Does GOP Reflect the US?

[FinanceDude]

In another 20 years, white males will be a minority group.........

[youbet]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

In another 20 years, white males will be a minority group.........

But they will NOT qualify for affirmative action!

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by youbet

But they will NOT qualify for affirmative action!

I think a client of mine summed it up best, after he got turned down for an SBA loan even though he had a great business plan:

"All I need to do is turn into a Hispanic woman, and I can get all the money I need"..........

[Abreutime]

Originally Posted by youbet

Your facination facinates me! Since atheists like to mock religious folks (especially on this board!!), why shouldn't atheists be mocked themselves? Agnostics probably shouldn't be mocked..... But atheists? Hey, what goes around comes around.

I guess I missed it. Back-and-forth stuff is fair game, but it makes me uncomfortable when people bring up "not my religion" or "doesn't have religion" derisively.

In light of this highjack, I'm reminded of the classic Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Cantuar]

Not that an agnostic would have much hope of being elected to high office either, mind you.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by youbet

But they will NOT qualify for affirmative action!

Not yet! It's a precondition of affirmative action that it be preceeded by negative action -- they're not there yet. Might take some time; it would help if we first counted them as 3/5's a person, take over their lands, and deny them a right to vote. You want some of that.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

I think a client of mine summed it up best, after he got turned down for an SBA loan even though he had a great business plan:

"All I need to do is turn into a Hispanic woman, and I can get all the money I need"..........

Actually, your client didn't need to actually be a Hispanic. He only needed a Hispanic sir-name.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Not yet! It's a precondition of affirmative action that it be preceeded by negative action -- they're not there yet. Might take some time; it would help if we first counted them as 3/5's a person, take over their lands, and deny them a right to vote. You want some of that.

Yeah, I understand. It's just too bad that the credibility of affirmative action is tarnished by the fact that it applies to anyone who identifies themselves as being partially of the designated race, even if their own personal lineage does not include being subjected to any of the negative actions.

It seems to be so hard to draw the line in the sand. For example, all blacks qualify for affirmative action even if their heritage is not from Africa and their ancestors were not involved in American slavery. Yet, for example, Jananese Americans qualify for little in the way of affirmative action even if they can show their ancestors were held in camps in the US during WWII.

I guess those inconsistencies are part of what make affirmative action programs so controversial. Even Barrack Obama admits that his daughters should not receive preferential treatment in school admission policies over poor, white students. Yet, that's the way the rules read today.

But.....no one said life would be fair.....

[bright eyed]

This discussion wasn't about affirmative action. I'm disappointed by the negative and sarcastic reactions this thread received.

As someone who is not an owg, i think some are being insensitive to the issues i'm raising.

I thought there would be more support for my shock that the RNC is so starkly composed. Guess that's why the few people pushing it in the RNC gave up too...

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by youbet

Yet, for example, Jananese Americans qualify for little in the way of affirmative action even if they can show their ancestors were held in camps in the US during WWII.

Yeah, but those who were interned during WWII got reparations -- and then the case was closed -- even though the paltry level of reparations was insulting to some. If the newly emancipated slaves all got their 40 acres and a mule -- it would have probably been the end of the story, especially if Reconstruction didn't get hi-jacked.

Affirmative action is a very crude and imperfect way of dealing with several societal issues. It's unfair, in some respects - I concede that, but then again, like you say, life is unfair, anyway. And I doubt Obama's children would get any affirmative action these days -- my kids didn't.

With that, I'll exit this discussion over affirmative action.

[FUEGO]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Not yet! It's a precondition of affirmative action that it be preceeded by negative action -- they're not there yet. Might take some time; it would help if we first counted them as 3/5's a person, take over their lands, and deny them a right to vote. You want some of that.

Let's play fair - slave owners were in favor of counting slaves as a whole person. It was the abolitionists that wanted to count slaves as less than a person.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Yeah, but those who were interned during WWII got reparations -- and then the case was closed -- even though the paltry level of reparations was insulting to some. If the newly emancipated slaves all got their 40 acres and a mule -- it would have probably been the end of the story, especially if Reconstruction didn't get hi-jacked.

Affirmative action is a very crude and imperfect way of dealing with several societal issues. It's unfair, in some respects - I concede that, but then again, like you say, life is unfair, anyway. And I doubt Obama's children would get any affirmative action these days -- my kids didn't.

With that, I'll exit this discussion over affirmative action.

We should probably clarify that, at least in my opinion, the unfair version of affirmative action is that based only on skin color or racial heritage, regardless of current economic/social status. Frankly, I'm all for affirmative action based on helping the economically disadvantaged and the physically and/or mentally challenged.

[ladelfina]

armor99 who cares about Ebay? I am speaking about much larger themes, tides, and trends that I have gone into elsewhere: tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas, devaluation of the dollar, understatement of inflation, deregulation leading to severe credit pressures. All these things take away the purchasing power of the average person no matter who they are or what job they hold. The top 1% makes gains each year, even double-digit gains.. while the $50k worker has had real wages flat or even negative for a decade. YOU CAN ONLY KEPT THAT UP FOR SO LONG. I am looking at the larger picture and when the consumer spending engine runs out of gas (wages, saved money, credit) then it is GAME OVER for 70% of the economy.

I agree that we should all strive to be color-blind. I think Obama has done a great job of transcending racial politics.. esp.. when you look back at older-school "identity" candidates like Jackson. We've come a long way from that, thank goodness.

The problem remains that race is still correlated with economic achievement. Hence affirmative action with all its flaws. You may not be reading the posts that I am from many people who tell stories of friends and relatives, even Democrats, who just Will Not Vote For A Black. It's sad, but it's true.. so that's something America still needs to work on. Personally I see a much larger class struggle than I do a racial struggle.. but then I'm not a member of a racial minority. I imagine the path to achievement for them depends in large part on where they live.. but it is still a combination of race and class disadvantages that is hard to tease apart entirely.

youbet is right, that we need to be less simplistic.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by FUEGO

Let's play fair - slave owners were in favor of counting slaves as a whole person. It was the abolitionists that wanted to count slaves as less than a person.

Let's not leave out relevant facts in your fairness point, which is really beside the point anyway. Do you think it matters who might have originated the 3/5's compromise, enshrined in the original Constitution? The southern slave holding states wanted to count slaves as a whole person because it would have increased their proportionate representation in the House of Representatives -- while still unfairly denying slaves the right to vote. The northern states, which included many abolitionist leaning figures, didn't want their representation diluted in the House by counting the slaves.

[armor99]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Not yet! It's a precondition of affirmative action that it be preceeded by negative action -- they're not there yet. Might take some time; it would help if we first counted them as 3/5's a person, take over their lands, and deny them a right to vote. You want some of that.

If the sins of the father apply to their children as you are implying.... does everyone get that same amount of scrutiny? I personally have done nothing to anyone, so the assertion that I OWE anyone for deeds that were committed in the past is rediculous. I am sure that any of us can go back in our family tree and find members of our own family that have committed any number of horrible things. But to believe that reparations in one form or another can balance that situation just does not wash. In addition, to assert that all following generations of such people are now and forever damaged by that experience, is to absolve them of any sense of individuality or self respect. For me to believe that something that happned to my father or grandfather somehow effects me in a negative way in my life, is to believe that what... my DNA was somehow damaged in the process? This is the height of absurdness.
I have friends of many races, religions, and backgrounds. I felt comfortable enough one day to ask how some of them would feel if they ever found out they got a job, a loan, or any other form of preferential treatment because of their race, religion, or background. Each and every one of them said LOUDLY.... that they would be horribly offended! Some went so far as to say they would quit the job, or terminate the loan. Because in the taking of that job, loan, or special favor, denegrates each of them to the core. The taking of that "special" consideration actually proves what none of them believe. They are NOT inferior to anyone else. And if they are not inferior, they do not need any special favors. And that is why they are all friends of mine.... because they believe as I do.... that things in life need to be earned by your own abilities... not by the largess of others.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by youbet

We should probably clarify that, at least in my opinion, the unfair version of affirmative action is that based only on skin color or racial heritage, regardless of current economic/social status. Frankly, I'm all for affirmative action based on helping the economically disadvantaged and the physically and/or mentally challenged.

That's not called affirmative action; that's what we call "hardship" cases. Everyone is in favor of that type of help. You just want to be color-blind, period, and ignore race and perhaps gender and ethnicity because you think it's irrelevant in the decision-making process. You ought to ask yourself why "hardship" cases make sense to you -- I'm not sure you really know the answer to that, if you're having basic confusion over affirmative action -- no disrespect intended.

[ladelfina]

Daily Kos: McCain Winning Coveted "Stock Photos" Demographic?

This was sent in by a reader: apparently, the Republicans couldn't find very many African American supporters to show on the Big Screen Of Triumph, when introducing McCain (see 6:45, 7:02)... so they simply put up stock photos of black people. You know, riding bicycles and appreciating their moms and stuff. Both these images appeared in McCain's introduction, but you can also buy them for a buck or two from iStockphoto.com

youtube of video presentation at the above link




---
Some might appreciate this riff by Andrew Sullivan:

What makes me sad is how so many young people have no idea any more what conservatism could mean if it were true to itself. (I gave it my best shot in my book, "The Conservative Soul.") But the corruption of this party is so deep - morally, ethically, philosophically - McCain can't do it.
I'm sure conservatism will one day recover - because it is right about the main issues: government needs to be kept in its place, taxes should be low and budgets balanced, individuals should be able to pursue their dreams as free of government control as possible, families do matter and need to be free from government interference, free markets and enterprise are the only guarantees of prosperity, moral choices - and their consequences - should be faced by the individual responsibly, and we have to be strong in our defense and prudent in foreign policy. This is the conservatism I still believe in. Deep down, I'm sure McCain does too. But it will only come from the ashes of this fundamentalist, mean-spirited, parochial, arrogant, big-spending, irresponsible shambles of a party. We have to repudiate the party of Rove and Abramoff and Romney and Dobson and Cheney and Bush II.
Burn it down and start over.

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
I don't agree with a few of his assumptions.. but it would be nice to have a true, credible choice.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

That's not called affirmative action; that's what we call "hardship" cases. Everyone is in favor of that type of help. You just want to be color-blind, period, and ignore race and perhaps gender and ethnicity because you think it's irrelevant in the decision-making process. You ought to ask yourself why "hardship" cases make sense to you -- I'm not sure you really know the answer to that, if you're having basic confusion over affirmative action -- no disrespect intended.

Good point ChrisC. I guess affirmative action is defined as race or gender based. I'll say then that I'm for preferential treatment based on economic status and physical and mental impairment. I'm not for preferential treatment based on race, gender, religion or national origin with the exception that I am for daycare services, or other pro-children services, which often apply more to women than men.

You also make a good point when you say that you're not sure why I support preferential treatment for the economically disadvantaged and the physically and mentally challenged. I understand why I do, but I doubt that you would. I've discussed it on the board here before.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

That's not called affirmative action; that's what we call "hardship" cases. Everyone is in favor of that type of help.

Because a child raised in a low income household, regardless of "race," generally is at a real disadvantage--limited school choices, less opportunity to be exposed to successful role models, and the parental stressors that result from being poor. If a kid grows up in the inner city to poor parent(s) and still manages a 25 ACT score, I'm willing to agree that he/she may be more deserving of college admission (having overcome more obstacles) than a youngster from a wealthier home with the same score. That's may not be entirely "fair" in the view of some, but these admission decisions are often on the "whole person" concept, and overcoming significant economic hurdles should have more sway than playing on the tennis team.

What I don't want to do is give the child of a suburb-dwelling wealthy black neurosurgeon preferential treatment over the white child of a poverty-stricken Appalachian coal miner. I can't understand why this is even still a discussion in America.