Friday, March 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PAINTING THE TARGETS IN THE CULTURE WAR
Baghdad Time
VICTORIA TAFT
PAINTING THE TARGETS IN THE CULTURE WAR
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(193)
-
▼
May
(15)
- First Mail, Then Phone, Now Computer Balloting in ...
- Day Labor Center Delayed: Need Business Owners to ...
- Washington School Districts Short of Funds
- Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth
- Washington Educators Association Taking Money From...
- Sam Tram Says: Never Mind About the Reality By Pas...
- No Evidence Sea Lions Were Shot!
- A Thank You From Hillary
- Higher Morale or Higher Morals For The Troops?
- Caged Sea Lions Killed
- Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due
- Gordon Smith Comes Out Swinging
- Ummmm...Sea Lion Burgers!
- High Priest of Church of Global Warming, Kulongosk...
- May Day #1 Longshoremen Go On Strike for One Day t...
-
►
April
(56)
- PDX Illegal Alien Day Labor Center: No Permits Req...
- Rainbow City Council Reality By Pass Bike Bridge: ...
- Congressional Leadership - Out Of Touch On Gas Pri...
- Who Will ACTUALLY Use the "Reality ByPass Bridge?"...
- New Bike Bridge: Vote for New Name Here
- Mexican Official Caught Trying to Steal White Hous...
- Racist Emails Lands Battlegrounds Deputy Mayors So...
- The Rest of the Story: "Student" Bush Bashing Art ...
- Sauvie Island Bridge Turned Bike Bridge: Toll It
- We've Reached Gender Parity
- Another Reason to Vote for Hill in Democrat for a ...
- Oregon Better Than Most on Lawsuits.
- Washington State Tax Payers: Had Enough?
- Want to Get Rid of Global Warming? Leader to UN: K...
- You Know That Global Warming Thing? Not So Fast.
- Is Obama Tough on Terror? Watch this:
- Obama on Guns: Doesn't Like Them
- Democrat for a Day! Sign Up by April 29th to Vote ...
- VT Show Listener #5: Ode to Barack Obama and Liber...
- VT Show Listener #5: What Assignment is THIS?
- VT Show Listener #5: "Global Warming My !$$!"
- Fan Brags: I Grabbed Chelsea’s, umm, err, bottom
- Another Victim of Enviros' "Good Intentions:" The ...
- Anybody Wanna Buy a Tram? SoWa Broke.
- "Green" Death Watch Begins: 5 Dead in Food Riots D...
- Secretary of State Bill Bradbury Guilty of Breakin...
- Rainbow City Council Member Saltzman: "Trees Have ...
- Circumventing “Prickly Second Amendment Concerns”
- In Case You Missed It: Portland's WiFi Sytem? Gone...
- Randy's Pissoirs
- Portland's Budget Announced: Money for Light Rail,...
- Taxes Explained in Two Minutes
- Hamas Cleric: ‘Rome Will Be Conquered by Islam’
- Light Rail Causes More Pollution Than SUV's
- Oregonians' Tax Burdens go Up $1041 Per Person
-
▼
May
(15)
46 comments:
Hey, there's really not all that much difference between Barack and The Little Missus, now is there? So Obama embraced a hate-monger who yelled things like "God Damn America" from the pulpit. So what?
For Democrats, it's not only acceptable - it's expected.
It's why their race for the nomination is so protracted. It's a difficult decision: who hates America the most? And which of the two will give you the most "free" stuff?
Its just so funny how much it scares you repubes that a black man will be running this country.
He is kind of like a Messiah to what the Repubes have brought to American over the last 8 years.
Jonny, remember the Repubes have nothing, absolutely nothing that they can run on. The economy is thrashed, War in Iraq failure--a loss, War in Afganistan failure--a complete and utter loss--Taliban is back in charge. Rebubes have brought American job loss ever in history--even more than Carter. They have brought wire tapes, high gas prices, torture, disgrace to our Military, Veterans living on the street, healthcare crisis, Veteran healthcare crisis, security fraud, soon to be inflation of the $$$, bathroom sex scandels. Failure in the wake of Katrina--Hell of a job, Brownie. Scooter Libby criminal pardon, Pedophilia beyond record numbers for any one group. Need I really go on?
Now, Repubes know that if Obama makes it to the elections in November, he will win. And they will be stuck for 8 years under an Obama presidency. I just love all this attention, be it negative, that that the Repube Skank's like Victora are paying. It shows how really scared they are. And as an Independent voter, seeing the Repubic Party Sluts go off like this, I know Obama is where it is at.
I find this post some what offensive.
There are patriotic Democrats, and their are Christian Democrats.
I have NEVER heard any Democrat refer to Obama as a Messiah of any sort.
Why does one side think the other hates America.
What they disagree on, is what is really best for America.
The Republicans do not have the moral high ground over the Democrats (nor do the Democrats have such over the Republicans).
I just hope that the recent entries into this blog do not represent the moral compass of the Republican party.
THE FALSE PROPHET LOL
Ps: I hope everything went
well at CHURCH today listening
to Saint Obama
We're not worried about a black man running the country, jonny, although if you want to keep deluding yourself, feel free. You and others still don't seem to comprehend the idea that many criticisms of prominient blacks, hispanics, and women are blind criticisms. In other words, they would apply to anyone holding the opinion that they criticize no matter their skin color or gender. Can you understand that?
As to you, abel johnson, it might be useful if your assertions had a factual basis. So please go on... if you keep talking, you'll eventually say something correct about the Republicans. But the problem the Republicans have in trying to beat Obama is that they selected a nominee incapable of competing against either Democratic nominee. So yes... if Obama is nominated, the Republicans are doomed but their doom has nothing to do with your pie-in-the-sky assertions.
You know, Max, you're on to something there...
Eileen, you don't find it odd that democrats don't seem concerned about the ONE GUY WHO'S NOT in our minds SUPPOSED TO BE RACIST is the one guy who goes to A RACIST CHURCH and is welcomed as a messiah like figure the same libs who would find the same behavior in a white man repulsive??? And then find it offensive when we call them on it?
No. Really?
Well, let's think about that, eileeen. First off, your comment that there are patriotic Democrats and Christian Democrats is irrelevant. The reason that Victoria and others get on the "Obama as a messiah" kick is that he's TREATED that way. His rallies and speech style are more like religious revivals, messianic in tenor. I personally admire Obama's ability to do that, by the way... it requires a significant command of language and style to speak on politics as if you're calling sinners to repentence. Compare that to the monotonous McCain... McCain might say very smart and clever things but does so in such a dull way that no one cares. Obama's speaking ability is such that his message doesn't need to be clever or correct... he has a command of speaking that inspires people to wholeheartedly believe what he's saying no matter what the specific content is. You have to admire that in a speaker of ANY sort, much less a politician. But admittedly, that characteristic is shared by skillful revivalist preachers.
The issue of who hates America is a really interesting one. I've heard it commented that Democrats love the America they want to see but hate America as it currently is. Thus, it is logically consistent of them to proclaim their love of America because in their minds, they DO love America. They just don't love America as presently constituted. Republicans love BOTH of their Americas... the one that exists now and the one that they want to exist in the future. That is the major difference.
As to moral high ground... well, in the cases when the actions of all parties involved are corrupt and imperfect, you have to look at their principles and what they advocate.
On race, Republicans have the moral high ground. They condemn affirmative action as a means by which to designate one person as more worthy than another based entirely on skin color. They decry the entire universe of racial politics because they recognize that increasingly, the color of people's skin is being played up and the content of their charactr is being subordinated. As proof, observe which side is first to talk about skin color and/or gender when discussing a person.
The Republicans have the moral high ground on judicial politics. On the whole, they regularly cry out for court rulings that are consistent with written constitutional law instead of the personal feelings and social priorities of the judges. They decry the use of foreign decisions in American jurisprudence because they hark back to the Supreme Court case that established the power of judicial review by acknowledging the federal Constitution as a law that the court interprets and is bound by. The base of the Democratic party seems curiously celebratory when a decision is handed down that departs entirely from the Constituion as written; some of the loudest cheers greeted Roe v. Wade which contains no constitutional justification whatsoever. The Constititon is silent on abortion and birth control which means that the 9th and 10th amendments hold power and that the questions are reserved for the several states.
To pivot off the last one, on abortion the Republicans hold the moral high ground. Yes, they hold the high ground due to the ethics of killing a human being largely due to maternal convinience but they also hold the moral high ground in that their strongest argument against abortion "rights" is that the several states ought to have sovreign authority to decide on their internal laws and policies on this extremely contentious issue. They oppose Roe v. Wade on the immensely moral basis that it wrenched the power of judication and law out of the hands of the People and placed it into the hands of the federal government, primarily the judicial branch.
The Republicans hold the moral high ground on poverty and welfare due to their insistence that private enterprise can more effectively and compassionately lift people out of poverty and despair than a gargantuan federal bureucracy using its tax power to take money from one group of citizens and distribute it among another. The federal government cannot give more than a few cents out of every dollar to the starving, the destitute, the despairing, the homeless, the orphan, and the widow. On the other hand, charities such as the Salvation Army and Catholic charities are able to give 70 center or more out of every dollar to help the most needy among us. In advocating for the solution that directs more resources towards feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and giving hope to the desparing, the Republicans have seized the moral high ground and the Democrats have made no attempt to seize it back. They simply curse those that have money and advocate that the government take even more money that it has proven an inability to be responsible with.
In medical care, the Republicans have the moral high ground because their solution is a market-based one: the more you have of something, the less it costs. The more doctors, nurses, RAs, technicians, etc that we have, the less it costs to get medical care. Republicans know, and are on the side of the libertarians in declaring, that we have too many patients and not enough doctors. As a general matter, Republicans decry government regulation over healthcare because they know that regulation prevents cost-decreasing measures like having a $30/hr RN set a broken bone instead of a $200/hr doctor. In the morally-strong position that we should turn our fantastic free-enterprise system that made a poor Scottish boy into Andrew Carnegie to helping the sick and afflicted, Republicans stand alone.
I could keep going on but the point is that the Democratic solutions generally represent the consolidation of power in the minority (the government)... kind of like putting all the power in the hands of a king. Didn't we declare independence from a king? Let me check my notes... yes, it's right here... the Declaration of Independence was addressed to a government where the power was concentrated into the hands of the very few. On the other hand, the Republicans carry on the proud tradition of the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson and the Democrats of Jackson in advancing the concept of power concentrated into the hands of the majority (the people). Until they draw closer together and BOTH tirelessly advocate giving the people more freedom, the Republicans have a bulletproof moral high ground no matter the shady practices of individuals within the party.
I'm still waiting for any of the Democrats to post specifically what qualifies Obama to hold the highest office in the country.
Or, is it like John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam, you know) said just this week?
Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility.
"Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."
He must have botched the history of Obama's being raised by his "Typical White Person" grandmother in a privilged household and never wanted for anything.
So, abel, jonny, anyone, specifically, what has Obama done that qualifies him to lead the country? What is his record of acheivment that gives him the proper experience to run an antire country?
Lew Waterboy, what qualifies you question Obama's qualifications? That is what I want to know. The fact that you are an oil changing burn-out piece of east county trash? Please.
What qualifies any candidate for President? Was George W. Bush qualified? You supported him...so? With the way he has f'd this country up, shows how much "qualifications" matter for a candidate. Anyways I would sooner support someone that has absolutely no "qualifications" than a three time loser, Manchurian Candidate McCain any day. And guess what? A whole lot of other people agree.
Now, if you don't know what qualifies him because you are a half-wit that can't go look up what he has done with his life, go read about the man: http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_barack.php
You will find that he has done more in a day than you did in your whole pathetic little worthless life.
Maybe Botox Bimbo Repubo Victor(ia) can give you a job cleaning up her spittle every night after the broadcast. You can be Eric the Losers flunky. That would put the water in Lew Waterboy.
Keith Moore--all in your own little mind, son. "Repubicans" and "Moral Highground" is an oxymoran. Repubicans think a "moral highground" is having gay bathroom sex on the 37th floor of a 40 story building.
Repubics hold the "moral high ground" due to the ethics of killing a human being? No they just like torturing, bombing and murdering civilian woman and children. And when they get enough of that, they rape children, killing them from the inside out. And just when you thought Repubicans supported life, they go and fool you with the "Life begins at conception and ends at birth" motto.
Moral Highground on Privatization? What a joke. The poster child for the failure of privatization has been Texas' attempt to hand over management of social services in that state to Accenture, a Bermuda-based consulting firm. Computer systems have failed, costs have mounted, and, worst of all, the result has been tens of thousands of children being dropped from health insurance rolls because of bungling by the private contractor. After the initial takeover of the system by Accenture, 30,000 children were dropped from CHIP [the children's health program] just since last December with the total enrollment in the state health system seeing its lowest numbers – below 300,000 – since the program's earliest stages five years ago.
Really Keith, the Moore I read of your garbage the more I think your last name should be Moran. You Grand Ol Pedophile Party playbook because you failed to convince me.
As for America Haters, there ain't nothing worse than American Hating traiters like you Repubicans that have exported American Jobs and sold our nations security to other countries. You sir, ought to be ashamed of yourself. Now go soak your head.
Hmm... now, what's a clever way to respond to illogical puerile ranting without basis in fact, reality, truth, or basic common sense? I admit I'm at a loss because to call you a jackass would be to unduly insult a donkey. Oh well, have at it... it's not as if I have to treat your commentary as being above the tantrums of a 3-year-old.
If I could run away with Victoria I'd live happily ever after. HOT HOT HOT!!!
But Victoria's Married
How bout me?
Rosie
I definitey agree the repubs are fighting against having a government by the people and for the people.
But the whole Rev. Wright thing smacks of a racist attack on the mans religion. Fearmongering.
And to attack a mans religion is deplorable. I wouldn't even go that low on a blog.
If that's true, jonny, then the Democrats are fighting for a government of the commisars by the commisars. It's an equally stupid statement.
Racist... attacking a man's religion... jonny, if that wasn't such a pitiful charge, it might be funny. Remember what I said about ad hominem being the last refuge of someone who didn't have any other legitimate arguments? Applies in spades right now.
Abel is my "messiah". Way to slap that chip monk looking mooran down.
Gosh, stay away from your computer for a few hours, and you really get behind around here these days.
First, attacking people because of the way they look (chipmunks and botox? Really, that's what best wins an argument?) is pretty weak, no matter who's saying it.
(And yes, I posted the link to the guy with the "Morans" sign regarding Klatu, so call me hypocritical if you will. But I don't know what he *actually* looks like, that's just how I envision him.)
Second, to compare Democrats to being like "kings", especially in light of how George Bush has acted as president, is a stretch of the highest magnitude. This is a guy who has repeatedly and shamefully abused and misused his power as President, and shows absolutely no regard to the "checks and balances" system that our government was created to uphold.
Finally, regarding the whole "chickens have come home to roost" uproar, I urge you all to read this:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
Here’s a partial text:
***************
The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon
One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned "chickens coming home to roost." He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.
*********
I'm certainly not going to defend everything the guy said, but when you (the royal you, not anyone in particular) hear everything clipped down to 30 second sound bytes on Fox Noise Channel, you don't always get the full story. This puts a little perspective on at least a portion of the uproar (I hope).
Its a Shame that Billary and Saint Obama are feuding right now over comments made by Slick Willie Clinton yesterday. What a Shame, What a Shame. Feuding Liberals.
Keith, your "I know you are but what am I" argument holds no credence.
Do you have some yet-undiscovered skill at reading the English langage in such a way that words mean something different to you, jonny? I called your argument stupid and pitiful then you characterized that statement with the language one might use if I'd called you something. Surely you can do better than deliberately misinterpreting my words.
The entire thing about Bush abusing his power is a little interesting. I won't dispute that Bush stretched his power more than he ought to have but he's not exceptional in that regard by any means. Also, as a point of interest, our country seems to alternate between an imperial Congress and an imperial presidency. At some points, Congress seems to run rampant doing whatever makes them happy (as happened during the Ford presidency) and at other points, the President seems to run rampant doing whatever makes him happy (see FDR, Nixon, Clinton, possibly Bush). My point is that it's a concern for the moment but it's historically temporary. I'll wager that in not too long of time, Congress will be imperial for a while. As another point of interest (this one amusing) the pundits began saying that the presidency wasn't powerful enough when Carter was defeated by Reagan. Doesn't that just make your head spin?
As to a more complete report of what Reverend Wright said, that is indeed clarifying and appreciated (by me if no one else). I think the basis behind the "chickens coming home to roost" uproar is that Ward Churchill used convoluted language as the title of his lecture in which he referred to the victims of the WTC collapse as "little Eichmanns." I'd point out, however, that quoting a white ambassador doesn't make his words harmless and inoffensive. Also, the part of the sermon quoted doesn't make Reverend Wright look any better. Your clarification is appreciated and informative but it doesn't significantly change anything.
abel,
You missed a key point of what Keith said. He early on separated behaviors from principles; yet you resort to recent behaviors to debate him.
I am not saying that the two are not intertwined, but one has more to do with individuals, and the other with group beliefs.
Kieth,
I agree that the Republican party has the moral high ground on the subject of abortion.
I am not so sure about the others.
Your claims of moral high ground are based on your own view of what works. You believe that charity works better than income re-distribution, for alleviating the suffering of the poor.
Therefore you see that as the more moral behavior.
I believe a combination of the two is what is keeping some percent of the population from being so destitute that they have not much to loose by resorting to crime to obtain what they need.
It is what we believe will work, that determines what we consider the most moral.
I don't know enough about judicial politics to debate that one with you. I do know there is a lot of room for interpretation, and it is interpretation that the supreme court is being asked to do.
Affirmative action starts with an assumption that there is discrimination that needs to be counteracted. Once that assumption is thrown out, then affirmative action seems racist.
There are things in America's history and current behaviors that I am not proud of. But at the same time I recognize a reality that to keep ourselves safe, some of these actions may be necessary.
My not being proud (and even being some what ashamed) of many of the country's actions, does not mean I do not love the country.
One of the greatest things about this country, is the power the people have to invoke change.
So those who use the power they have to do so, should not be accused of hating what this country now is.
Is Obama Racist?
Or has someone gone to a lot of trouble to make him look Racist?
Is Obama treated as a Messiah?
I don't think so.
But to many he is a sign of change, and change they see as good for the country.
If speaking ability is more important than the actual message, how did Bush end up as President?
I might vote for Obama (but not in the Primary, because I am not a Democrat).
A lot of verbage to not answer a simple question, abel.
As an American voter, I have the same right to question Obama's qualifications as you do to question Bush's.
That you resort to ad hominem instead of saying any specific qualification speaks loudly that even you don't know what qualifies him to hold the office.
So, I am left to surmise you support him by emotion instead of selecting who may be best suited to benefit the country.
It's not entirely personal opinion; the federal government's welfare programs transfer about 11 cents of every dollar spent to the needy. Charities like the Red Cross and Salvation Army transfer 70 cents of every dollar spent to the needy. To me, this means that the private charities are more efficient with money and if they had their hands on the amount of money the federal government uses for welfare, more of it would end up being given to the poor. It's an opinion, yes, but it's based on logical derivation from the facts available to me.
The judicial thing is a more an opinion but I justify it on the basis that an opinion can be swayed by facts, by pressure, by appeals to emotion, by just about anything. You can have your personal opinion altered by innumerable things and not all of these things are logical or even reasonable because opinion is partly based on emotion (and emotions aren't typically logical). So it is my feeling that the superior basis for interpretation is the plain text of the Constitution and the explicit writings of the people who wrote it because they typically explained what motivated them to write in a certain way. These two sources cannot be altered; they are unchanging and not subject to personal emotion. They are thus more consistent and if all stripes of judges use them, rulings will be more predictable and consistent. One tends to desire predictability from any branch of government, especially a less-elected one like the judicial. Consistency, to me, is morally superior to a legal opinion that changes with the winds of politics.
Is Obama a racist? No. Do people try to paint him as one? Again, no. They may view his reverend's words as racist but that's not the same thing as calling Obama himself a racist. Is he treated as a messiah? In a sense, yes... his adherants honestly believe he can save the country.
As to speaking ability being more important than the message... actually, that's more true than people would like to think. Do crowds respond with greater cheers and screaming to a speaking of superior capabilities or to one that speaks in something of a dull monotone? But in the case of Bush, it wasn't a matter of Gore or Kerry the vastly superior speaker being pitted against Bush... it was an average one pitted against a poor one in the first instance and a good one (who had a documented tendency to say shifty things) pitted against a poor one. But in the case of McCain vs. Obama, it's a poor speaker pitted against someone with the speaking gifts of an impassioned revivalist preacher. Obama's speaking capabilitie are polished to the point that his message doesn't have to be as good as McCain's for his speech to be better. Think Nixon vs. Kenneday... people listening over the radio thought Nixon was the vastly superior debater but people watching on the TV thought Kennedy was; the difference was based on APPEARANCE, not substance.
As I noted in a previous post somewhere, I'm seriously considering flipping a coin in the voting booth... heads for Obama, tails for McCain.
Sigh, Keith... Its just an analogy. One thing I've noticed about you is that you like to wright a lot of fluff, but little substance. Sayng someones comment is stupid without even explaining yourself is just as childish.
But moving on, When I say I definitey agree the repubs are fighting against having a government by the people and for the people; I was being fecisous- and thought my point was at least clear enough for you to get it. But I guess not. Abraham Lincoln said "Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people". Now Honest Abe was a Republican I can admire! In fact I believe he would be quite sissapointed with the party today, but I digress. The point is that Rebublicans hate that concept- even though they do not admit it. In a democracy by the people and for the people you would have a government with lots of social programs. There would ne universal healthcare, College Tuition credits, government home loans, and much much more. These socialistic programs really seam to scate republicans. So my point isn't stupid, its IRONIC. Its really a typical claim by republicans, that this would ruin free enterprise and create some sort of police state. Which I think you were reffering to when you say "If that's true, jonny, then the Democrats are fighting for a government of the commisars by the commisars" I think you meant Commissar, with two S's, which could be considered something like military recruiters under communism. That argument is of course without merit. If that is indeed ehat you want to say then say it. Just saying someones point is "stupid" doesn't cut the mustard ans means you automatically lose.
And yes the whole reverend wright attack was racist. WHite candidates who go to white churches never get attacked like that. As I've said before wrights style is common in those black churches. Not to mention the fact that his comments were taken out of context. Victorias little cartoon character is racist too. Its subtle, but those subtletys can do big damage to society. Why because these things divide us as a nation, and as a people.
Its funny how you automatically claim the Repubes hold the moral high ground, simply because they do things you agree with. That way too convienent, Kieth.
I'm not going to take the time to go through all your points right now, so lets just look at Affirmative Action. The point of Affirmative action is to prevent racist employers from only hiring white people. I know exactly where your coming from. Why should I not be hired for a job that I am the most qualified, and the job given to a minority person who (in this scenario) would be less qualified. Its preferential treatment, and it is not fair. You are absolutely right. The thing is, 45 years ago black people were segreagated from white society, and whites were routinely given preferential treatment. So In the same scenario but where a black man was more qualified for the job than the white man, the white man would get it because he was white.
Affirmative action helps mitigate that problem. And There are still parts of the country such as the deep south where racism is rampant, and blacks would never get jobs. In many other places in the USA its more subtle, and employers may have "tendencies" to hire whites while not even realizing they have race bias.
So in a perfect world. AA would not need to exist. I agree its not fair either. But I do believe it has made things better for ethnic minorities who might otherwise have been discriminated against.
I think you are really stretching to think somehow Republicans hold some sort of high ground because they are anti- Affirmative Action.
Whats more, Republican ideology is very focused on letting polluters pollute with no regulations, subsidizing Mega corporations billions of tax dollars, deregulating airlines (Reagan era) cutting old groeth trees such as the Giant Sequoias of California and calling it progress, cutting or underfunding social programs, Invading Iraq, and tax cuts for the rich.
Last time I read the bible I saw Jesus's teachings were much to the contrary.
I hate to break it to you, jonny, but a statement that flies in the face of what's readily apparent without any attempt to support it is, by definition, a stupid statement. Either that or profoundly ignorant... I haven't decided.
But it's nice of you to actually explain your statement in detail. It may interest you to know that the government of the United States was never intended to be a direct democracy; in fact, the founders referred to democracy as a poison. So the Republicans of today are essentially standing on the same ground as both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of yesterday. I apoligize for misspelling commissar (a political official in the USSR Communist party) but my point is that the statements are equally untrue... unless I missed something and the Democrats really DO want Soviet commissars running the government.
Ironically, jonny, claiming that hatemongering rhetoric and racism is common in black churches is itself racist. I know his comments were taken out of context but he's lucky they were... the context would have made him sound worse than he already sounded. But I invite you to justify calling the cartoon racist although the inclusion of the word "subtle" gives me a clue about how substansive your explanation will be.
I gather you didn't pay ant attention to Mr. Waters pointing out to eileen that I specified ideals, not action, in my argument that Republicans hold the moral high ground. But we can overlook your error of fact for now. It may interest you to know that racism is racism... the fact that whites were racist against blacks in the past is wholly irrelevant to the government requiring that schools and businesses be racist today. It may also interest you to know that the South is LESS racist than the north. For example, when the number of racial incidents on college campuses were tallied, there were 3 in the South and well over 100 in the North. That fact makes it really really hard to swallow your assertion that Southern whites are dramatically more racist. If that was true, the number I just cited would be reversed since racist parents would presumably instill racist values in their children and these racist children would be more likely to do racially offensive things on campus. Since that DOESN'T happen, it's very safe to presume that Southern whites are no more racist than Northern ones.
By the way... that's really cute. Whites are racists even without knowing they're racists. So they hate nonwhites without knowing they hate them. That sounds like the unprovable and frankly racist claptrap that you get out of some black studies programs.
Well, see, that's the real kicker... all college students are discriminated against. A discriminating admissions committee essentially judges whether a student's grades and achievements are suited for the school in question (similar situation with business). But if you get rejected by Standford, just wander over to Podunk Univeristy to get your Masters of Business Administration. A valedictorian MBA is a valedictorian MBA. I'm curious why college admissions aren't required to be blind, by the way... it'd achieve the same goal. If a college admissions board was handed a transcript with all personal information blacked out, it'd be impossible for them to be racist because they wouldn't have a clue what race the applicant is... they'd only be able to judge on the basis of academic merit. The fact that a truly fair and nonracist admissions procedure was rejected gives credibility to the assertion that affirmative action in schooling is blatently racist.
Technically, affirmative action doesn't apply to jobs. An employer isn't lawfully required to hire a certain number of minorities... they're just lawfully forbidden to reject someone on the basis of certain characteristics of which one is race. So the employment angle to retaining affirmative action isn't really valid.
To summerize my response to your last paragraph: false, false, you presume that's a bad thing, false, you presume that's a bad thing, you presume that's a bad thing, deceptive. Oh, and invoking the Bible is irrelevant since Republicans never invoke the Bible to explain most of their policies. Nice try.
Kieth, You can have social programs under a democracy. Thats where you repubes all get it wrong.
Moral high ground? Youve already lost that one. First of all abortion IS a moral choice. Its not the states job to run peoples lives. The law states that people have a right to make these kinds of moral desions on their own. You want the government to dictate this, and in doing so will only encourage dangerous back alley abortions. Sorry, you lose the moral high ground there, too.
And as far as Affirmative Action, you are factually incorrect. It does apply to jobs. Just not small companies. It still applys to large corporations, and government jobs. And don't ask me to cite that too. Do your own work. Regardless, its the same thing as I described for jobs in regard to colleges. Yes its not fair. Does it prevent discrimination yes. Is discrimination a problem, yes. When discrimination is no longer a problem we should immediately end Affirmative Action.
You already said that, jonny, and I simply pointed out that the US government is not nor was it ever meant to be a democracy.
The state presently improperly intervenes in the matter of abortion. Republicans don't want it to. So by the standard you just stated, the Republicans have made the right call. Thanks for backing me up on this one. :)
No, jonny, it is you who's factually incorrect. Affirmative action essential requires inappropriately favorable treatment towards minorities. Suffice it to say, no corporation is required to give a black favorable treatment vis a vis a white; they're just not allowed to discriminate. Thus, affirmative action is not found in the business world.
Does it prevent discrimination? No. Is insisting that discrimination is still a problem and taking steps to combat it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh, yes.
So the logical step is to kill affirmative action and implement a blind procedure. Simple... seductively simple, in fact.
Somehow I don't believe Jesus would be trying to urge Republicans on in their hatred of Democrats. I don't see him fostering the sort of finger-pointing and snickering and self-righteous arrogance that you and yours exhibit on a daily basis. In fact, I think it's very likely that he would be urging you to treat your fellow Americans, who are every bit as patriotic as you are, with love and respect as human beings, taking the higher ground in your debates instead of acting like you just stepped out of "Lord of the Flies." If you have trouble understanding this, maybe you should spend some time in serious prayer about it.
To hate a person is wrong but to hate an idea is no sin. There's also the matter of treating others as you would be treated... since Republicans are treated as malevolent lying malcontents, their accusers earn the privilage of experiencing the same. Sorry to shatter your idealism.
Sorry Kieth, you are wrong again. We do live in Democracy. I know that pains you. It is not a direct democracy which is fine, but that does not take away from the fact that it is a democracy. Love it or Leave it Keith.
And currently the government does not interviene with a womans right to choose to have an abortion. Its her moral choice, not yours. So actually thank you for reitterating my point that the repubes are morally wrong.
As for Affirmative Action You are still wrong. Many Corporations and Govenment jobs employ Affirmative Action. Most Corporations do it by choice because it makes good sense.
read this: "As a signal of their support for affirmative action, CEO's of corporations including Exxon, 3M, Boeing, Amoco, Bechtel, Goodyear, Sony Electronics, and Dupont believe that "a society with a history of deeply rooted exclusionary practices demands proactive policies to create opportunity and to eliminate both conscious and inadvertent discrimination.... We believe that developing and utilizing the full potential of the entire population of our society is critical not only to our nation's economic growth but to our political stability, to our social well-being, and to our global leadership responsibilities" (Wall Street Journal, 1997).
In 1994, the United States Department of Labor presented Proctor & Gamble the Opportunity 2000 Award, which is given annually to one company committed to instituting equal employment opportunities and creating a diverse workforce. Proctor & Gamble was recognized for its multifaceted, comprehensive affirmative action and executive development programs. In May 1995, Edwin L. Artzt, then chairman of the board and CEO of Proctor & Gamble, received the Private Sector Leadership Award from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. In accepting this prestigious award, he said, "Affirmative action has been a positive force in our company. What's more, we have always thought of affirmative action as a starting point. We have never limited our standards for providing opportunities to women and minorities to levels mandated by law.... Regardless of what government may do, we believe we have a moral contract with all of the women and minorities in our company--a moral contract to provide equal opportunity for employment, equal opportunity for advancement, and equal opportunity for financial reward."
"Affirmative action makes good business policy," says the National Association of Manufacturers. Ninety percent of 120 corporate CEOs surveyed by Fortune magazine in 1984 said their companies had implemented affirmative action programs to satisfy "corporate objectives unrelated to government regulations." Indeed, 95 percent said they would continue to use them regardless of government requirements. In a more recent 1992 survey of CEOs, only 2 percent called affirmative action programs "poor."
Lucio A. Noto, Mobil Corporation chairman, remarked, "I have never felt a burden from affirmative action because it is a business imperative for us." In a recent letter to shareholders, Noto wrote, "A diverse, inclusive and productive workforce is essential to our future. Early in 1996 we heightened our focus on inclusion and diversity, and tied management compensation to progress in these areas. This effort has the full commitment of our board and senior management, as well as my own personal attention."
Similarly, chemical giant DuPont recognizes the business value of promoting diversity. More than a decade ago, DuPont decided to go beyond affirmative action regulations by setting a goal of making half of its new hires for professional and management positions women or minorities. Likewise, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers repeatedly have endorsed affirmative action."
http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/descriptions/making_the_case/works/business.cfm
Without AA there would be all white corporations, and all white colleges. Your just jealous because your afraid you can't get ahead without special treatment. Maybe if you were a bit less arrogant someone would hire you Keith. Just a suggestion. Gawd your an idiot. Please go back to school and learn something. Talking to you is like talking to Klatu only with bigger words!
Ah, but it's not. I'm sorry, jonny,
but you need to retake your civics
college courses. Sorta like some
dippy PSU professor who confused a
state ballot measure with the
electoral college.
The government does intervene to protect abortion from democracy. See what I mean about the US not being a democracy?
jonny, if I wasn't already used to the fact that you're formally ignorant and like it that way, I'd be offended at your idiotic assumptions about whether I'm employed and where I am in life. AA is a blatently racist policy that accomplishes nothing except further governmental meddling. AA doens't pair the best person with the best job... it pairs the politically acceptable person with a carefully-selected job. Most of your proof was essentially corporations releasing press statements because you get screamed at if you don't say the right things.
since Republicans are treated as malevolent lying malcontents, their accusers earn the privilage of experiencing the same.
Hmm. That just doesn't jive with what I read in the Bible. OT, maybe, but Jesus taught a very different approach. Since Victoria seems to be a Christian, it seems to me she would be following Christ's example.
By popular usage, the word "democracy" has come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.
The institutions of all governments emerge from basic principles. In the United States the one basic principle is representative democracy, which defines a system in which the people govern themselves by electing their own leaders. The American government functions to secure this principle and to further the common interests of the people.
Democracy in America is based on six essential ideals: (1) People must accept the principle of majority rule. (2) The political rights of minorities must be protected. (3) Citizens must agree to a system of rule by law. (4) The free exchange of opinions and ideas must not be restricted. (5) All citizens must be equal before the law. (6) Government exists to serve the people, because it derives its power from the people. These ideals form the basis of the democratic system in the United States, which seeks to create a union of diverse peoples, places, and interests.
To implement its essential democratic ideals, the United States has built its government on four elements: (1) popular sovereignty, meaning that the people are the ultimate source of the government’s authority; (2) representative government; (3) checks and balances; and (4) federalism, an arrangement where powers are shared by different levels of government.
So After needlessly arguing semantics, It still goes that
a. Social programs are allowed under our form of government.
b. It is Ironic that Abraham Lincoln, a republican held the idea that the governernments rolw was to serve the people, but that repubs of today are so against that very ideal.
And again Keith the government REaffirmed in 1973 that they have no business interferring with a womans right to make that moral decision herself. -But I'll bite... How is it that you think this is the government "intervening"?
Lastly, as I have already stated. I know Affirmative action is unfair. Everybody does. Everone else can see past that escept you. The point is that it is neccesary to prevent discrimination. And again discrimination does exist. When there is no discrimination Affirmative action will no longer be needed. And as demonstrated above, companies LIKE affirmative action because it is to their benefit to have a diverse work force. So I will ask you keith do you deny predjudice and discrimination exist?
If not, then outline a plan here that is better than Affirmnative Action to prevent discrimination and develop diversity in colleges, etc. ?
OK, fine... yes, the US is a democracy when you redefine the word. But in the literal sense, it isn't.
a. The argument wasn't whether they're permitted (although you have to stretch "promote the general welfare" quite a ways to constitutionally justify them) but whether democracy would result in a bunch of social programs. A direct democracy, yes, but the US isn't a direct democracy as you just admitted.
b. No, they're very supportive of the idea. A government that taxes everyone and gives a fraction of the tax money as free money to the poor isn't a government that serves the people; it's a government that serves the bureaucrats that eat up the other 89 cents. A government that funds hundreds of agencies, all with the purpose of telling us how we can live our lives and what we can do with our freedom isn't a government that serves the people. Coiincidentally, Republicans support a government that's hands-off and thus, serves the people.
No, the Supreme Court (not "the government") declared that as of that moment, popular sovreignty as to abortion in the 50 states was null and void. The government interferred with a woman's right to choose by substituting the opinion of 7 judges for every state law on abortion. Thereafter, no state was allowed to regulate abortion without being brought up to the Supreme Court to be slapped down. They couldn't even impose minor restrictions to a (ficticious) right in the tradition of "seperation of church and state" as to the First Amendment. The federal government brought its heavy hand to bear on the states and interferred in the right of the majority to determine their own laws. And for what? As John Hart Ely put it "Roe lacks even coorable support in the constitutional tex, history, or any other appropriate source of constitutional doctrine... Roe is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Republicans strongly oppose the federal government obliterating popular sovreignty on a whim and thus interferring on an issue where it has no legal or traditional justification.
Let's examine which of my posts used the word "unfair" to describe affirmative action. Umm... well, it looks like none of them. I think that the only one describing affirmative action as "unfair" is you, jonny. I'm calling it racist. Which, by the way, it is. Strange that you've not tried to refute that charge...
Anyway, as I've said at least twice, discrimination is a natural and neccessary part of deciding who gets a job... you discriminate between qualified and unqualified applicants. I appreciate that you only recognize discrimination as it applies to race but there are other definitions of the word. And I'd point out that diversity of color isn't really diversity... if you have 25 blacks, 25 whites, 25 asians, and 25 hispanics and all 100 have similar life experiences, outlooks, beliefs, and education, that isn't diversity except in the most narrow and shallow sense. Thus, to achieve diversity, affirmative action does nothing. Companies like affirmative action because praising it and claiming to practice is gets the uneducated masses, who are taught to only recognize diversity of appearance, off their back. It's a PR move, not a strategic one.
No, I don't deny that prejudice and discrimination exist but I see it more in the "oppressed" communities than the "opressor" communities. I also recognize that its social power is weak and its existance is 75% imagined and 25% real.
I've already answered this question but you don't seem to have read it. In colleges, better than affirmative action would be a blind admissions policy. It's logically impossible to discriminate against a skin color or gender unless you know that information. If you hand a college admissions board all the relevant student data with any information pointing to racial or gender background scrubbed out, discrimination isn't logically possible. If they want a diverse 4.0 polulation, they should take 4.0 students from diverse economic backgrounds and educational situations. If it turns out that the greatest diversity in experiences, economic background, and education is found among whites, so be it. But that outcome is unlikely enough to be impossible.
Employment is a little different. You can't be blind in employment because you have to intervew an applicant face-to-face. In this case, the only recourse is the one that presently exists: the protection of anti-discrimination laws as moderated by the EEOC. Yes, the EEOC is a bunch of busybodies and has no common sense but companies are fearful of the heavy hand of government falling on them and are very likely to fold if the EEOC gives them the evil eye. It's not nearly as perfect as the the blind admissions but protection in this case is neccessarily retaliatory. That is the unfortunate reality but affirmative action only creates an illusion of diversity and is thus an inferior solution.
I never "redefined" it. You said the U.S. was not a democracy and you were wrong. I will cntend that the U.S. is a republic, but that it is wrong to say it is not a democracy.
You argue that a governemt that has no social programs serves the people. You even go further to argue that the government is serving people by the very fact that they have no social programs because they are a pain in the ass.
Generally, Keith, most people believe that governments serve the people with social peograms. Thats what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said "a government for the people and by the people". And, incidentally it is a fundemental element of democracy. A governmebt that spends all the tax money on the military and billion dollar corporate subsidies and bailouts without investing in social programs - is not considered a government for the people. Just say waht you mean man, but don't kid yourself.
Barack Obama has a plan to give $4000.00 tuition credit to every college student for four years provided they pay it back with community service. THIS is the kind of action that describes a government for the people. Whats so terrible about that?
Next I understand that you believe that somehow the government stepped in and intruded by trumping other laws and whatnot in not letting states prosecute for abortions. I understand your argument. It would work, exept that the very law you want would allow the government to intrude on the right of people to make their own moral descision. One thing you need to think about here, too is that if states were to take away a womans right to choose there would be many more fatal "backalley" abortions. So I thank God the law is on my side!
Next as far as Affirmative Action your "blind" method would not promote diversity in colleges. Certain segmments of society benefit greatly by AA, and the diversity that results benefits everyone, as I demomstrated earlier. It is interesting that you are able to estimate that predudism does not exist, but your prfound naivette will not take you far in life. Again, I thank god the law is on my side.
Basic civics lesson, for you jonny. Republic = leaders are elected and and on behalf of the people. Democracy = the whole of the people act on behalf of themselves. It's the difference between the federal government's system of passing new laws and, say, Oregon's system. In the first instance, the leaders vote and the direct vote of the citizens is not required. In the second instance, the direct vote of the citizens is all that matters. America is a republic, not a democracy. Yes, people use the term "representative democracy" but the proper term for it is a republic.
A government that governs least, governs best. The Constitution was explictly designed to create a very limited government. And it succeeded until the Great Depression when the government sent a serious economic slowdown into a death spiral with unwise intervention. I mean, raising the tariff to choke off trade when your economy is hurting? I know that's foolish and I don't know much about economics. Obama's plan, by the way, is a very good substitute for simply handing money over to someone to pay for school... his proposal is like an economic arrangement, an exchange of money for service. This is what government needs to do with social programs instead of what it currently does.
The research on back-alley abortions is somewhat touch-and-go. Some argue they were a plague, others argue that a tiny number has been blown up dramatically for political reasons due to the fact that it's impossible to know for sure how many deaths from, say, uterus infection were from attempted abortions. Irregardless, it is the business of laws to express morality and enforce it. It is the moral sense of this society that killing someone for any reason other than self-defense requires severe punishment. It is also the moral sense of this society that forcing sexual intercourse on someone requires severe punishment. On the other hand, we make a distinction between unintentionally killing someone and deliberately killing them and a further subdivision between premeditation and spur-of-the-moment. These provisions are not universal which strongly indicates that they are an expression of our society's moral beliefs and have been codified into law. Thus, by widely-established precendent, it's perfectly legitimate for people to enact laws that express and enforce their particular moral code. Why else do you think we have varying ages by which you can legally marry? Each state decided what age would be appropriate and this number is subject to change whenever the people wish it. But in the case of abortion, a miniscule minority (7 federal judges) decided that their moral code trumped that of hundreds of millions of people who'd voted for the various abortion laws. By means of the Supreme Court, the government imposed the moral system of a few federal judges over that of the American people. This is an improper abuse of governmental power. There is an immense irony in the fact that people cheer when the federal government fails to squelch state laws allowing for physician-assisted suicide or medical distribution of a federally-controlled substance for medical purposes yet have nothing but praise for the government squelching state laws on abortion or sodomy (the last of which were symbolic rather than practical since it's sorta rare for a cop to catch someone having anal sex). In all four cases, the states, by means of the people, are creating laws that express individual moral convictions but in some cases, it's apparently good for the federal government to impose its view of morality on the states and in other cases, it's bad. This is, to say the least, a hypocritical position.
You demonstrated nothing about the benefits of skin color diversity for its own sake. My method would greatly promote diversity... just not the superficial meaningless kind that you prefer. To have an equal number of all races of identical background and beliefs is not diversity... it's a parlor trick. Everyone benefits from immense diversity of belief; it's in the churning battle of idealogical struggle that good ideas are born, ideas that benefit no one yet everyone. This is diversity, not the random selection of skin colors that ignores the content of their character.
Keith, I can not believe what you just typed, LOL. So you actually believe that the U.S. is not a Democracy? LOL. Heres another civics lesson for you Keith: YOUR CRAZY. Here, I will help you, do a 2 second internet search on Democracy in America ad you will find that In the United States the one basic principle is representative democracy, which defines a system in which the people govern themselves by electing their own leaders. The American government functions to secure this principle and to further the common interests of the people. As I said before, and I will say it one last time YES the U.S. is a republic. Yes it is based on Democratic principles. Don't be so glib. get over it.
Again Keith, I will tell you that the government has no business making those kinds of desicions for women. Its ironic that you argur that the government IS intruding by not letting you tell somebody else how to run their life. And you say you don't like bulies- even though your mad because the gov. won't let you do it.
Heres a little civics lesson on Affirmative Action:
Affirmative action is not about quotas—that is, it's not meant to force schools or businesses into accepting or hiring a certain percentage of minorities or women. Instead, affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and ensure that schools and businesses are not intentionally discriminating against minority groups. Let's look at colleges as an example: Around 12 percent of all college students are black; if the student body at your college is only 1 percent black, it's likely that there is some discrimination at work. Now, this isn't always the case, of course—but it's the principle that affirmative action was built on. When discrimination is suspected, schools or businesses should make special efforts to reach new pools of minority applicants in an effort to diversify their staff or student body. Affirmative action is meant simply to help minorities overcome past discrimination and achieve a level of diversity that many people argue is essential in higher education.
So it benefits society to have diversity. Blind admittance may overlook some of the poor and dienfranchised. In America, we give these people oportunities. Thats what America is all about.
So you actually believe the US is a democracy? Apparently... my sympathy.
Will it help if I just toss aside all attempts to argue in an honest and logical fashion and just call you an idiot? The honest debating style seems to be failing to make an impression so perhaps a dishonest one... naw. It offends my self-respect.
Blind admittance will overlook the poor and "disenfranchised" if the admissions committee is at Harvard. It probably won't if it's at Portland State Univeristy. I hope you grasp the basic difference.
As to what affirmative action is meant to do in a perfect world free of unintended consequences, the ideal is irrelevant. In practice, affirmative action works like a quota system although explicitly hiring or admitting on the basis of quotas is illegal. In practice, schools explicitly try to achieve "saturation levels" on par with the surrounding community. If the surrounding community is 15% black, 20% asian, and 10% hispanic, colleges will do all they can to have 15% of their students be black, 20% asians, and 10% hispanics irregardless of whether there's enough students that meet the college's basic requirements. THIS is how an open-eye affirmative action system actually works and that is why a blind system is the ideal. Again, it's amazing that the system that would make racial discrimination all but impossible is rejected and the system where an admissions committee gets to consider skin color in addition to all other facts (inviting discrimination, by the way) is celebrated.
It is interesting that you complain in another post that I "mock" your responses, when it is you who is mocking me. Calling someone an "idiot" because they don't agree with you is what you just did. Furthermore, the whole "is America a Republic or Democracy" argument is utterly ridiculous.
Why? because "Representative Democracy" is a neccesary description the Republic of the United States. For example, a republic is defined as "A form of government in which the head of state is USUALLY elected by the citizens". Now you can not say all republics have democracy because because many republics, past and present, have heads of state who came into power by military force, or were elected by a small minority of the population.
(Additionally, we have come to have some elements of Direct Democracy in the United States as well, for example the citizen initiative process in Oregon)
I hope this sheds some light on the whole Domocracy/ republic thing:
we've got to realize that no matter what they call themselves, every government on the earth is different from every other. However, we can get back to basics on the terminology if you like. The difference between democracy and republic is a fundamental one. "Democracy," strictly defined, refers to the method of government wherein the members of the group vote directly on all matters of legislation. "Republic" comes from the Latin 'res publica', and refers only to the nature of the government, 'a thing of the people' (that is, not a monarchy), without actually making claims as to how the leaders are selected.
In recent times, the term "republic" has been bandied about by just about every country, with a popular vote or no, on the claim that the government and the people were subject to the same law. Covers just about everybody except for hereditary monarchies, as I say, including the People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Republic of Texas, as well as the more "republican" Dominician Republic, Kyrgyz Republic, and Banana Republic. Because of that, modern-day nations with elected governments have often prefixed their "republics" with other adjectives, and although "democratic republic" does not literally mean "representative democracy" (i.e., in which the people elect representatives, and the reps make the laws), that's what it's been used for over the last few decades or so.
True democracy can also be called "town hall" or "referendum" government. Some small towns use the town hall as their exclusive system of law-making, and most state and local governments in the U.S. use referenda in placing bond issues and similar decisions directly on the voting ballot.
Direct involvement of the people is a nice concept, but for matters of day-to-day government, a strictly democratic system is impractical. Even now that it's somewhat feasible via electronic communication to survey each and every voter on each and every matter of administering the laws, would you really want this on a national, state, or even local level? Voting is rightly looked on as a civic obligation, but if you were asked to do it every morning when you woke up, you'd probably get pretty sick of it. That's why on a large scale we elect legislators to work for us, and they are charged with making legislative decisions on our behalf.
In other words, our republic is governed by a representative democracy.
In a landmark 2003 case involving the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies-the Supreme Court decisively upheld the right of affirmative action in higher education. They ruled that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
In the Michigan cases, the Supreme Court ruled that although affirmative action was no longer justified as a way of redressing past oppression and injustice, it promoted a "compelling state interest" in diversity at all levels of society. A record number of "friend-of-court" briefs were filed in support of Michigan's affirmative action case by hundreds of organizations representing academia, business, labor unions, and the military, arguing the benefits of broad racial representation. As Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority, "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."
As for your blind method, in every instance where affirmative action has been withdrawn, the participation level of minorities and women has fallen drastically. Moreover, the share of professional and skilled labor opportunities that have been redistributed to minorities remains dramatically underrepresentative.
For example, In 1996 California passed Proposition 209 which banned consideration of race and gender in college admissions and hiring. At UCLA the figures are staggering: According to the L.A. Times, in 2006 UCLA enrolled only 96 African American in the incoming freshman class, a steep decline from the 221 Black freshmen that enrolled in 1997. This means only 2% of the class will be African American. This represents the smallest number
of entering African American freshman recorded since 1973, when UCLA began keeping such records. This is especially significant as UCLA is located in the county with the second-largest African American population in the US.
While we would all love to believe that, as a society, we have moved beyond the legacy of segregation which necessitated the creation of
affirmative action, we cannot ignore the evidence of persistent discrimination and structural inequalities in American life. Affirmative action remains vital in helping us to balance the different sets of obstacles women and people of color face in American society -- in fact, when we eliminate affirmative action, we find that the resegregation of American society happens almost immediately. To test this, we need only look to the states of California and Washington, both of which voted to end affirmative action. The evidence is clear: repealing affirmative action policies leads to a dramatic decline in the participation of women and people of color.
SOURCES:
Los Angeles Times http://www.aapf.org/focus/UCLA.pdf
http://www.aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct26.php
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/eguillermo.html
Landmark Ruling Buttresses Affirmative Action http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html
As far as the Abortion issue. Your beliefs in the governments role in expressing predetermined
"Morality", is just that- your opinion. Have fun with it. The Supreme Court of the United States said you were wrong 34 years ago.
I love this country!
jonny, you need to read posts more closely if you expect to comment intelligently thereon. I said that I'm tempted to just toss out honest debate and call you an idiot and you respond as if I'd actually done so.
A republic, not a representative democracy. The two are not the same.
Your characterization is incorrect. Strictly speaking, the court ruled a compelling state interest in one case, not a compelling state interest in the companion case, and in the original case law, explicitly ruled that any high-minded justifications of how society needs diversity were insufficient justification, something that has not yet been overturned.
I'm glad you brought up Proposition 209, jonny, because the article you cited actually tells the truth after it's conventional-wisdom claims: there was no overall drop in minority enrollment in California. There was a drop in specific elite schools but not an overall one. Try again with the "whenever affirmative action is dropped, minorities are shut out" hogwash.
Well, we'd like to believe it primarily because it's true. It's not believed to be true, however, because people go around claiming that segregation and racism are everywhere. It's a popular belief, conventional wisdom... and factually untrue. Any resurgence is a self-fulfilling prophecy... you preach racism and segregation long enough and loudly enough, calling all whites racists, that you make it true when it wasn't true before the myth was spun.
My "opinion" happens to be consistent with available evidence; your "facts" are not. The Supreme Court ruled that henceforth, the federal government shall impose its morality on the states; this action, taken 34 years ago, merely proves my thesis as much as you may wish it to be otherwise.
Post a Comment