Racism is Over?

[Darrin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/politics/30affirm.html?hp


Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “As we see people like Barack Obama achieve the highest office in the land and Judge Sotomayor’s own nomination to the highest court, I think it is harder and harder to see the justifications for race-conscious decisions across the board.”

:lmao I guess it's all over now.


“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in 2007, summing up his approach in one of the most memorable lines of his opinions.

Tomorrow Justice Roberts will tell us how to end all war.

[FaithInOne]

Racism will never be over. It's too great of a tool used by those it benefits most.

If government treated everyone as an individual instead of racial votes, shit would change. Whatever.

[Yonivore]

As long as racist organizations such as MALDEF, NAACP, LULAC, LA RAZA, KKK, Democrat Party, etc... exist; racism will exist.

[ChumpDumper]

As long as black people yell at white people at gas stations....

[Viva Las Espuelas]

you know Thomas Sowell was on Glenn Beck earlier this week and he commented on racism that really resonated with me. his whole segment was pretty good, but what he said was

"racism does not have a good track record. it's been tried a long time. you think by now we'd want put an end to it instead of putting it under new management."

so, so true.

[Ya Vez]

The New Black Panthers get their voter intimidation case dismissed by the justice dept. this is pretty sick.. guess the Justice dept. is politicized..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1

[Darrin]

The most overused phrase is that race is that it remains an incredibly complicated issue. It doesn't make it any less true.

The United States of America is a land of opportunity that denied that right of opportunity to generations of immigrants based on culture and skin color.

To suggest that our institutions--schools, socioeconomic background, heath and safety, status, jobs, poverty and literacy rates--properly reflect the promise of this nation is to suggest that those generations deserved the treatment they received.

To suggest that our instituations aren't affected by those policies is to turn a blind eye to the true ramificiations of social injustice and startling evidence between the rich, poor, and criminal in this country.

To suggest that this isn't an issue is to continue to deny the rights of the American people who live here. It then becomes a generational shift that throws away tons of lives as if they were trash heaped onto the earth by the scourge of racism itself. As accounts--fodder--for how horrible and egregious this country has been to its own kind. It is to cheapen the doctrine this country founded:

"All men are created Equal."

Remember that we must seek for all mankind--within our grasp--to restore the certain rights guaranteed by God.

Your responses to this thread sicken me.

[SnakeBoy]

Your responses to this thread sicken me.

I hope it's not swine flu.

[Darrin]

I hope it's not swine flu.


Something much more deadly.

[Fpoonsie]

As long as black people yell at white people at gas stations....

Preemptive strike on gas station/corner store racial tension expertly demonstrated:

3g1KcOw7zas

[George Gervin's Afro]

a majority of minorities don't like republicans... I wonder why.....


5,4,3,2,1,..

It's the democrats fault..

[boutons_deux]

BoniVore leaves out the Repugs from his list of racist orgs.

Repugs have played the racist game so hard in the South for decades that they are now insignificant anywhere but in the south.

Now the Repugs cynically play the macaca card with Jindal and the black card with RNC chairman. Hard-line Repugs extremists throw up in their mouths just thinking about those two.

[FaithInOne]

I'm not racist. I hate everyone equally.

[FaithInOne]

a majority of minorities don't like republicans... I wonder why.....


5,4,3,2,1,..

It's the democrats fault..

The conservatives have successfully been steroptyped by the left as racists. When you are not racist, but you are labeled as a racist and looked upon as a racist, you start to develop a dislike for those who are buying into the demoncat's game.

It is disgusting how the far-left has aimed to make a large portion of the black community dependent on the government. It's a shame. But what do I care :lol

I'm rich bitch honk honk
http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/chapelle.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

As long as racist organizations such as MALDEF, NAACP, LULAC, LA RAZA, KKK, Democrat Party, etc... exist; racism will exist.

You know, that logical chain doesn't make sense. Technically, it would require racist people to form those organizations. So racism must have come before the organizations, implying that the dismantling of those organizations would not end racism.

I love how you imply that the Democratic party is somehow racist, as if it's one of their planks of government, but the Republican party is somehow not. If you stopped making asinine statements like this, then maybe people would actually value your opinion.

[LnGrrrR]

The conservatives have successfully been steroptyped by the left as racists. When you are not racist, but you are labeled as a racist and looked upon as a racist, you start to develop a dislike for those who are buying into the demoncat's game.

It is disgusting how the far-left has aimed to make a large portion of the black community dependent on the government. It's a shame. But what do I care :lol

I'm rich bitch honk honk
http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/chapelle.jpg

And Faith takes the bait, hook line and sinker. Congratulations!

[Blake]

are there any examples of what Sotomayor has done specifically that deals with racial quotas?

[LnGrrrR]

are there any examples of what Sotomayor has done specifically that deals with racial quotas?

The Ricci case seems to be the main (and only) one.

[Blake]

The Ricci case seems to be the main (and only) one.

interesting.

it appears that the Ricci case will make it's way to the Supreme Court some time this month.

If she is on the Court by the time the case comes up, I wonder if Sotomayor will again rule against him again.....

hopefully Ricci wins this time. From what I gather from the info given, I hope the guy wins.


.....The Ricci Case

In 2003, the New Haven fire department had several vacancies for new lieutenants and captains. Candidates for promotion had to take a written and oral test. Candidates had three months to prepare. Ricci gave up a second job to study. Because he is dyslexic, Ricci paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes. He studied 8 to 13 hours a day. And he succeeded. Ricci's exam ranked sixth among the 77 candidates who took the test.

But New Haven's civil service board ruled that not enough minorities earned a qualifying score. The city is more than a third black. None of the 19 African-American firefighters who took the exam earned a sufficient score. The city tossed out the exam. No promotions were given. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued New Haven for discrimination.

In 2006, a Federal District Court ruled that the city had not discriminated against the white firefighters. Judge Janet Bond Arterton argued that since "the result was the same for all because the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted," no harm was done.

But in reality, the decision meant that Ricci and other qualified candidates were denied promotions because of the color of their skin. This is the essence of discrimination. The exclusion of a person from earned advancement because of his or her race. The Ricci case exemplifies decades of faulty policy that mistook equal opportunity for equal outcome.

When the case came before the three-judge panel of the New York federal appeals court, Arterton's ruling was upheld in an unsigned and, as the New York Times described it, "unusually terse decision." One of the judges who upheld the ruling was Sotomayor.

Judge Jose Cabranes' dissenting opinion noted that the ruling "lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal" and "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," concluding that the "perfunctory" actions of the majority in their decision "rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

As Slate's Emily Bazelon wrote, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed."

In April, the Supreme Court took up the case in oral argument. The ruling is expected in June. Most legal scholars expect Ricci to prevail. But the debate over affirmative action will continue.

Discrimination against white males, termed "positive discrimination," is at the essence of affirmative action law and policy.

Affirmative action made sense at its inception. Rampant discrimination against minorities and women only began to subside in the 1960s. Much, though not all, has changed. Now it comes to us to decide whether affirmative action should change as well.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/28/obama_sotomayor_ricci_and_white_male_privilege__96 703.html

[Wild Cobra]

Racism will exist as long as the likes of Jesse Jackson says it's there.

They have to make money somehow. It's all they know! What would they do for a job if racism disappeared?

[LnGrrrR]

Blake, Winehole posted her data about cases dealing with race in the other thread about this. Interesting stuff.

[Winehole23]

See also Greenwald's in depth take on the Pappas case here (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/sotomayor/index.html).


The facts of Pappas are simple. The plaintiff was a white employee of the New York City Police Department -- working in a clerical position in information management -- when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail. Pappas admitted doing it, and said he did it to protest the charity requests. The NYPD fired him for having sent the replies on the ground that it did not want racist employees. He sued the NYPD, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by the firing, because he was clearly fired due to the content of the political views he expressed.


The district court judge dismissed Pappas' case, finding that the NYPD had a legitimate need to exclude racists from its employ, a need which outweighed Pappas' First Amendment rights. On appeal, two of the three judges on the Second Circuit panel agreed with that ruling and dismissed Pappas' case. But not Sotomayor. She wrote a dissent (http://openjurist.org/290/f3d/143/pappas-v-giuliani) emphasizing the strong First Amendment interests of Pappas' that were being violated -- however contemptible it was, it was pure political expression -- and she argued that it he was entitled to a jury trial to decide if the NYPD, under Supeme Court precedent, had any right to fire him for it. This is the crux of her ruling:

In the typical public employee speech case where negative publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech -- which others have publicized -- in an effort to diffuse some potential disruption. In this case, whatever disruption occurred was the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results of its investigation, which revealed the source of the anonymous mailings. It was, apparently, the NYPD itself that disclosed this information to the media and the public. Thus it is not empty rhetoric when Pappas argues that he was terminated because of his opinions. Ante, at 147-48. The majority's decision allows a government employer to launch an investigation, ferret out an employee's views anonymously expressed away from the workplace and unrelated to the employee's job, bring the speech to the attention of the media and the community, hold a public disciplinary hearing, and then terminate the employee because, at that point, the government "reasonably believed that the speech would potentially... disrupt the government's activities." Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.1998). This is a perversion of our "reasonable belief" standard, and does not give due respect to the First Amendment interests at stake.
As someone who has a lot of respect for those who defend the First Amendment rights of people expressing despised views -- that, after all, is where First Amendment rights are typically abridged -- this dissent of hers substantially elevates my view of her as a judge. It's not easy to be the only one of four federal judges in New York to rule in favor of a white racist NYPD employee on First Amendment grounds. More important, standing alone, Sotomayor's dissent ought to put an end to the obnoxious and inflammatory claim that she has a "race-based" approach to the law whereby she ignores legal principles in order to rule against white males and in favor of racial minorities.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm surprised there's not already a law stating that you can be fired for racist opinions like that made public. For instance, in the military I know you can't be a part of any group that espouses racism or similar philosophies.

I guess the military is a different beast altogether.

[PixelPusher]

It's not easy to be the only one of four federal judges in New York to rule in favor of a white racist NYPD employee on First Amendment grounds.

See! That proves it! She's racist!

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

I guess the military is a different beast altogether.The military has its own code of justice, so yes.

[Fpoonsie]

I'm surprised there's not already a law stating that you can be fired for racist opinions like that made public. For instance, in the military I know you can't be a part of any group that espouses racism or similar philosophies.

I guess the military is a different beast altogether.

Wouldn't a law require an explanation/concrete definition of "racism"? And wouldn't that "explanation" be TERRIBLY subjective?

[DarrinS]

I'm surprised there's not already a law stating that you can be fired for racist opinions like that made public.

I'm not surprised that you're surprised.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not surprised that you're surprised.

And what does that mean?

Oh, I know, that I'm a lib so I should expect to have all my rights taken away, right?

I've been in since I was 17, almost ten years, and in the military you're not allowed to be a member of hate groups, participate in rallies in uniform, or even speak your mind politically in a public setting while giving the appearance that you stand for the AF on an issue. The only approved political affiliation/endorsement that is allowed, AFAIK, is being able to place a bumper sticker on your car.

When you've lived 10 years with that atmosphere, doesn't it seem a bit natural that you think OTHER places would be similar?

Of course, if you've never actually put on the uniform and given up some of those rights, I guess it's tough to understand.

[LnGrrrR]

Wouldn't a law require an explanation/concrete definition of "racism"? And wouldn't that "explanation" be TERRIBLY subjective?

I can't say as to what's allowable or not, but here's the reg on it...(note: it's pretty long)


3. Prohibited Activities.

Air Force members may not:

3.1. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, to affect its course or outcome, to
solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or to require or solicit political contributions from others.
3.2. Be a candidate for, or hold civil office, except as authorized in paragraphs 5. and 6.
3.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions, or make public
speeches in the course of such activity.
3.4. Allow, or cause to be published, partisan political articles signed or authorized by the member for
soliciting votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate.
3.5. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.
3.6. Speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind for promoting a partisan political party or
candidate.
3.7. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan
political party or candidate.
3.8. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group, or distribute
partisan political literature.
3.9. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on election
day.
3.10. Solicit or otherwise engage in fund-raising activities in federal offices or facilities, including
military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.
3.11. March or ride in a partisan political parade.
3.12. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls, if the effort
is organized by or associated with a partisan political party or candidate.
3.13. Attend, as an official representative of the Armed Forces, partisan political events, even without
actively participating.
3.14. Engage in the public or organized recruitment of others to become partisan candidates for nomination
or election to a civil office.
AFI51-902 1 JANUARY 1996 3
3.15. Make campaign contributions to a partisan political candidate.
3.16. Make campaign contributions to another member of the Armed Forces or an officer or
employee of the federal government for promoting a political objective or cause.
3.17. Solicit or receive a campaign contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or from a
civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause.
3.18. Use contemptuous words against the office holders described in Title 10, United States Code,
Section 888.
3.19. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster on the top or side of a member's private vehicle
(as distinguished from a political sticker).
3.20. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and other such fund-raising
events.
4. Permitted Activities.


Air Force members may:

4.1. Register to vote, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not
as a representative of the Armed Forces.
4.2. Make monetary contributions to a political organization or political committee favoring a particular
candidate or slate of candidates, subject to limitations under Title 2, United States Code, Section
441a and Title 18, United States Code, Section 607.
4.3. Attend political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.
4.4. Join a political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform.
4.5. Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party,
does not interfere with military duties, is performed while out of uniform, and has the prior approval
of the major command commander or equivalent authority. This approval authority may be delegated,
but not below the level of installation commander.
4.6. Sign a petition for specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate's name on an official
election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity
and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.
4.7. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member's personal views concerning
public issues, if those views do not attempt to promote a partisan political cause.
4.8. Display a political sticker on the member's private vehicle, or wear a political button when not in
uniform and not on duty.
4.9. Write a personal letter, not for publication, expressing preference for a specific political candidate
or cause, if the action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign on behalf of a partisan
political cause or candidate.
5. Candidacy for Elective Civil Office.


Air Force members:

5.1. May not campaign as a candidate for nomination or as a nominee for civil office. Where the circumstances
justify, and when request is made through channels to, and approved by, HQ USAF/JAG,
a member may be permitted to file evidence of nomination or candidacy for nomination as required by
law. Such permission will not authorize activity while on active duty that is otherwise prohibited by this instruction. Absent compelling reasons, a request will normally not be approved, unless the member
is likely to separate from active duty or active duty for training at least 30 days before the scheduled
election.
5.2. May not become a candidate for any civil office while serving an initial tour of extended active
duty or a tour of extended active duty that the member agreed to perform as a condition to receiving
schooling or training wholly or partly at US expense.

[LnGrrrR]

As far as determining what's 'racist' or 'extremist' or not, it's probably down to your supervisor. If you think it's not racist, you could try to fight it, but no way you don't get shot down first for being insubordinate, or for not following orders, or some other thing.

You don't usually get to hedge those type of things in the military.

[FaithInOne]

My god how watered down this society is becoming.

Drama drama drama drama Drama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama drama im offended im offended im offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offended cry cry cry cry cry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry cry someone owes me something someone owes me something someone owes me something someone owes me something someone owes me something perfect world

[LnGrrrR]

My god how watered down this society is becoming.

Drama drama drama drama Drama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama dramaDrama drama drama drama im offended im offended im offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offendedim offended im offended cry cry cry cry cry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry crycry cry cry cry someone owes me something someone owes me something someone owes me something someone owes me something someone owes me something perfect world

Was this a response to someone or something, or just a random observation?

[Winehole23]

Was this a response to someone or something, or just a random observation?LockBeard specializes in content-free non-sequiturs.

[ChumpDumper]

His post qualifies as drama.

[hope4dopes]

You know, that logical chain doesn't make sense. Technically, it would require racist people to form those organizations. So racism must have come before the organizations, implying that the dismantling of those organizations would not end racism.

I love how you imply that the Democratic party is somehow racist, as if it's one of their planks of government, but the Republican party is somehow not. If you stopped making asinine statements like this, then maybe people would actually value your opinion.

Ethnic politics is a plank of the democrat party and has been since the time of Tammany hall.Al sharpton, Jesse jackson democrats the only member of the KKK in congress Byrd from W.Va. a democrat... ethnic politics helped the democrat party survive after the civil war when almost all Blacks voted for the party of Lincoln the republicans even Martin Luther King voted for Esienhower and Nixon.

His logic makes perfect sense in moderen america where the democrat party must balkanize the nation to maintain political power.

[Yonivore]

Ethnic politics is a plank of the democrat party and has been since the time of Tammany hall.Al sharpton, Jesse jackson democrats the only member of the KKK in congress Byrd from W.Va. a democrat... ethnic politics helped the democrat party survive after the civil war when almost all Blacks voted for the party of Lincoln the republicans even Martin Luther King voted for Esienhower and Nixon.

His logic makes perfect sense in moderen america where the democrat party must balkanize the nation to maintain political power.
Hope makes a good point LnGrrrR. Affirmative Action; racist. Racial hiring quotas; racist. The list goes on...

So, what plank of the Conservative platform proves them racist?

[ploto]

I think that today it has almost as much to do with oppression of the poor as it does with oppression of minorities.

[Yonivore]

I think that today it has almost as much to do with oppression of the poor as it does with oppression of minorities.
What do you mean?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ethnic politics is a plank of the democrat party and has been since the time of Tammany hall.Al sharpton, Jesse jackson democrats the only member of the KKK in congress Byrd from W.Va. a democrat... ethnic politics helped the democrat party survive after the civil war when almost all Blacks voted for the party of Lincoln the republicans even Martin Luther King voted for Esienhower and Nixon.

His logic makes perfect sense in moderen america where the democrat party must balkanize the nation to maintain political power.


Sincerely,


A Ditto Head

[George Gervin's Afro]

What do you mean?

You need to spell it out for yoni.

[Yonivore]

You need to spell it out for yoni.
Particulary when he trying to conflate racism to the poor. Yeah. Spell it out for Yonivore.

[Marcus Bryant]

Both parties place the race card, among other "cards", all the fucking time. It keeps the attention of the masses away from their fuckups. The scary thing is when partisans believe only the other side does that.

[hope4dopes]

Sincerely,


A Ditto Head

spoken like a disciple of jennnine garafalo

[hope4dopes]

The democrats have done about as much for race relations as it has for the labor movment. used them like a paper condom

[Wild Cobra]

I think something to keep in mind is the difference between racism and prejudice.

We pre-judge people all the time by the way they talk, carry themselves, clothes they wear, skin color etc. That is not racism! Even I use the terms wrong at time.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think something to keep in mind is the difference between racism and prejudice.

We pre-judge people all the time by the way they talk, carry themselves, clothes they wear, skin color etc. That is not racism! Even I use the terms wrong at time.

Yeah, a fear of black surgeons is borne of prejudice, man -- not racism!

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, a fear of black surgeons is borne of prejudice, man -- not racism!
Wow...

Just have to bring that up. Fine. Why can't you acknowledge that there are real fears that go along with Affirmative Action?

I never said it was right to think such things, just that Affirmative Action hurts the black people who do accel.

Affirmative action is never right, and it is Reverse Discrimination!

[ChumpDumper]

Wow...

Just have to bring that up. Fine. Why can't you acknowledge that there are real fears that go along with Affirmative Action?Do you fear black surgeons?

[DarrinS]

Prejudice is actually quite natural -- as opposed to racism.


If you see a group of young, white guys that have their heads shaved and have tattoos all over their arms, you might assume they are skinheads, but they may be marines.


Similarly, you may see a group of young black guys, wearing baggy pants, caps cocked to the side, and a lot of jewelry, and assume they are gang members, even though they may not be.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just have to bring that up. Fine. Why can't you acknowledge that there are real fears that go along with Affirmative Action?

That's your cited fear, not mine.

I don't find that there are "real fears" that go along with Affirmative Action, because I think the professional processes ensure that all such fears are eradicated as the process wears along. And I've been in too many places where the programs you're worried about are in place and have learned through those experiences that the fears that you express are unfounded. In years at an Ivy League school, the only person whose qualifications to be in school that I ever questioned was a big white dude from New Jersey. In years in a professional school, the people who worried me most in terms of being poor professionals were the professional legatees and trust fund babies.

But you keep up the inherent doubts about the quality of black surgeons or latina judges.

[Winehole23]

But you keep up the inherent doubts about the quality of black surgeons or latina judges.Based on prejudice, not racism. *Discrimination* shouldn't be a dirty word either IMO. Time was, it meant one had keen or discerning judgment.

Time to bring it back. For too long vindictive libs have used it as a club to beat blameless whites for non-existent racism, to assuage their own guilty consciences.

[PixelPusher]

Based on prejudice, not racism. *Discrimination* shouldn't be a dirty word either IMO. Time was, it meant one had keen or discerning judgment.

Time to bring it back. For too long vindictive libs have used it as a club to beat blameless whites for non-existent racism, to assuage their own guilty consciences.

You'll need to blue that for WC and DarrinS.

[Yonivore]

Based on prejudice, not racism. *Discrimination* shouldn't be a dirty word either IMO. Time was, it meant one had keen or discerning judgment.
Except when you discriminate on the basis of an "accident" of birth; then, it is a bad thing -- and a dirty word. Discriminating against someone because they are of a particular race, sex, physical handicap, etc... is wrong. Period.

Now, having said that, should it be illegal? I don't believe government should stop people from discriminating -- outside of government. Originally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only applied to government agencies. Somewhere along the way, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution was tortured out of all recognition to drag private commercial enterprise into the mix.

A person has the right, under the first amendment, to associate with whomever they want. That right should extend to employers having the right to enter into any employment agreement they wish, with whomever they want. And, they should also have the right to offer their services or goods to anyone they like -- or withhold them from anyone they like.


Time to bring it back. For too long vindictive libs have used it as a club to beat blameless whites for non-existent racism, to assuage their own guilty consciences.
Are you being sarcastic? That doesn't sound like you Winehole. But, I agree.

[Winehole23]

http://australiantyrecovers.com/images/ktg1.gif

[Yonivore]

http://australiantyrecovers.com/images/ktg1.gif
What, you finally make some sense?

[Winehole23]

Except when you discriminate on the basis of an "accident" of birth; then, it is a bad thing -- and a dirty word. Discriminating against someone because they are of a particular race, sex, physical handicap, etc... is wrong. Period.Correction: If it ever happened, it would be wrong.

Happily, this is not the case. Racism, sexism and discrimination against the handicapped are all imaginary ills, except where civil rights and feminism create them to justify their legal fiefs.


Now, having said that, should it be illegal? I don't believe government should stop people from discriminating -- outside of government. Originally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only applied to government agencies. Somewhere along the way, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution was tortured out of all recognition to drag private commercial enterprise into the mix.To remedy imagined wrongs? How absurd.


A person has the right, under the first amendment, to associate with whomever they want. That right should extend to employers having the right to enter into any employment agreement they wish, with whomever they want. And, they should also have the right to offer their services or goods to anyone they like -- or withhold them from anyone they like.No harm in that, since discrimination in the pejorative sense no longer exists, right?



Are you being sarcastic? That doesn't sound like you Winehole. But, I agree.Serious as a heart attack. Let's dial it back to 1937.

[PixelPusher]

Except when you discriminate on the basis of an "accident" of birth; then, it is a bad thing -- and a dirty word. Discriminating against someone because they are of a particular race, sex, physical handicap, etc... is wrong. Period.

Now, having said that, should it be illegal? I don't believe government should stop people from discriminating -- outside of government. Originally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only applied to government agencies. Somewhere along the way, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution was tortured out of all recognition to drag private commercial enterprise into the mix.

A person has the right, under the first amendment, to associate with whomever they want. That right should extend to employers having the right to enter into any employment agreement they wish, with whomever they want. And, they should also have the right to offer their services or goods to anyone they like -- or withhold them from anyone they like.


http://www.photosfan.com/images/black-and-colored-drinking-water1.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

A person has the right, under the first amendment, to associate with whomever they want. That right should extend to employers having the right to enter into any employment agreement they wish, with whomever they want. And, they should also have the right to offer their services or goods to anyone they like -- or withhold them from anyone they like.

Wow, I never thought about it that way, but it's true. I'm glad we are past that level of discrimination and racism.

[LnGrrrR]

A person has the right, under the first amendment, to associate with whomever they want. That right should extend to employers having the right to enter into any employment agreement they wish, with whomever they want. And, they should also have the right to offer their services or goods to anyone they like -- or withhold them from anyone they like.


Yoni, thanks for this comment, as I think it quite interesting.

Should society make laws that support the 'weakest' as it were? Or should we let the free market rule out, and assume that those weakest who aren't being utilized will eventually be utilized by someone smart enough to recognize it?

I can definitely see a reason for the current laws, as in a free market system, I just see no way from a handicapped person to make as much as a non-handicapped person in a great majority of jobs. Some people will say, (like Nietzche, I believe it was), that the stronger society, the more non-productive people it can support, so it is only right to do such. Others will take the mind that it's not fair to rebalance the workflow... sucks that he's handicapped, but it shouldn't cut into a healthy person's bottom line.

I'm ambivalent about it, personally.

[Blake]

A person has the right, under the first amendment, to associate with whomever they want. That right should extend to employers having the right to enter into any employment agreement they wish, with whomever they want. And, they should also have the right to offer their services or goods to anyone they like -- or withhold them from anyone they like.



aside of course from withholding such things from people based on the color of their skin, their gender, etc......

I would hope that's understood, but in this forum, you never know.

[Blake]

A person has the right, under the first amendment, to associate with whomever they want. That right should extend to employers having the right to enter into any employment agreement they wish, with whomever they want. And, they should also have the right to offer their services or goods to anyone they like -- or withhold them from anyone they like.



aside of course from withholding such things from people based on the color of their skin, their gender, etc......

I would hope that's understood, but in this forum with posters being afraid of Black surgeons, you never know.

[Winehole23]

aside of course from withholding such things from people based on the color of their skin, their gender, etc......

I would hope that's understood, but in this forum, you never know.I think Yoni is saying discrimination based on accidents of birth is immoral, but shouldn't be illegal. He seems to think racism is a chimera, except as perpetrated by race-hustlers, and so doesn't see the harm of stripping the civil rights law that gave effect to the 14th Amendment in the 20th century. All that is ancient history to him.

[FromWayDowntown]

If the market supports a privatization of Jim Crow, then so be it, I guess?

[Yonivore]

aside of course from withholding such things from people based on the color of their skin, their gender, etc......
Why?


I would hope that's understood, but in this forum with posters being afraid of Black surgeons, you never know.
No, it's not understood. Racism, bigotry, and discrimination shouldn't be crimes except when perpetrated by the government or their agents.

You can blame Affirmative Action (a racist policy) for the fact that black surgeons skills are questioned.

[Wild Cobra]

You can blame Affirmative Action (a racist policy) for the fact that black surgeons skills are questioned.
Exactly. Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you question white surgeons' skills because of legacy admissions policies?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you question white surgeons' skills because of legacy admissions policies?
Who said they have to be white?

Being a chump like always. Finding another path to ignore the topic. I think anyone in their right mind disagrees with legacy policies for the same reasons. At least a white person doesn't get favoritism in the job market after getting favoritism in college, unless it's daddy's business, or a friends. Affirmative action has continued in the recent past to job hiring as well.

There no defense for affirmative action. Why are you trying?

[ChumpDumper]

Who said they have to be white?So you question any surgeon who could possibly be a legacy?

[ChumpDumper]

At least a white person doesn't get favoritism in the job market after getting favoritism in college:rollin

[Wild Cobra]

So you question any surgeon who could possibly be a legacy?
Not so readily. OK, he had a favored college admission. Affirmative Action isn't going to help with the job itself like it has historically with blacks. He only get's a leg up there if there is a legacy connection to work also. That happens anywhere, with any race.

Any more stupid questions?

[Yonivore]

Do you question white surgeons' skills because of legacy admissions policies?
I'm not certain there's a legacy admissions policy at medical schools.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not certain there's a legacy admissions policy at medical schools.
I cannot think of any, but I don't know. Maybe I should ask a friend at OHSU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OHSU). I was humoring the shithead anyway, due to the possibility. I think he's just making shit up.

[Blake]

At least a white person doesn't get favoritism in the job market after getting favoritism in college, unless it's daddy's business, or a friends.

idiot


........More specifically, the latter results indicate that, among college-educated workers, the wages of African American men are still about 13% lower than comparable white men.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/3/8/0/p103802_index.html

it's almost tiresome to read failed WC post after failed WC post....

almost.

[Wild Cobra]

idiot



it's almost tiresome to read failed WC post after failed WC post....

almost.
I don't disagree there is a statistical disadvantage for blacks. I never said that. I said affirmative action is wrong. Employers do discriminate. Even when it's not on skin color, tell me. How many blacks speak well, or is it closer to ebonics? Communications skills are one key element to employment. I have seen more problems with the way people carry themselves and speak, rather than the color of their skin, when it comes to employment interviews. Employers in good paying jobs do not want someone who acts and talks like a thug. That goes for whites, and any other race as well. It's just a statistical truth that most blacks have poor vocabulary skills.

Tell me I'm wrong about the communications and mannerism.

[Blake]

Communications skills are one key element to employment.

Communication is a singular word in this context.

...or is this a form of ebonics that I'm not aware of and you're just giving us an example of it?



too much.

[Blake]

It's just a statistical truth that most blacks have poor vocabulary skills.


ehhhh.....

[ChumpDumper]

ehhhh.....Damn WC, did one of them yell at you at a gas station?

[Wild Cobra]

Communication is a singular word in this context.

...or is this a form of ebonics that I'm not aware of and you're just giving us an example of it?



too much.
Never said my verbal skills were good, and yes, I have had it hard finding employment when I needed to.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't disagree there is a statistical disadvantage for blacks. I never said that. I said affirmative action is wrong. Employers do discriminate. Even when it's not on skin color, tell me. How many blacks speak well, or is it closer to ebonics? Communications skills are one key element to employment. I have seen more problems with the way people carry themselves and speak, rather than the color of their skin, when it comes to employment interviews. Employers in good paying jobs do not want someone who acts and talks like a thug. That goes for whites, and any other race as well. It's just a statistical truth that most blacks have poor vocabulary skills.

Tell me I'm wrong about the communications and mannerism.

I'll repost what I said earlier and what you've never dealt with:

I don't find [in my experience] that there are "real fears" that go along with Affirmative Action, because I think the professional processes ensure that all such fears are eradicated as the process wears along. And I've been in too many places where the programs you're worried about are in place and have learned through those experiences that the fears that you express are unfounded. In years at an Ivy League school, the only person whose qualifications to be in school that I ever questioned was a big white dude from New Jersey. In years in a professional school, the people who worried me most in terms of being poor professionals were the professional legatees and trust fund babies.


* * * *

Ultimately, the sorts of people that you fear are getting preferrential treatment and becoming presumptively-underqualified surgeons are an entirely different group of people than those who you say are getting jobs despite communication quirks. I'd challenge your assessment that "most blacks have poor vocabulary skills," but there's little I can do to convince you to disavow the sort of bias that leads to such delusional conclusions. Are there a substantial number of black Americans who speak poorly? Sure. Are there an equally substantial number of white Americans who speak poorly? Absolutely.

There are, to me, still serious systemic inequalities that make things like consideration of race a reasonable question in arenas like college admissions. Admittedly, that might just be me.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll repost what I said earlier and what you've never dealt with:

I don't find [in my experience] that there are "real fears" that go along with Affirmative Action, because I think the professional processes ensure that all such fears are eradicated as the process wears along. And I've been in too many places where the programs you're worried about are in place and have learned through those experiences that the fears that you express are unfounded. I understand. Since you haven't experienced it, it doesn't exist.

OK...


In years at an Ivy League school, the only person whose qualifications to be in school that I ever questioned was a big white dude from New Jersey. In years in a professional school, the people who worried me most in terms of being poor professionals were the professional legatees and trust fund babies.
I wont argue with that, but do two wrongs make a right? That's often what affirmative action has done. To meet a quota system, higher qualified candidates would be bumped out of a slot to make racial quotas. I think that's been done away with, but it used to be the commonplace.


Ultimately, the sorts of people that you fear are getting preferrential treatment and becoming presumptively-underqualified surgeons are an entirely different group of people than those who you say are getting jobs despite communication quirks. I'd challenge your assessment that "most blacks have poor vocabulary skills," but there's little I can do to convince you to disavow the sort of bias that leads to such delusional conclusions. Are there a substantial number of black Americans who speak poorly? Sure. Are there an equally substantial number of white Americans who speak poorly? Absolutely.
Well, in my experience, far more blacks speak poorly than white. Being in the Army for 11 years, I saw a good mix of people from all over. I say there's a significant difference.


There are, to me, still serious systemic inequalities that make things like consideration of race a reasonable question in arenas like college admissions. Admittedly, that might just be me.
How can you say someone should get preferred treatment based on race? Would it be right just to higher a black woman to fill a slot just to make a quota? If she's the best applicant, then yes. If she's not the best, it's a disservice to the person who is the best for the slot.

[Blake]

Are there a substantial number of black Americans who speak poorly? Sure. Are there an equally substantial number of white Americans who speak poorly? Absolutely.


"I've been in the Bible every day since I've been the president." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Nov. 12, 2008

"This thaw -- took a while to thaw, it's going to take a while to unthaw." --George W. Bush, on liquidity in the markets, Alexandria, La., Oct. 20, 2008

"Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and persecuted." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2008

"I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand -- but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, 'low gas.'" --George W. Bush, Washington D.C., July 15, 2008

"And they have no disregard for human life." --George W. Bush, on the brutality of Afghan fighters, Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008

"There is some who say that perhaps freedom is not universal. Maybe it's only Western people that can self-govern. Maybe it's only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government. I reject that notion." --George W. Bush, London, June 16, 2008

[FromWayDowntown]

I understand. Since you haven't experienced it, it doesn't exist.

OK...

Not true. What I'm saying is that I was on the front lines -- in places where racial preferences are most significantly in play -- and didn't discern that the racial minorities who had been admitted to highly-competitive programs were at all unqualified to have been admitted. That is, ultimately, what your concern for black surgeons is about -- the notion that those who have been given that opportunity didn't actually deserve it because they weren't sufficiently qualified to beat out the readily-assumed qualifications of their white counterparts. Were that assumption true, of course, it would be patently obvious to a white guy (like me) that the racial minorities in such programs would demonstrate a clear lack of qualifications to be there. And I'm telling you that anecdotally, your assumption is nonsense.

That's all the more true because if such individuals were under-qualified to compete in those programs, they wouldn't succeed within them. But, again, that's not what I've seen and experienced. I'd be extremely interested for you to put forward some proof to tell me that my observations and experience are somehow unusual. I don't think you can do it.


I wont argue with that, but do two wrongs make a right? That's often what affirmative action has done. To meet a quota system, higher qualified candidates would be bumped out of a slot to make racial quotas. I think that's been done away with, but it used to be the commonplace.

Frankly, I'd think that in most cases, we're talking about competition on the margins and not instances where there's a gigantic disparity and race is the sole factor favoring the ultimately-chosen candidate.


Well, in my experience, far more blacks speak poorly than white. Being in the Army for 11 years, I saw a good mix of people from all over. I say there's a significant difference.

Or, as you've insinuated in other conversations about these issues, you're just generally inclined to see things in a way that allows you to conclude that there's a significant difference.


How can you say someone should get preferred treatment based on race? Would it be right just to higher a black woman to fill a slot just to make a quota? If she's the best applicant, then yes. If she's not the best, it's a disservice to the person who is the best for the slot.

I suppose we're talking about different things now. The black surgeon example of yours has more to do with admissions to colleges and professional programs than being hired to work a job. Obviously, there's a difference at least insofar as multiple individuals are admitted into schools and professional programs while, in most instances, only one person can get a job. With that said, I do think that it's really hard to ignore the fact that the socio-economic disadvantages in predominantly black neighborhoods tend to be substantial and that even those most devoted to "bettering themselves" face an automatic assumption that they lack the qualifications of those who come from better neighborhoods. I can't imagine that you'd dispute that a student from a highly-competitive school in an upper-middle class suburb who makes B's is quite likely to be seen as a better student than someone coming from a barely-worthy-of-accreditation school in a poverty-class urban enclave who makes straight A's.

It strikes me as a relatively self-fulfilling matter to refuse to give a slight advantageous nudge in that comparison to the straight A student who has worked hard, despite an oppressive and uninspiring environment. By affording that student an opportunity that would likely be denied in a world where comparisons with other applicants are based solely on objective evaluations of their qualifications is to deny her the opportunity to overcome her environment and, effectively, sentencing her to a life in that environment simply by chance of her birth into it. It's a disservice to her to say that her ability to overcome those substantial obstacles to even reach the point of being competitive with the B student somehow shouldn't be considered in evaluating the two of them.

[Wild Cobra]

I suppose we're talking about different things now. The black surgeon example of yours has more to do with admissions to colleges and professional programs than being hired to work a job.
No, because of affirmative action, the job as well.

Can you tell me that schools always fail a student deserving such when the fear of being sued for racism exists?

Can you tell me that employers haven't been required to consider racial quota's that might let this now, under qualified graduate in?

I have no idea what the real numbers are, and I'll bet they are small. My whole point from the start, was that affirmative action has created this as a fear, valid or not. That affirmative action, in the end, does a disservice to minorities that are truly qualified, because of the fear they are a product of affirmative action. You'll never hear an employer say he chose a white candidate over a black for this fear, because he would then be sued in a heartbeat. I'll bet it happens though. It's now not a case of racism, but prejudice, created by affirmative action.

[Winehole23]

If we've really oppressed poor whitey, you can be sure our civil rights apparatus will eventually rehabilitate poor whitey as an official victim and order damages for all the hurt and injustice inflicted by our sated cosmopolitan elites over the years.

:violin

[Marcus Bryant]

I oppose preferential treatment of any kind as it relates to employment, education, benefits, etc... offered by a government. Lest we forget about legacy admits at public universities. Of course, if the public sector were not so large, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

[Winehole23]

The public magnification of the problem is indeed unfortunate for all involved.

And for any casual bystanders apt to be coarsened by the debate itself.