessary tax incentives. It's like saying that no state is required to have a speed limit, except that they lose all federal funding for lifting it.


If the experts thought this argument was sufficient, well then, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.


The fuck? You mean experts in common sense? If i jab you in the eye and you don't like it, then it's a pretty safe assumption that someone else won't either.

[Keller]

[i]However, when ranges, targets, or goals are in place, their implementation always occurs in relation to a pool of already qualified applicants. No one is telling anyone to hire or admit persons who are unqualified; rather, employers and admissions officers are being told that when a pool of qualified applicants have been assembled, choices within it can take "minority" status into consideration in cases where gross, disparate underrepresentation is obvious and long standing. There is, however, a misconception that affirmative action entails admitting or hiring unqualified people of color and women.

Bravo. Well said.

under pressure from the African American community and civil rights advocates, continued the effort to increase minority employment opportunities and end job discrimination. It was not until President Kennedy issued Executive Order No. 10925, requiring not only that federal contractors pledge non-discrimination but that they "take affirmative action to ensure" equal opportunity, that the now-fractious phrase came into popular discourse. Kennedy's order also included penalties -- including suspension of a contract -- for non-compliance. This was succeeded by another executive order (Executive Order 11246) issued by President Lyndon Johnson, along with the creation of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor to enforce its non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements. The Executive Order was amended in 1967 to include prohibitions on sex discrimination by federal contractors, along with a requirement that they engage in good faith efforts to expand job opportunities for women. Executive Order 11246 remains among the most effective and far-reaching federal programs for expanding equal opportunity.

[DeV]

Black people are by far the wealthiest people in the US and have gained more than any other group . It started with slavery. As such, AA is not neccessary.
This can be refuted with the use of common sense. No research necessary.




Do you see how retarded that sounds?
Yes, quite. Read above statement. Mine wasn't, thats the difference.



I'd hate to think what would happen if you brought this type of argument into an academic envrionment. I know I'm right therefore it's your job to prove me wrong. That's a load of horse shit.
I have brought this arguement up in an academic environment, more than once, and it has never been refuted simply because it is true. Read a book or a couple hundred articles that are readily available.



I've stated several times that I beleive it a neccessary *temporary* evil. Please try and keep up

It is hard to keep you up to par with my reasoning when you are refuting my points, with nothing to back yourself up. You have told me that AA is something you abhor because you feel it breeds hatred and racism, which is actually at the root of the debate.



Except that in several instances companies lose government investment vital to their corporate or neccessary tax incentives. It's like saying that no state is required to have a speed limit, except that they lose all federal funding for lifting it.
What instances?



The fuck? You mean experts in common sense? If i jab you in the eye and you don't like it, then it's a pretty safe assumption that someone else won't either. Experts as in those who are proponents of affirmative action. Even those who are against cannot disprove that discrimination exists. You have yet to prove me wrong on this, and I doubt you can.

The current debatable affirmative action plans have been in use since the 1960's. More than 200 years of race and gender based discrimination cannot be remedied with 30 years of modest hiring goals and timetables.

Fact: The elimination of affirmative action programs leads to the resegregation of higher education.

In California and Texas, the elimination of affirmative action programs has had a devastating impact on the number of black, Latina/o, and Native American students. In 1996, prior to the recently reversed ban on affirmative action in the University of California (UC) system, the entering class of the UCLA Law School included 10.3% black students. In 1999, the UCLA Law School used extensive minority outreach programs, "socioeconomic affirmative action", and a holistic admission review system to try to restore the proportion of underrepresented minority students at the law school. Despite these efforts, the 2000 entering class at the UCLA Law School consisted of only 1.4% black students; the class that graduated in the Spring of 2002 had only two black students.
In 1994-1996, 13 Filipino students were enrolled in UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall Law School. In 1996-2000, after the elimination of the law school's affirmative action program, only 3 Filipinos were enrolled at Boalt Hall. At the University of Texas Law School, Latino/a student enrollment has been cut in half since affirmative action programs were outlawed in 1995.
The number of women faculty has decreased by 22% throughout the UC system since the take-away of affirmative action.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Are you serious? If you're gonna make a bold statement like "More white men have benefeited from affirmative action, than anyone else" then *you* have the burden of proof. For over 30 years opponents of affirmative action for women and people of color have overlooked a key American reality, the role of affirmative action in the lives of white men. In the 1960s, the first big affirmative action debate was not about minority programs. It was about college students who were getting draft deferments during the wars in Indochina.

Even President Bush has benefited from Affirmative Action. Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school.

Some professors, judges, and journalists who oppose affirmative action today took advantage of affirmative action (draft deferment) in college years ago.
Tax breaks for corporations, subsidies for middle-class homebuyers, mass transit subsidies for white suburbs, bank bailouts for profligate bank executives, selective allotments for refugees, price supports for corporate farms, are all shot through with considerations of need and preference.

This can be refuted with the use of common sense. No research necessary.

So can the ascertation that a program designed to help minorities has helped the majority. If you wish to put a looser definition on the term affirmative action then its up to you to define it. Not for me to figure it out.


It is hard to keep you up to par with my reasoning when you are refuting my points, *with nothing to back yourself up.* You have told me that AA is something you abhor because you feel it breeds hatred and racism, which is actually at the root of the debate.

and you have brought WHAT exactly to back up your pointS? Oh yea, a small and erreonous reference to an era that had nothing to do with Affirmative action. I gave you enough opprtunities to actually point out what you were referring to.

FDR and his new deal had nothing to do with affirmative action. *all* FDR did was make it illegial to discriminate against minorities in the hiring process, not including women. The first instance of AA in American was ordered by JFK where he made the quotas and the penalities associated with not following those quotas.

You're asinine if you think that anybody should take your word at law, especially when it's wrong.


What instances?

I already stated. In the awardence of government money, which several corporations and businessed depend on. They can't tell mom and pop to do something obviously.


Even those who are against cannot disprove that discrimination exists. You have yet to prove me wrong on this, and I doubt you can.

Where have I EVER made the claim that discrimination does not exist, in fact I posted my experiences with it in the military. So please, by all means STFU.



Even President Bush has benefited from Affirmative Action. Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school.

That's not affirmative action. That is preferential treatment, similar but holisticly different.

Affirmative action is not a catch all phrase for preferential treatment. "Affirmative action" wasn't employed for the front seats in the bus, or who got to be a slave or not.

Please stop trying attach your own definitions to words. Thanks.

[DeV]

Ranger, I have given you way too much credit regarding this debate.

I haven't attached my own definitions to anything. Affirmative action is a mutli-defined term. The negative connotations are in relation to RACE. Preferably, the African American/Latino/a connection. When it comes to class and social structure there is no argument as it relates to the definition of AA and its benefactors.

What the President experienced in getting into Yale is affirmative action, to say otherwise is absurd. You seriously need to do some more research in the field.

You seriously need to read a dictionary.

Main Entry: affirmative action
Function: noun
Date: 1965
: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women


If *you* wish to attach definitions above the norm to a word then *you* need to clarify them. It's not my responsibility to psychically pick up on what you are and are not referring to.

Also, notice the date of origin for the word.


What the President experienced in getting into Yale is affirmative action, to say otherwise is absurd.

I call it preferential treatment, so does the rest of the english speaking world. Which in the case of alumnus is not illegial in any way, especially considering that Yale is a private insitution and thus sacrosanct from any AA actions, except those it imposes on itself.

One last word before I take off to work:

I'm not disputing the fact that there exists numerous social and economical barriers for minorities people in this country. In fact, I'd imagine that I am more aware of them by most people. As such, I recognize the neccessity of programs and initiatives to correct these injusticies for the welfare of my people and the country.

That said, what I *am* contending is that affirmative action is counter productive to this goal in the *long-run*. There does exist a short need for just such a program(meaning less than indefinite) .

I'm not talking about the overall impact of racial and gender equality throughout the ages, nor am I talking about other initiatives with the same goal in mind. I am talking about Affirmative action; in it's most commonly used and only conontation.

If you wish, you can add whatever definition you want to the word. That doesn't make it true because you said it is, nor does it change what I am talking about or what others commonly refer to it as.

Have a nice day.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
That said, what I *am* contending is that affirmative action is counter productive to this goal in the *long-run*. There does exist a short need for just such a program(meaning less than indefinite) .
:?: It is counter productive however there exists a need. Please, make up your mind and stick to it. Basically, you just made my point as well as your own in one short sentence. Congratulations.

That definition was less than impressive. I can give you one hundred more all with different connotations and meanings that essentially relate to the topic. That does not work in a academic debate, for future reference.

[DeV]

Also, before you argue any further please try to understand what points you are attempting to make. Affirmative action is not just about *your* people. It covers a large proportion of people including Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, Asians, African Americans and Women (one massive group within itself). Can you grasp that?

I agree with the fact that it is not the final solution nor should it be a long term goal in any facet of our society. It should not even be a necessity, however for the time being, it is.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Back in the 40-60's when racism was in full swing do you mean to tell me there was no fied for "race" on college applications? What? I said a field on a college application indicated the existence of racism. What you said is the exact opposite.
Just in case you planned on using the argument that two wrongs don't make a right... Solution: Cancel out one, and you won't need to utilize the other. I was actually going to use the argument that you can't stop a fire by dumping matches on it, you can't stop a flood by dumping a bucket of water into the river, and you can't heal a stab wound with more stabbing. It's not that it's two wrongs, it's that they are the SAME wrong.
More than 200 years of race and gender based discrimination cannot be remedied with 30 years of modest hiring goals and timetables. I'll bet you at least 3/4 of those folks who were on the receiving end of 200 years of discrimination don't give a rat's ass.

The idea that there's less racism now therefore Affirmative Action works is pretty sloppy. I could just as easily claim that my posting here benefitted the U.S. economy.
Originally posted by Keller
To whomever I was debating with before .... :(
Paragraph One - AA should be based on economics and not race. Do you disagree? No.
But like I said, there is not a better system yet In your opinion, anyway.
In this paragraph I never once advocate quotas, as much as you wish I would have.You said we should have an equal proportion in schools as in America (or the region, or wherever). That means if 20% of the population is black, 20% of the school's students should be black. 20% of a specific number is a specific number, or a quota. I'd rather not play the semantics game right now (I'm a little sleepy) so we can leave out talk of "targets" or "goals", k?
It's just not applicable because you can't base EVERYTHING on race from 1619 (the year the first slave arrived in the US, there were free blacks before this) until 1964 and then turn around and say it's not fair now. Too fucking bad.Yes, because every white race (Irish, Italians, Jews) that showed up in America was welcomed with open arms and given every benefit.

[DeV]

Originally posted by LatrinsormI read what you had to say, and unless you have anything more to add, you'd be better off continuing your debate with Keller. Thanks for replying.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I'll bet you at least 3/4 of those folks who were on the receiving end of 200 years of discrimination don't give a rat's ass.[/quote]

Give me a source. Until you give me a source I will say you're one of the most ignorant people I've ever met to have said such an incedible ludicrous thing. Yes, black people don't give two rats ass that in a capitalistic society one group was given a 350 year head start to accumulate capital. Right. That's fucking inteligent.


In your opinion, anyway.
What does this mean? Do you always state the obvious and not give another example? Of course it's my opinion.
You said we should have an equal proportion in schools as in America (or the region, or wherever). That means if 20% of the population is black, 20% of the school's students should be black. 20% of a specific number is a specific number, or a quota. I'd rather not play the semantics game right now (I'm a little sleepy) so we can leave out talk of "targets" or "goals", k?
For those who are hard of understanding, I will repeat. Unless you believe minorities are inherently less inteligent than white people, until we see equal numbers in all applicable positions (PhD/Lawyers/MD/financial planners/accountants/Harvard professors) then it is obvious that one group has an obvious advantage to begin with that ought to be leveled. THAT it what I said. Again, try to twist my words but it wont mean a god damn thing.

Yes, because every white race (Irish, Italians, Jews) that showed up in America was welcomed with open arms and given every benefit.

I will not contend that everything was fine for white minorities when they arrived, especially when they still clung to their own culture and language and made assililation hard on themselves. However, when it came time for those Irishmen in NYC to get pissed about unemployment and poverty and the prospect of free blacks being added to the PAID employment pool they just took said blacks and hung them from lightpoles in the middle of the city. See 1863, NYC. I'm not saying 19th Century forward white minorities had it good, but Irishmen had jobs in 1863, a majority of blacks were in slavery.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
It is a bold statement that I stand by. I even gave you a starting base on where to look. How about you prove me wrong.


Nice logic.. fine:

There are aliens that have visited the Earth.

The center of the earth is made of liquid helium which is why the earth floats in outerspace.

I saw a mermaid the other day and she was hot.

Prove me wrong.

[Keller]

I seriously have a thing for mermaids ... tell me where!!

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
It is a bold statement that I stand by. I even gave you a starting base on where to look. How about you prove me wrong.


Nice logic.. fine:

There are aliens that have visited the Earth.

The center of the earth is made of liquid helium which is why the earth floats in outerspace.

I saw a mermaid the other day and she was hot.

Prove me wrong. WTF. I have included instances. All you have to do is read. If you can't grasp that concept then what more can I offer. READ for crying out loud. :banghead:

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Plz post resources that state the major benefactor of Affirmitive action is white males. You call it preferential treatment, I call it affirmative action. The definitive and accurate term would be white priveledge.

Here is some 300 years worth of examples for you.

1663: In Virginia, English female indentured servants are no longer allowed to work in the fields; they can only work in their master's house. African women still work in the fields.
1680 - 1705: Virginia "servant" codes specify that white servants can testify in court, get "freedom dues," a plot of land, and the right to marry someone else who comes from Europe. (Racial intermarriage is banned.)
1790: The Naturalization Act, the first act of the first U.S. Congress, guarantees that white immigrants can become citizens, which leads the way for them to become owners of land. "Non-white" immigrants are denied the right to be citizens. (This provision was not changed until 1952.)
1830: The Indian Removal Act, initiated by President Andrew Jackson, removes the Choctaw, Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Seminole Indians from the most fertile land in the South. White slave owners take over the land, use enslaved Africans to grow the cotton that creates the wealth for both Southern and Northern ruling and middle class whites. Cotton becomes the major export of the new nation.
1848: In the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, Mexico cedes half its national territory to the United States. Mexicans living north of the Rio Grande become U.S. citizens, but they no longer automatically own the land their families have tilled for centuries. Under U.S. law, the land goes to those with papers. Mexicans do not have papers. White lawyers "representing" Mexican land owners swindle millions of acres by taking land as their legal fees. Mexican-Americans become the first farm workers on lands their families once owned.
1862: During the height of the Civil War, U.S. soldiers are also waging war on indigenous nations in the West. Millions of acres of Native land are taken by blooodshed. This land is distributed to white people only. The Homestead Act makes 50 million acres available, at low cost, to white working class homesteaders. The Morrell Act creates land grant colleges to build a new white middle class. And 100 million acres of Indian land are given free to the railroads.
1880's - 1914: Millions of Southern and Eastern European immigrants come to the U.S. They can bring their families, marry, travel to find work and eventually get citizenship. But during the same period, Chinese immigrants, except for merchants, are excluded from immigrating. Chinese workers are not allowed to bring their wives, nor to marry non-Chinese Americans, so they cannot create families.
1887: The Dawes Land Allotment Act forbids communal land ownership by indigenous people, and encourages Indians to sell their lands to whites. As a result, millions of acres go to white squatters.

[b]1947 on: Under the G.I. Bill, the federal government authorizes the largest affirmative action program for white people in the nation's history. Millions of returning veterans get preferential treatment in jobs, suburban home loans, and college education. But these federal programs do not challenge institutional racism in employment, housing or education, so almost all the benefits go to white men and their families.

1954: One of the most significant effects of Brown v. Board of Education is the firing of thousands of Black teachers and principals in southern Black schools, after these schools are integrated with white ones. School Boards say that white parents will not let their kids be taught by Black teachers. So the major beneficiaries of Brown v. Board of Education are the thousands of white (mostly female) teachers and white (mostly male) principals who got the jobs in these newly integrated schools.

1994: The passage of "Three Strikes You're Out" in California leads to imprisonment for thousands of Black and Brown men while providing a major source of well paid jobs for mostly white working class men -- as prison guards.

1996: The passage of Proposition 209 ends a brief interlude of 30 years of affirmative action for people of color.[b]

I have a ton of books available to cite sources so you have a better understanding of where this information has derived.

It is counter productive however there exists a need. Please, make up your mind and stick to it.

I have. You left out *in the long run* consider macro economics where adding personal to your factory is good up until the point that each additional worker hinders the work of all the previous.

AA is neccessary to give children the fair shake that their parents didn't. However, after those kids do have the fair shake the initiative becomes counter productive.


Affirmative action is not just about *your* people.


No shit sherlock. That doesn't mean that it doesn't effect me on a personal level.


That definition was less than impressive. I can give you one hundred more all with different connotations and meanings that essentially relate to the topic

I'd be happy with one. Thanks.


WTF. I have included instances.

Saying, look into the "New deal" is not an instance. And it's erroneous at that.

If that is what you call an instance than I don't know what the fuck.

I'd be happy with one. Thanks.

Oh. Lemme clarify... One that isn't pull out of your ass.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
I have. You left out *in the long run* consider macro economics where adding personal to your factory is good up until the point that each additional worker hinders the work of all the previous. And you left out where I stated:
"Basically, you just made my point as well as your own in one short sentence."


AA is neccessary to give children the fair shake that their parents didn't. However, after those kids do have the fair shake the initiative becomes counter productive.

No, that is not why AA is in existence. Kids have very little to do with this debate.


No shit sherlock. That doesn't mean that it doesn't effect me on a personal level.
Interesting.


I'd be happy with one. Thanks.
Dictionary.com is not The Source as it pertains to definitions. However, fine, I accept the definition.


Saying, look into the "New deal" is not an instance. And it's erroneous at that.
I have provided you with examples, and I also have a list of about 10 books to cite my sources. It wouldn't be considered THE instance, however the history of AA does have a rightful place in this debate.

If that is what you call an instance than I don't know what the fuck. Read 3 posts above starting with 1947 for some insight.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
Give me a source.Check it: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

Given that slavery was not very conducive to living, I'd say a reasonable approximation would be 50 years, no?
Do you always state the obvious and not give another example?Not always.
then it is obvious that one group has an obvious advantage to begin with that ought to be leveled.I would say the reason there wasn't an exact confluence of percentages was because every person is unique, therefore it's not necessarily true that an equal percentage of two arbitrary groups (blacks and whites) will seek or be qualified for the same job. I want to be a baseball player, but wanting doesn't make me throw a 95 MPH cutter.

And you left out where I stated: Basically, you just made my point as well as your own in one short sentence.

Because It was a stupid comment. I've made the same statement half a dozen times and you've bitterly opposed it every single time except that one.


Dictionary.com is not The Source as it pertains to definitions. However, fine, I accept the definition.

Well, I could take the time posting the definition from the 3-4 dictionaries I have on my desk at any given time, but since you've already conceeded that there is no other definition I won't. Thanks for admitting you were wrong. It shows alot of character.


have provided you with examples, and I also have a list of about 10 books to cite my sources.

Feel free to share.


THE instance, however the history of AA does have a rightful place in this debate.[/quote}

It does, if your trying to back up your claims.

[quote]Read 3 posts above starting with 1947 for some insight.


Please read my posts. I already stated what you were referring to and said it was wrong.

Whats with the deleted posts

[DeV]

Because It was a stupid comment. I've made the same statement half a dozen times and you've bitterly opposed it every single time except that one.
I found your comment to be pretty stupid considering the point of view you've taken in this argument.


Well, I could take the time posting the definition from the 3-4 dictionaries I have on my desk at any given time, but since you've already conceeded that there is no other definition I won't. Thanks for admitting you were wrong. It shows alot of character.
Nah. I've heard enough bullshit. I haven't been wrong at all.


Feel free to share.
You've already stated that you felt what I was reffering to is irrelevant, there is no point in drawing this out even further.


It does, if your trying to back up your claims.
Yes.

I'm done with this debate. We can go back and forth until the cows come home. I'd rather not.

If you call saying "I am right, but I refuse to back up any of my claims with facts" a debate.

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
If you call saying "I am right, but I refuse to back up any of my claims with facts" a debate. You said your piece. I said mine. It's over as far as I'm concerned. I didn't call it anything but that.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Keller
Give me a source.Check it: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

Given that slavery was not very conducive to living, I'd say a reasonable approximation would be 50 years, no?
Do you always state the obvious and not give another example?Not always.
then it is obvious that one group has an obvious advantage to begin with that ought to be leveled.I would say the reason there wasn't an exact confluence of percentages was because every person is unique, therefore it's not necessarily true that an equal percentage of two arbitrary groups (blacks and whites) will seek or be qualified for the same job. I want to be a baseball player, but wanting doesn't make me throw a 95 MPH cutter.

So slavery has had no lasting impacts upon society past the last generation that suffered under it? It had no economic impact? It had no social impact? It had no cultural impact?

I am not asking you to be put at a disadvantage in any way, shape or form. I am simply asking that you give up the advantage that you've (your family, your friends, your race, please don't respond with some assinine "my great grandfather didn't come over until 1890 so that doesn't apply to me" because it does, deal with it) assumed over the last 400 years.

What is your last paragraph about? Either it is A) an acceptance that for "some" reason blacks don't have high enough aspirations or B) they are less capable -- which is an idea that has not generally been accepted anywhere but Texas and Louisianna for 40+ years, depending on how persistant YOUR governor and sheriff were.

[TheEschaton]

I thought I responded to this thread, but I guess it got lost somewhere in the ether.

Basically, I agree with Ranger on this one. I'm a minority as well, but often seen as the one "which AA doesn't apply to". Whatever.

To me, AA is a moral question - you cannot rectify a wrong with a wrong. DEF, I know you don't like that argument, but hear it out: I concur with Ranger's assessment that AA only fuels more divisiveness between the races, and fuels discrimination. I also agree with what you said that if you cancel out discrimination, you cancel out the need for AA. But, lastly, I agree with Ranger in that AA fuels the cycle of racism.

As I see it, it's like the idea of "reverse racism". There is no such thing as reverse racism - there is only racism. And to say that Affirmative Action is not discriminatory, it simply "levels the playing field" is the same sort of semantic bullshit of labelling racism as "reverse racism" and therefore justifying it.

Now, DEF, you argue that AA is worthwhile in that it is a post-order effect...IE, once you have the pool of "qualified candidates", then you can apply AA and get the proper amounts of minorities into the workplace or university, or what have you. While that's a great thing in theory - it's simply not true. Within the "pool of qualified candidates" is a disparity of skill and knowledge, and to take anything but the top of the top is less than merit based. Being a minority is not a skill that can place you ahead of someone else.

Edited to add: Not to mention that AA has worked to expand the "qualified candidates pool" to accept that which was not previously qualified, in an attempt to find more "diversity".

Of course, the problem is, there is no opportunity for minorities in thie country, if you're born in a certain place in a certain neighborhood. I agree in principle with Keller that the separation is more economical than anything else, although I wouldn't condone the implementation of AA based on economics.

The key, of course, is broad, sweeping changes to our education system. The only thing that CAN be done is give everyone equal access to education, and an equal education once they access it. That's a rather broad ass goal, but it is better to look to the root of the problem, the education system, then try and put a band-aid on the manifestations of that problem in later life.

Edited to add: The truth of the matter is, the people who have benefitted in this country from a good education are economically advantageous people. I'm a minority, but hell, I lived in a good neighborhood, went to a private school, and then went to a private university, not because I was naturally smarter than anyone else, but because I had better teachers who taught me how to think critically. As long as our public schools teach rote learning, as opposed to critical thinking, this education disparity will continue.

The moral question is: In the face of a wrong, and the fact that the morally right solution is a process which takes a long time, what is the moral implication of providing a short term, not morally sound solution until the later one comes into effect? I don't know. However, I think in this case, the short term solution (AA) only distances the goal of the long term solution, and is not only morally unsound, but unfit. Therefore, I would work on a long term solution and pray for its quick arrival.

-TheE-

[Edited on 9-22-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Axhinde]

I don't have much to add on this topic, but I will respond in short to TheE's comment on the educational system. The thing about that is...public schools are available for everyone. Hell I went to one, and I turned out fine. Learning is, for the most part, a choice on the recipient. You have to WANT to learn, to better your future. From my own observations from being in school not terribly long ago, a lot of minorities show no signs of wanting to learn. The whole attitude, and this doesn't include only minorities but younger kids in general, is an "I don't give a fuck." type of thing.

I'm neither for nor against AA, even though it affects all of us in the workplace, it is just an imperfect system we all have to cope with.

[Tsa`ah]

I have to agree with the notion that affirmative action does more harm than good. Were you to step foot in the ground floor of the industrial job market you would feel it in the air.

Be it skilled or unskilled labor, affirmative action not only fuels racism, but it inspires it. The people doing the hiring leg work in the lower levels of industry aren't the brightest bulbs. They don't know what they're hiring for, they are generally ill trained or incapable of being trained. These people get a desk and a cubicle, or some dirty ass office somewhere in the factory. They are told to hire people and given some guidelines to hiring that they probably don't comprehend. Most equate AA to a quota system.

What does this mean for the experienced man with white skin? DO NOT FUCKING APPLY, your chances at roulette are better.

It never fails. Every Monday we get a batch of new hires. Half will be women of various ethnicity or white, 3-6 will be black men who should have stayed in school, 1-3 hispanic men who can't speak english and have names like "William and Sam", and 1-3 will be young white men who should have stayed in school as well.

By Wednesday I'm demanding the applications reviewed prior to selection. I see, on average, 10-15 applications from white men and women who have gone to trade school or have an associates, and have experience. Last week alone our HR department turned away 5 carpenters with 3-25 years experience. WE MAKE FUCKING WINDOWS AND DOORS! Would you not think a carpenter to be a top notch choice to hire to make windows and fucking doors?

I could care less about a person's skin pigmentation, accent, or gender. The only thing I care about is hiring qualified and competent people. This doesn't happen when companies who label themselves as an "equal opportunity employer" don't educate their HRs about AA and what defines equal opportunity. What you get are imbeciles who don't have a clue looking at pie charts on a computer and wondering if there are too many white men getting pay checks.

When you have a pool of equally qualified candidates for a position, then AA mandates the person from the most "repressed or disadvantaged" ethnical background get the job. It is not supposed to be if you're not white, you're hired. If a person out of the pool is more qualified than the rest of the pool, that person should be the one hired no matter what color their skin is.

Take a stroll around any factory if you're able to. Tell me what you see. Stay a while and talk to people. Tell me what you hear.
Or you can take my word for it. This asinine attempt to level the playing field is breeding racism. People that normally wouldn't care what color the person next to them is, loath that person next to them. I literally have 7 black women working on my shift that I can't fire. I have been told that I can only fire them if they violate attendance, steal, or get into a fight. If I fire them for any other reason, they will scream racism and sue the company.

In a 10 hour shift these woman do about 30 minutes of work. Most of the time they just wander around, sit outside to smoke and have a cell phone glued to their ears. They didn't graduate from HS, they don't have GEDs, and they have no respect for the people around them. These are the people getting hired and these are the people that are being showcased as representatives for the black culture. White people who see this tend to not only resent these people, but resent anyone with the same skin color.

Is it right that they resent? No it isn't, not in the least. But you can see how a group of qualified and hard working employees (no matter the color) can quickly nurture a resentment for those that are hired because they are a minority. Black, hispanic, asian, white, will all grow to resent each poor example of a race and translate that into an indicative example of the rest.

Affirmative action my ass. There's nothing affirmative about it.

[TheEschaton]

I find hope in the fact that there's sensible liberals like Tsa'ah and the others who see Affirmative Action as a bad solution to a bad problem.

Now, Tsa'ah, if only we can hash out this Israel-Palestine thing. ;)

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

We can hash it out.

Take the heads of both states, kill them. Stop all funding to either side until they can play nice.

[TheEschaton]

Replace "kill them" with "put them in jail, life without parole", and sure, I think that's good stuff. You know, just don't like the killing bit, even if they are criminals.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

They are responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths apiece.

Prisons don't deserve murderers.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
What is your last paragraph about?I'm going to try a parable: There are a number of marbles. Every marble is unique. Some marbles are glass, and some are plastic. Are the glass marbles the same as the plastic marbles? Is any glass marble the same as any plastic marble?
So slavery has had no lasting impacts upon society past the last generation that suffered under it? It had no economic impact? It had no social impact? It had no cultural impact?I just figured Affirmative Action was put in place to help the people who were downtrodden by slavery/racism, because that would be a good thing, and people tend to support good things. If there aren't any people who were specifically downtrodden by racism/slavery left to help, shouldn't Affirmative Action wither away? Also, I'd say people like Martin Luther King Jr., who was against all kinds of racism, did a hell of a lot more to fix up the cultural/societal flaws than institutionalized racism.
please don't respond with some assinine "my great grandfather didn't come over until 1890 so that doesn't apply to me"1888, but who's counting?

[Warriorbird]

Heh. I still remember my grandmother talking about, "all the little colored servants." My mom couldn't get into UVA when she was going to college.

At the same time, I think things have gotten a hell of a lot better for women and for minority groups. I think some form of it would still help our country, but not what we currently have... and some of the definitions of "who concentrates a minority" might need to change.

[DeV]

My argument is not that it is GOOD and the end all to the discriminative hiring pratices in use today. My argument is that it is here and it has been implemented and for what reason? The issue is race, and it shouldn't be. If you've read my beginning statements you will see what I think fuels the aa issue. Tsa'ah and TheE, not everyone can be as open minded and as sensible as you gentlemen are when it comes to how we think the hiring process should be in this country. Maybe our experienes are different. Tsa'ah, aren't you from Illinois. Illinois is an At Will state. How does that effect AA in your company? Also, why are you being required to hire people who are essentially, not qualified for the job?
Also, do you think AA has more of an impact in industrial environment or a business environment? It was my understanding that AA effects less than 1% of the white population.

At my current job, we have 3 black employees and there is no affirmative action enforcement. If you don't do your job, you get fired. If you are not qualified you don't get hired.

[Keller]

Wow, The E and Tsa'ah, thanks for the breath of fresh air you brought with you to the board -- actual substance to argument. Now we're talking.

First let me try to further clarify this, sorry I've done such a bad job of communicating it, maybe this will help. I see the purpose of AA to take away an unfair advantage one group has over and beyond another. If effect, it says to the rich kid that since he had no afterschool job, and since he had a private math tutor, and since he went to the well-funded public or maybe even expensive private school and since he also had his own SAT tutor AND could afford to take it over again, and again, that his 3.6 GPA and 1230 SAT will be considered as a 3.3 and an 1150 when put against a poor applicant who did not have the same advantages. If you truly believe that entrance should be based on merit and desert instead of pure numbers, then there is a definate logic to this system that cannot be ignored.

I've not joined in the, is it reverse racism, is it not convo because till this point it's been worthless -- again, thanks for the substance. I think that it does aggrivate racial tensions. It's difficult not to and it's been happening for years. In Up From Slavery, Booker T. Washington (the single most important black man at the turn of the century) wrote that when a white man accomplishes something great it is because he works hard and when a black man accomplishes something it is because it was given to him. This was in the late 19th century. To be honest I don't deal much with AA in the workplace as I just recently graduated college and am continuing school beyond that. From what you've said it sounds to be out of whack. I need to have more experience with it, or hear more from experienced people like yourself, to formulate an opinion. Maybe AA is meant only for education. In fact, I think I might actually think that. Give me a day to mull it over and process that in my head and get back to you.

About the seven black women who got hired and then use their employee protection to basically quit work -- it happens in every field, to everyone. You can never tell someones work ethic when you hire them, and it's VERY difficult to fire anyone, regardless of race, for bad work ethic. Shoot back with your thoughts and rebuttals.

[Ravenstorm]

There's only one real question that needs answering on this subject:

If affirmative action were ended today would the situation it is designed to counter improve or worsen?

Granted, it's a multifaceted question. But I support the continuation of affirmative action for several reasons:

1) While it certainly can provide added justification for racism, I personally doubt anyone who doesn't have racist tendencies to begin with will develop them just because of affirmative action.

2) While it is certainly a flawed system, it does partially accomplish its job by making certain that minorities that have always been under represented in the workforce and halls of academia are less so.

3) It is my personal belief that were affirmative action ended, we would see a back sliding in what few gains there have been because of it. Racism is still prevalent in too much of society. White, Christian, straight males (in general and it's certainly not all of then and not limited to just them) are demonstrably not willing to let anyone else into their clubhouse.

Now, there's no way of verifying whether my beliefs are correct or not without stopping afformative action and seeing what happens. The better solution would be to develop a different, more efficient and fair system first and then replace it. Without a doubt, it has problems. But also, without a doubt, it or something similar, is still needed.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
3) It is my personal belief that were affirmative action ended, we would see a back sliding in what few gains there have been because of it.
Raven
In California and Texas, the elimination of affirmative action programs has had a devastating impact on the number of black, Latina/o, and Native American students. In 1996, prior to the recently reversed ban on affirmative action in the University of California (UC) system, the entering class of the UCLA Law School included 10.3% black students. In 1999, the UCLA Law School used extensive minority outreach programs, "socioeconomic affirmative action", and a holistic admission review system to try to restore the proportion of underrepresented minority students at the law school. Despite these efforts, the 2000 entering class at the UCLA Law School consisted of only 1.4% black students; the class that graduated in the Spring of 2002 had only two black students.
In 1994-1996, 13 Filipino students were enrolled in UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall Law School. In 1996-2000, after the elimination of the law school's affirmative action program, only 3 Filipinos were enrolled at Boalt Hall. At the University of Texas Law School, Latino/a student enrollment has been cut in half since affirmative action programs were outlawed in 1995.
The number of women faculty has decreased by 22% throughout the UC system since the take-away of affirmative action.


What do you guys feel can be done to increase enrollment at colleges and universities where there is a huge under-representation of qualified individuals seeking education? Where does it start, and where does it end.

It was my understanding that AA effects less than 1% of the white population.

I thought they gained the most from it. wtf?

Anyway, I have a lot to say about the previous posts but don't have the time to write itout right now. I'll do it tonight

[DeV]

It is my understanding..... focus on that part first.
Secondly, if one were to use reasoning you could clearly see that I am referring to its current state. As you yourself so stated, the history of aa has no place in the current debate.

Perhaps, Tsa'ah can enlighten us further on that. My post was mostly directed at him.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. (just got off work will type more later)

[Geoff]

I do some hiring for an electonics manufacturing firm and Tsa' ah has got it (mostly) right. There's tremendous pressure from HR and upper levels of management to "add to the diversity" of areas that don't even need it so other areas that do can be balanced out by it. It's frustrating because the people I'm hiring work directly for me and my area suffers as a result, but it's a part of doing business in manufacturing these days. I can only hire from the resumes I get, no matter what the quality is, or the real reason I was given them. It was the same way the last place I worked.


Originally posted by Tsa`ah
The people doing the hiring leg work in the lower levels of industry aren't the brightest bulbs. They don't know what they're hiring for, they are generally ill trained or incapable of being trained. These people get a desk and a cubicle, or some dirty ass office somewhere in the factory. They are told to hire people and given some guidelines to hiring that they probably don't comprehend. Most equate AA to a quota system

I partially disagree with this part. Those people "in the lower levels of industry" are being forced to do what they are for the most part. If they don't, they find another "dim bulb" to replace them.

[TheEschaton]

If affirmative action were ended today would the situation it is designed to counter improve or worsen?

Granted, it's a multifaceted question.

I think this is a disingenuous question at best. Very rarely are long term, correct solutions easy, or even better, that the problem in the short term. The point is, that it'll be better in the long term, and the way towards it will be better. Maybe I'm being a little too concerned about the ethics of the whole thing, but one thing that continually astounds me in the current state of liberal politics is that they learn Machiavelli in school, abhor the idea of the "end justifying the means", are quick to point it out in their conservative counterparts, but cannot see that the unethical "means" of Affirmative Action will never be justified by the "ends", namely racial harmony.

For DEV's question, I think the only thing we can do is work on the socio-economic, educational systems of the inner city, where a great deal of these black/Fillipino/Latino(a) populations are. It's an inherently unfair system which discriminates based on where you are, and where you live, and it has to go.

AA is just a case of putting a bandage on the problem without seeking the source of the problem. It's like the War on Terror - we think by using military might to overthrow the world and put it in submission, we'll "stop" terrorism, without even looking at the reasons/sources of Arab/Muslim discontent with American policies. Likewise, AA says that if we put minorities in jobs that ordinarily a white man'd get, that'll equal out society, when it does nothing of the sort, and instead, fuels hatred of "minorities who get everything handed to them" (an incorrect presumption, but one which is very prevalent).

-TheE-

okay here goes.

First of all I would just like to clarify something:

When I say that what advantages people have gained in the past has no bearing on affirmative action I mean that it is irrelevent in examing whether or not AA achieves its stated goal. It's obvious that there has been great injustices in America over the centuries and some type of redress is due. However, that does not mean that everything that gives a + to the previously oppressed is good or even desired. In this post I'm gonna talk about some of the problems to my society as I see them and some of the things I think will have a positive impact on them.

Darkelfvoid has admirably demonstrated several of the traits and flaws that I feel do more to hinder minorities in general than any other thing at present. I'll try and list some of the problems that I see with things as they are now, and then some solutions that I think need to be pursued more adamently by the country as a whole. Anything I say is drawn from my experiences and feelings as a poor black man living on the south side of Chicago. You're mileage will vary and I whole hearted ly hope that anyone else will interject their feelings into this.

Now on to the problems.

1. There exists a common thread of thinking among many of the people that I grew up around that the world somehow owes them something personally. This manifests itself in an unwillingness to put forth the same effort expected out of everyone else. A classic example of this is Darkelfvoid's unwillingness to supply sources for her supposed facts simply because.

2. Minorities as a whole have lost sight of the dedication and principles that were paramount to their successes in the struggle for struggle. This has been caused by various things,

a. the one stated above,

b. increased languidness as a result of several initiatives that take the responsibility of mitigation away from the person and places it in the hands of some unseen benefactor:

Namely, Welfare and AA. It's natural for men to seek the path of least resistence and when there are programs in place that allow them to attain higher goals with less effort usually required. When this happens its not unnatural for someone to exert less effort to attain their goals. The unfortunate side effect of this is a general decline in the striving for higher things that has marked the rise of minorities over time. This isn't to say that such programs are not needed, on the contrary I know the benefits of them first hand. However, they seriously need to be re-evaluated to be less of a hand out and more of an empowering initiative designed to help those who will help themselves.


c. Dwlinding role of the family: The role of the family for todays upcoming generations is remarkably different then the ones of yesterday . An increased rate of divorce and single parenthood has had a significant impact on the progress of all. I look at the family connection that my father had and compare it to mine and my peers and am astounded. My father was literally surrounded by his family who looked after themselves because no one else would. This obviously isn't a save all (my father isn't exactly a good person) but from what I can tell it was remarkably more successful then what we have going on today. Indeed, as I think and look back on most of the hard times I had growing up, most if not all could be attributed to a lack of a proper family life.

D. Lack of role models in the areas where they are needed the most:

In the neighborhoods I lived in most of the kids had ambitions to become rappers, basketball players, or drug dealers. Why? Because for the most part that is all they saw.

The kids who need the most inspiration don't see the success stories, they see the failures, the one in a millions chances and the short lived glories. Nowadays it is too common for those who make are success to leave behind everything and everything they knew, relegating those left in the squallow to pursue near impossible dreams and ideals.

Contrast this to the height of the civil rights movement when Malcolm X, MLK, the black panthers and similar groups and organizations made it a point to be in the neighborhoods they were needed. It's no wonder that these kids are killing themselves, what else do they see?

I remember well my attitude towards life at 16-17 years old. Honest to god, I never thought I'd be 21 years old typing this on my laptop. As a result, I didn't think I needed school and couldn't give two fucks if I went to jail or died as a result of my actions. In fact, if it wasn't for my mother I probaly would have never made it out of that sinkhole of a mentality.

As for solutions, I am sure that most of you have seen several but the issue is of doing, and not just knowing. Too often people talk the good talk but fall well short of doing the walk, and in the end this does nothing but endure the very things that these people are hoping to correct. We as a society need to step up and do something about this ever growing problem.

First and foremost, as TheE eluded to is a re-emphasis on the importance of education across all spectrums of society. 150 years ago you had people risking their lives to learn to read. It's amazing how far we as a people has fallen. Nowadays people look at education as an unncessary burden of their lives. We need to correct this pernicious thought process before it engraves itself into who we are.

This doesn't just apply to black males but to everyone. We take too much for granted, we have everything at our fingers and expect all our wants and needs to come to us on a silver platter. If we want society, this country and the world to become a better place we have to reclaim the desire to do so, with blood, sweat and tears if need be.

To accomplish this we need to re-evalute the way our entire educational system works. Also, we need to insure that our children are attending these schools and stop letting them fall through the cracks. In my school truancy enforcement was just a shadow of what it should have been.

If parents can't keep their kids in school then god damnit we need to put these kids in school. The old adage that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink is truer than ever, that is why we need to re-evaluate the way our educational system works. We need to make people want to learn.

Our system is too rigid and too often are kids turned off to education by the stifling effects of being forced to review things that hold no interest to them ad nauseum. If a child shows the aptitude and the inclination to become a scientist why do we force them to study sociology past the point of a general understanding?

That is just my personal opinion of the direction things should go, undoubtedly people who are more versed in education and other such things will have other and better ideas, but the end result needs to be the same. An increased desire to learn and excell across the board.

Secondly, we need to re-establish the importance of family and unity in this country. To accomplish this we need to stop being blantant hypocrites in regards to such things as gay unions etc.

I also feel that society should take a more forceful role in the well being of it's children. If somebody who is unable to care for the children they already has but is popping em out like riddenbacher then quite simply they shouldnt be allowed to have more children. Fuck his\her rights to have children, it's not far for the child to grow up in a shattered home, nor is it fair to society to shoulder the inevitable consequence of said life. However, that doesn't mean that we leave these kids to their own devices, to do so is counter productive and does nothing but perpetuate the situation we're trying to fix.

As for the issue of role models, there is nothing that society as a whole can do for specific circumstances. That is a responsibility that we as a minority must take upon ourselves. Seriously, I don't think I'd be here for today if not for my mother. I had a pretty fucked up life and attitude but as i began to learn more of what she was and what she did, I felt inspired to do better. As a white women with no connection to anybody there, she was going into the projects on the south side of chicago to help the kids. In the end she sacrificed alot more than she ever should have, but she undoubtedly gained more in the knowledge that she saved an untold amount of people from a life of desperation by simply being there to show that there is something better, myself included.

I can't discount the power of positive role models on society. It's hard to understand until you've been without em and then see the effect that they have on the people who have too.

To illustrate this point I'll tell a story that will forever be with me. One day I came home for my grandfather's funeral and sat solemn with my friend talking about old times and what lay ahead for us in our lives. Carl has hadn't anything close to a good life, but hes still striving and trying to make things better. He ain't done struggling but hes came a long way and is still trying. Well anyway, we're sitting there talking about shit and he says "You know what man, if it wasn't for you I probaly woulda be locked up or dead a long ass time ago." I had no clue wtf he was talking about and told him to shut up, but he continued "Nah, man seriously. Seeing you do what you did with the shit you had to go through made it seem like I had to go out and do something."

I've never been so humbled in my life. Honest to god, that shit sucks balls because that is when I realized that what I do with my life not only has an impact on me but those around me. I never wanted that sort of responsibility, but it's there for all of us. In the end, we must emrbace the change that we want to see in the world and hold it up as an example to all those who will follow.


^^^^^

I've rambled on for a while now, and I hope it's not coming off as too jumbled or anything of the sort. In time I'll probaly refine most of what I said to be more coherent. I just hope my thoughts are getting through to people. Now, I'd like to talk about these things and how they ultimately pertain to the topic at hand.

All of the things I have brought up require a significant effort of everyone in society. The only thing is, there are people in the world who can not look past their own noses and see that how this country handles the problems of some ultimately determines how it solves the problems that they themselves and their children may face one day.


We have to show them that it is in their interest to help these things. One way (and probaly the most commonly used one) is violence. This is pretty self explanatory, if you won't do for me then I'll fuck you up and its not really something I'd like to promote except in the most dire of straits and I do not believe this country to be at this point..yet.

In short, that is why I feel that programs such as AA are counter productive to what society needs. No matter what was done, you can not punish the sons for the crimes of the father. Joe Smith didn't personally stifle the advancement of Jerome Holmes, so why the hell should he be denied a job or position he is qualified for because some guy did some bullshit 100 years ago?

The result is that Joe feels slighted and harbors the same feelings and resentments that created the problem in the first place. In effect, he has no respect for the things Jerome has done, because he feels that without the additional assistance he wouldn't have made it to where he is.

Yes, Jerome may have to work harder to attain the same things. (God knows I've worked 4x harder than my peers for 1\2 the result, but in the end I've *earned* it. That's what matters, Joe may not like me for it but god damnit he has to respect it.)

That's why its imperative that we work hard to straighten the starting line instead cutting the course for some people. Allow people the same opprutunity to gain for themselves and there is no reason for Joe to be angry with Jerome and vice versa.

In this situation, Jerome has to work hard to gain everything he wants, just as Joe, Mary and Bob does. And if one slips and can't fulfill their potential that is where the assistance comes in, but not before. It shouldn't be a birth right to receive aid. It should be available to anybody who needs it, regardless if his name is Joe, Jerome, Quinesthia or Billy bob, or his skin is black, white, grey brown, or green.

The difference is that Jerome doesn't have things working against him from day one. That is what counts. AA and other social programs shouldn't be viewed as some sort of vindication for the ills of the past. All of us have to put that shit behind us and move forward and do things that benefit everybody. That is a burden that all of us share.

Also, I don't think it would hurt if people had more interaction with people outside of those they would normally associate with. That's just another part of my proposal for mandatory government service when people graduate from school ;)

[Artha]

Obviously, true diversity can be determined by skin color.

[TheEschaton]

Our system is too rigid and too often are kids turned off to education by the stifling effects of being forced to review things that hold no interest to them ad nauseum. If a child shows the aptitude and the inclination to become a scientist why do we force them to study sociology past the point of a general understanding?

I agree wholeheartedly with all of what Ranger said, especially the above statement. Having student taught one day a week for my whole senior year of high school, it astounded me what our inner city teaching system was, basically a "Know this, or else" mentality.

The question kid's should look at is not who, what, when, or where, but why. It doesn't matter if a kid knows those first four for Napoleon, but if he knows WHY Napoleon did what he did, he's actually learned something, because that involves thinking critically. Furthermore, the sign of education is when people start asking "Why?", when they have a vested interest to know why Napoleon's battle at Waterloo affects them here today.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Tsa'ah, aren't you from Illinois. Illinois is an At Will state.

Yep, 2.15 hours SW from down town Shy town. 4-5 if it's rush hour.

Yes, in IL we are "at will" for employment. There are several factors in my prior statement that you have to take into consideration.

1. No insustrial copreration, or any other type for that matter, wants to get dragged to court over discrimination. At the lower levels of industry there is a surplus of people lacking college degrees or even a HS dipoma/GED certificate. This equates to a lower wage due to being undesireable for higher paying jobs. Poor education and low wages usually means some of these people can't manage money very well (not that there is that much to manage to begin with.). In turn this means they can't have the things they want. I'm sure if you can find a study on income vs law suits, you would find that most of the cases pertaining to injury, discrimination, harrasment and so forth are from people holding (have held) jobs at the bottom.

Combine this "get paid" attitude with pressure from ethnic interest groups and you have companies willing to sacrifice productivity, safety, and ethics over bad press from groups like the NAACP, people like Jackson and Sharpton. It's not an idea place to be.

2. Most factories don't sit on the same ground as a corperate office, or even in the same state. While the corperate people have all the "t's" crossed and the "i's" dotted, there is generally a lapse in communication or understanding between a production plant and the home office. The corp office may send out a memo to regional or plant managers with vague amendments to hiring policy. Those people in turn, with knowledge of AA, mandate to the HR people how to respond. It's a game of "telephone". So we have some song and dance from corperate, we have the interpretation of that from a manager who then passes it on to the person reading the apps. The person reading the apps doesn't want to be the one responsible for a fine or legal action. And the person reading the apps isn't a lawyer nor is that person, nor the people passing memos and interpreting memos, really aware of the what the law means. In IL we are "at will", but we are generally ignorant of that fact and hire in a way that will keep off any potential heat.


How does that effect AA in your company? Also, why are you being required to hire people who are essentially, not qualified for the job?
Also, do you think AA has more of an impact in industrial environment or a business environment? It was my understanding that AA effects less than 1% of the white population.

Read above for some of the answers to this.

I don't hire people, I manage and terminate when necessary, or in some cases, when I'm allowed to.

Having dealt with several HR offices at my last job, doing some job hunting, and my current job, I tend to make overly broad generalizations about HR departments.

I'm rambling, but then again I've been up since 7am yesterday morning.

While AA should not have any impact here, it does for the above reasons. Pressure, pressure, pressure.

Pressure to not gain the negative attention when you don't deserve it.

Pressure to not get sued.

Pressure to perform one's job with poor communication and expectation from a building on the other side of the continent.

Our company and many others in this area, brand themselves as an equal opportunity employer. This is the tactical way to gain the attention and avoid the same attention drawn by activist who threaten boycots and drag the company name through the mud in order to extort cash and force a change that doesn't need to be made.

If 75% of your staff is something other than male and white, these groups look elsewhere.

If 75% of your staff is something other than male and white, it is less likely that someone claiming discrimination will win in court.

If 75% of your staff is something other than male and white, the better your chance at a federal contract or grants.


At my current job, we have 3 black employees and there is no affirmative action enforcement. If you don't do your job, you get fired. If you are not qualified you don't get hired.

That is how it should be in every state and at every job. This is not how it is.

We're a far cry better now than we were prior to Malcom and Martin, but we're heading in the opposite direction. The goal is to level the playing field, not spread the distance between groups.

Why would you want a law or act that created more friction? It's counter productive to the actual goal.

Let's look at this in another light. Respect is something everyone wants, especially on the job. Let's say you beat out someone more qualified for a promotion or a position as a new hire. How much respect do expect to recieve? Wouldn't you begin to doubt yourself? Wouldn't there be an animosity between you and your co-workers?

If our government were serious about leveling the playing field they would address education.

If tomorrow an education (HS through bachelores) were free to anyone in a income bracket A, and on a sliding scale for subsidization from backets b to middle middle class. 10 years from now the need for AA would be non-existant. Companies could hire the best qualified without regard to race or gender. Those that practiced racism would be easier to week out and anyone bitching about their station in life could only blame themselves.

I would probably make more sense with a few days sleep. Maybe I'll take a stab at it sunday. Maybe I'll even edit my mistakes. :P

[DeV]

In IL we are "at will", but we are generally ignorant of that fact and hire in a way that will keep off any potential heat.
Very true and this has always boggled my mind. The human resourses department at my job was not even aware of this. Something which sparked a pretty interesting debate when I mentioned it in conversation to my boss.



While AA should not have any impact here, it does for the above reasons. Pressure, pressure, pressure.
Shocking but believable simply because this is something that is never usually discussed or mentioned. Nor should it be. One would think that with pressure, companies like mine would feel the need to diversify on their own, they don't. My best friends' father owns his own engineering company which has no minorities in their office except for a few women including herself. This is something her and I have discussed in depth. Her father is 'old school' and his mindset is such. In a way it's something I understand as people are more inclined to hire those they would feel comfortable working with.



Pressure to not get sued.
Off hand, has your company ever been threatened with law suits in regard to terminating employment of someone who is unqualified or just plain not fufilling their job requirements? If so, I can completely see where you're coming from in relation to the frustration in hiring someone simply because you're pressued to.



Our company and many others in this area, brand themselves as an equal opportunity employer. This is the tactical way to gain the attention and avoid the same attention drawn by activist who threaten boycots and drag the company name through the mud in order to extort cash and force a change that doesn't need to be made.
Just looking through the Chicago Tribune wanted adds, they are nearly inundated with ads and the wording of EOE at the bottom. You are right in the fact that this generates interest from minorities, and sometimes their intentions are not the best, especially when you knowingly apply for a job you are not qualified to handle, then complain that you were unfairly overlooked when you don't get hired.



Why would you want a law or act that created more friction? It's counter productive to the actual goal.
To be completely honest with you, I don't. Ever since I started graduate school I have made it a goal to educate myself in addition to what is being taught in regard to AA, EOE, minorities in most facets of life, education and employment. Many of the things I've learned helps to fuel my passion for a change to the current way things work. I am in support of a better way, increased opportunities, and a more balanced start so that minorities can compete on an even keel.



Let's say you beat out someone more qualified for a promotion or a position as a new hire. How much respect do expect to recieve? Wouldn't you begin to doubt yourself? Wouldn't there be an animosity between you and your co-workers?
In my department I currently work with two white females and one white male. I have my Bachelors degree whereas the guy is currently in his senior year. One girl has her Bachelors and the other has an Associates under her belt. The guy we work with makes more money than the lot of us, however, there is no animosity. It is something I have accepted for the time being, as the pay is extremely good as it is, I have set my sights higher. Just an example. My respect comes in the form of my education. However, I completely see your point in relation to a situation such as that and agree with it.



If our government were serious about leveling the playing field they would address education.
TheE really hit home when he mentioned this and I couldn't agree more. That is where the government should be directing its efforts. I know we have been focusing on the employment aspect of it and I see the inner city schools and high schools, the dilapidated buildings in which these children are expected to learn and it is just sad. Kids would rather memorize a rap song than get an education. The will to learn has been depleted in most, not all.



Those that practiced racism would be easier to week out and anyone bitching about their station in life could only blame themselves.
People who bitch about their station should be silenced anway. They hold themselves back instead of continuing to work even harder so that when they are unfairly denied employment based on nothing but their pigmentation, there is no doubt.


I would probably make more sense with a few days sleep. Maybe I'll take a stab at it sunday. Maybe I'll even edit my mistakes. :P You made alot of good points which really hepled me to question my efforts and my argument. However, at the end of the day I am still in support of it for the short-term until people like you and TheE and those of us who understand the effects of discrimination on both ends and at different levels of employment as well as education, can see this problem rectified through a more credible means. Education and diversity in education should be a mainstay.

[Ravenstorm]

I agree that both Ranger and ThE made some excellent points. Points, in fact, that I had not previously considered. And indeed, they are points difficult to counter. However, so long as there are people and situations like this one (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/092004a1.htm), then some sort of legal protection must be in effect. When the government itself tries to counter a ban that keeps people from being fired merely because of one aspect of their lives that in no way affects their job performance, can anyone really doubt that protections are needed to counter bigotry?

Raven

[Edited on 9-24-2004 by Ravenstorm]