Abort Every Black Baby In This Country, And Your Crime Rate Would Go Down [Archive]

Roxie

09-30-2005, 01:41 PM

? i have linked to things in explorer real easily. What's the prob?
No clue. It just freezes, says it has to shut the program down and when I come back, the edits aren't there.

Third time's the charm.

Bennett under fire for remarks on blacks, crime

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats blasted former Education Secretary William Bennett on Thursday for saying that aborting "every black baby in this country" would reduce the crime rate, and demanded their Republican counterparts do the same.

"This is precisely the kind of insensitive, hurtful and ignorant rhetoric that Americans have grown tired of," said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois.

Bennett, who held prominent posts in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told a caller to his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.

"That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, called on President Bush to condemn the comments by Bennett, who was anti-drug chief in Bush's father's administration.

"What could possibly have possessed Secretary Bennett to say those words, especially at this time?" Pelosi asked. "What could he possibly have been thinking? This is what is so alarming about his words."

Bennett stood by his comments Thursday night.

"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward. Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your crime rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue that the ends can justify the means," he told CNN.

"I'm not racist, and I'll put my record up against theirs," referring to Pelosi and other critics. "I've been a champion of the real civil rights issue of our times -- equal educational opportunities for kids."

"We've got to have candor and talk about these things while we reject wild hypotheses," Bennett said.

"I don't think people have the right to be angry, if they look at the whole thing. But if they get a selective part of my comment, I can see why they would be angry. If somebody thought I was advocating that, they ought to be angry. I would be angry."

"But that's not what I advocate."

Asked if he owed people an apology, Bennett replied, "I don't think I do. I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an apology."

Bennett served as Reagan's chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1981-1985 and secretary of education from 1985-1988. From 1989-1990, he served as "drug czar" in the administration of the elder Bush.

Rush called on "my friends, the responsible Republicans" to rebuke the former Cabinet official by backing a House resolution condemning his remarks as "outrageous racism of the most bigoted and ignorant kind."

"Where is the indignation from the GOP, as one of their prominent members talk about aborting an entire race of Americans as a way of ridding this country of crime?" asked Rush, a former Black Panther. "How ridiculous! How asinine! How insane can one be?"

He called instead for "aborting" Republican policies "which have hurt the disadvantaged, the poor, average Americans for the benefit of large corporations."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he was "appalled" by Bennett's remarks.

"The Republican Party has recently taken great pains to reach out to the African-American community, and I hope that they will be swift in condemning Mr. Bennett's comments as nothing short of callous and ignorant," said Reid, D-Nevada.

And Bruce Gordon, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, demanded an apology from Bennett and the Salem Radio Network, which airs his radio program.

"In 2005, there is no place for the kind of racist statement made by Bennett," Gordon said in a written statement. "While the entire nation is trying to help survivors, black and white, to recover from the damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is unconscionable for Bennett to make such ignorant and insensitive comments."

A man who answered the phone at the network said no one would be available to comment until Friday.

Bennett's 1993 repackaging of traditional morality tales, "The Book of Virtues," became a bestseller, and Bennett became a popular lecturer on moral issues. But in 2003, stung by news reports that he had lost millions of dollars in Las Vegas and Atlantic City over the last decade, he publicly renounced gambling and vowed to stay away from the slots from then on.

He is a Fox News contributor and chairman of "Americans for Victory over Terrorism," which his Web site calls "a project dedicated to sustaining and strengthening public opinion as the war on terrorism moves forward."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/index.html

Zonehunter1

09-30-2005, 01:42 PM

There ya go.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 01:42 PM

No. It does not look like sarcasm at all. Because, y'know, you can't really see the tone of ones voice over the internet.
OH get off it.

It was so blindingly obvious that if it were a snake it woulda bit you.

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 01:51 PM

Jay

09-30-2005, 01:57 PM

I keep trying to link this article for you guys, but explorer isn't cooperating.

I have an idea. (http://www.firefox.com)

Zonehunter1

09-30-2005, 01:58 PM

that's just crazy enough to work!

Jay

09-30-2005, 02:01 PM

You following me around or something?

Kash

09-30-2005, 02:06 PM

Actually, this isn't true at all. If there were fewer people being born, the crime rate would actually go up. Same amount of criminals, fewer people to count in the "per capita" side.

However, on the good side of the equasion, if you aborted every baby for about 60 years or so, the crime rate would go down to zero.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 02:06 PM

I have an idea. (http://www.firefox.com)
can't d/l stuff at work, kiddies.

Jay

09-30-2005, 02:14 PM

The point is more the site itself, Roxie. I'm rescuing you from the evil that is Explorer. :)

Azrael

09-30-2005, 02:16 PM

My roommate was a coms major. I remember talking to him about the media once. He told me that blacks don't necessarily commit more crimes than whites do...that's just what the media shows you. News broadcasts can't possibly cover every little crime that goes down within their broadcast area...so they pick and choose. Stories involving crimes performed by blacks are picked the most.

Unfortunately, I don't have any links or statistics to back this up...but my roommate and I had quite the convo about it, and he was very knowledgeable on the subject.

What the guy said was really stupid. Really, really stupid. Should he be fired? No. I believe in freedom of speech. Say whatever the hell you want. Go on the radio and support the KKK for all I care. I don't have to listen, and I certainly don't have to agree, but you should have the right to say it at least.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 02:22 PM

The point is more the site itself, Roxie. I'm rescuing you from the evil that is Explorer. :)
Yes, I know.

I use it at home. Thanks.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 02:32 PM

My roommate was a coms major. I remember talking to him about the media once. He told me that blacks don't necessarily commit more crimes than whites do...that's just what the media shows you. News broadcasts can't possibly cover every little crime that goes down within their broadcast area...so they pick and choose. Stories involving crimes performed by blacks are picked the most.

Unfortunately, I don't have any links or statistics to back this up...but my roommate and I had quite the convo about it, and he was very knowledgeable on the subject.
Your friend is correct.

check out The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465014909/qid=1128090381/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0311015-9020116?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Killuminati

09-30-2005, 03:27 PM

Damn that guy is a jackass. Why in the world would he say that especially being a politician.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 03:30 PM

Wow, Pelosi is like the world's biggest media hound isn't she? Is there ANYTHING she doesn't rush to the mic to comment upon? (Also note that all the people other than Bennet happen to be dems? Deck stacking is fun!) So, she's a media hound....And?

this is a problem how?

I'm sure there will be plenty of R's to speak aganist it. Hope aganist hope for that black vote.

And even if they don't (which I doubt, I mean, they are human) that would just let you know where their heads at.

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 03:43 PM

Damn that guy is a jackass. Why in the world would he say that especially being a politician.

Bill Bennett isn't a politician. And he was taken way out of context. They forgot to add the next line where he said, roughly, "But to do so would be morally reprehensible." He's anti-abortion based on his personal morals. He does not condone abortion in any form, especially not in a genocidal form. (Seriously, the transcripts of the entire conversation in which he said the topic line is out there, I don't have a link on hand though.)

Its total media grandstanding and blatantly obvious to anyone who is aware of Bennett's stance on the issue of abortion that this whole thing is blown up for effect by the media and those who have an agenda against him.

keitaidensha

09-30-2005, 03:43 PM

No. It does not look like sarcasm at all. Because, y'know, you can't really see the tone of ones voice over the internet.

oh, you are soooooooooooooooooooo correct. i completely agree with you. :rolleyes:

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 03:46 PM

So, she's a media hound....And?

this is a problem how?

I'm sure there will be plenty of R's to speak aganist it. Hope aganist hope for that black vote.

And even if they don't (which I doubt, I mean, they are human) that would just let you know where their heads at.

Cause it makes her look foolish? Seriously, anyone who is jumping on the bandwagon and rushing to attack Bennett on this is just playing into the hands of the sensationalist media, or is an opportunist, I'm not sure which is worse being ignorant and falling for sensationalism or just plain closing ones eye to the facts and trying to score points by playing dirty.

Killuminati

09-30-2005, 03:46 PM

It's not the abortion issue it's the racist issue of what he said.

koku

09-30-2005, 03:48 PM

lol this was in the 2nd forum I frequent.. News travels :P

EDIT: Bennit screwed up; it's his problem to fix now :P

Joe

09-30-2005, 03:55 PM

He's right though, dont'cha know, because black babies shoot out of the womb, with a knife in one hand, and a bottle of booze in the other! And the very first thing they do is stab up the nurse in front of them, and get ass drunk! Besides, we all know who controls the media, you see what us Jews want you to see.

Now go watch some family guy, created by a Jew. Go on, go watch it, and get dumber and dumber, while we only grow in power.

*cackles*

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 03:56 PM

It's not the abortion issue it's the racist issue of what he said.

*rolls eyes* You REALLY need to read the entire quote.

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

He is pointing out that statistically you could make an argument that this insane suggestion would reduce your crime rate. It is an example used to point out the fallacy of the caller's logic, NOT HIS PERSONAL VIEW. He also points out that he's using someone else's example, once again NOT HIS PERSONAL VIEW. He is not saying "You know, I believe that if you got rid of all the niggers, we'd have less crime. So I propose we round them all up and lynch them." He's saying that the callers' argument is stupid, like the statement that "aborting all black babies would reduce the crime rate" is stupid.

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 03:57 PM

lol this was in the 2nd forum I frequent.. News travels :P

EDIT: Bennit screwed up; it's his problem to fix now :P

It isn't his fault. He's been quoted BADLY out of context and people are riding it for all its worth. He shouldn't need to fix it, the news media shouldn't have done such shoddy work.

keitaidensha

09-30-2005, 03:59 PM

He's right though, dont'cha know, because black babies shoot out of the womb, with a knife in one hand, and a bottle of booze in the other!

malt liquor to be exact.

koku

09-30-2005, 04:01 PM

It isn't his fault. He's been quoted BADLY out of context and people are riding it for all its worth. He shouldn't need to fix it, the news media shouldn't have done such shoddy work.

He's a politician. He shoudln't have been smarter than that. C'mon. And his assumption is stretching in the first place. This goes back to the pierro stats vs. environment arguement.

Either way as a politician and he should know how to live by the term 'politically correct.'

FAIR point? If you aborted every black person, guess what? Someone else will have to live in those ghettoes. Someone else will just commit the crimes that they feel they need to get by.

I don't think it was a 'fair' point. Either way, I'm not one to go, "omg racist lol," but he should have been smart enough to watch what he says on media.

That be my opinion yes.

keitaidensha

09-30-2005, 04:03 PM

It isn't his fault. He's been quoted BADLY out of context and people are riding it for all its worth. He shouldn't need to fix it, the news media shouldn't have done such shoddy work.

i agree that if you read the whole thing he's making a fair point, but he should have known that the media was going to fuck him over for it.

Killuminati

09-30-2005, 04:09 PM

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 04:10 PM

He's a politician. He shoudln't have been smarter than that. C'mon. And his assumption is stretching in the first place. This goes back to the pierro stats vs. environment arguement.

Either way as a politician and he should know how to live by the term 'politically correct.'

Well, I guess you could call him a politician in a general way. But he's not really one, he doesn't run for office, he's not held an elected office. He was appointed to a couple of seats in Reagan's administration, so I guess I'll stand corrected on that... But he's more of an author/talk show host type nowadays.

Noone should have to live by the term 'politically correct'. Period. WTF? Do you support the thought police too? I prefer honesty to fake, regulated speech.

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 04:12 PM

i agree that if you read the whole thing he's making a fair point, but he should have known that the media was going to fuck him over for it.

The media shouldn't be spinning news. It shouldn't be fucking people over. Reporters should report the news as factually as possible, not take quotes out of context like this...

Killuminati

09-30-2005, 04:14 PM

I read the article it was clear to me his point. He was being hypothetical but he should have knew if he said that he would get in some shit.

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 04:18 PM

Former Drug Czar.. He did a great job with D.A.R.E... Why would he say black? He could have said white or chinese. It was a very insensitive thing he said. I see your p.o.v. and that stat would be true with any color.

Gods, he provided an off the wall example jumping to an extreme to make his point. His point was to show that taking things to extremes is bad and all of this is proving it.

Seriously, I hate 'talking on eggshells'. I find it insulting to my intelligence. We have a right to free speech in America, not a right to not be offended. The problem here is one of hypersensitivity, not of racism. Pelosi, Kennedy and the lot have attacked first without having all the facts, that's the definition of ignorance. And if they did it KNOWING all the facts, its opportunism. But if the media doesn't provide all the facts, how will the general populace know? It is a brilliant political game. :D (And sadly, it really shows off the ignorance of America.)

keitaidensha

09-30-2005, 04:19 PM

The media shouldn't be spinning news. It shouldn't be fucking people over. Reporters should report the news as factually as possible, not take quotes out of context like this...

well of course it shouldn't. ideal = real, though.

the media of today consists largely of spin doctors, sensationalists and hardcore ____ wingers who exist only to take things out of context, warp and distort the truth and do whatever it takes to attain their goal, which is obviously more noble than anyone else's goal.

news is entertainment now.

as responsible americans we have to wade through the bullshit and actually work to find the truth.

Killuminati

09-30-2005, 04:21 PM

He just said if "that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down"

He never should have said that at all. He needs to apologize for his slip up. Why did he single out blacks?

Roxie

09-30-2005, 04:22 PM

It isn't his fault. He's been quoted BADLY out of context and people are riding it for all its worth. He shouldn't need to fix it, the news media shouldn't have done such shoddy work.
It is his fault...and even in context it still looks bad.

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 04:22 PM

I read the article it was clear to me his point. He was being hypothetical but he should have knew if he said that he would get in some shit.

Why? Because ignorant people will take it at face value and not THINK it through since they have not been given the full facts of what was said. He shouldn't take shit simply because people are stupid, hypersensitive sheep.

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 04:24 PM

It is his fault...and even in context it still looks bad.

How being quoted out of context can possibly be his fault is beyond me! Someone else cut a bumper sticker out of a reasoned out example and you fell for it. Congratulations. Please tell me you think more than this before you vote.

keitaidensha

09-30-2005, 04:25 PM

It is his fault...and even in context it still looks bad.

in context it actually doesn't look that bad. what i got from it was that he pointed out, based on well-known statistics, the crime rate among blacks is higher than that among other ethnicities, and that hypothetically, if one were to kill all blacks, the crime rate to go down, but that is all hypothetical and wildly ludicrous and don't even consider it in real life.

i guess it does look kinda bad though; genocide always does.

again, i think it was stupid of him to place himself in a position where it was abundantly easy for his quote to be taken out of context.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 04:32 PM

How being quoted out of context can possibly be his fault is beyond me! Someone else cut a bumper sticker out of a reasoned out example and you fell for it. Congratulations. Please tell me you think more than this before you vote.
You didn't say it wasn't his fault for being quoted out of context.

I'm saying, whatever happens to his reputation, is his fault.

Kass

09-30-2005, 04:39 PM

Let's see... Why would he say black? Because the popular media misconception is that the black community has far and away the highest rate of crime. It's statistically inaccurate, but you'd never know that judging by what every single media outlet in this country likes to portray.

Was what he said racist? No, not when you read the entire segment regarding the caller's question. He was using hyperbole to show that the caller was an idiot by coming up with an outrageous and extreme example of what the book Freakonomics suggested and the caller proposed as a viable theory. Sheesh. It's the caller who was a dimwitted imbecile.

Was what he said insanely stupid given his high profile as a public figure? Oh heck yeah. Everyone knows the media just salivates over the opportunity to take a three-second sound bite and make a politician look bad (especially if they're Republican right now. Used to be Dems, but it switches back and forth.).

CNagy

09-30-2005, 05:14 PM

Generally, the stereotype associated with criminals is a black male between the ages of 18 and 25. Thus, using any other race would not have made any sense. It's not about facts, it is about perception.

If the issue was immigration, hell, we could kill off most of Mexico and our immigration rates would fall through the floor. If the issue was embezzlement, we could kill off everyone with the title Vice President or Board as part of their job description and cause that crime statistic to plummet. Why stop there, though? If we killed off women, our rape statistics would drop (at least in the immediate future.) If we killed off the elderly, social security wouldn't be a problem.

I obviously don't stand behind any of that, but heaven forbid I should become some sort of media figure, at which point I'd be branded as someone who wanted to wipe mexicans, women, wealthy men, and old people off the face of the planet.

Seriously, the only thing I can say bad about this Bennet guy is that he underestimated the bloodthirstiness of the media and overestimated the intelligence of the general public. I first read his quotes out of context, and my immediate response was "what the hell? That is political suicide." We're all reactionary, I suppose, but let's not build our arguments on a few seconds of stunned disbelief and disregard the facts.

keitaidensha

09-30-2005, 05:16 PM

I try not to think, cognition is the devil's playground.

a little late btw but i just had to say this is gold

Roxie

09-30-2005, 05:30 PM

It's the caller who was a dimwitted imbecile.

Was what he said insanely stupid given his high profile as a public figure? Oh heck yeah. Everyone knows the media just salivates over the opportunity to take a ... sound bite
My point exactly.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 05:37 PM

as true as that may be, the argument itself is so absurd that it has to say somthing about the way that this man really feels about black people. This would not matter if he was not an elected offical entrusted with running a country that black people have been known to inhabit from time to time.

It shows that he feels that blacks are criminals by nature. He also feels that they commit the majority of the crimes in this country. How he feels about abortion is not important.

that's another point of mine.

Killuminati

09-30-2005, 06:10 PM

that's another point of mine.

Exactly, I read the article over 3 times and his statement was racist and ignorant. Bill Bennet is a jackass who helped forumlate the drug war which is another topic of discussion. A drug war which is wasting tax payer's money everyday. It's not working.

Killuminati

09-30-2005, 06:12 PM

He's the one who had a hardon about small drug possession.

DarkFire168

09-30-2005, 07:03 PM

that's another point of mine.

Do you say stupid things on purpose? I had a higher opinion of you before, but this is ridiculous. He was taken out of context, he used a statistic that as widely known in a hyperbolic statement that was designed to show the ignorance of a caller, this doesn't make him racist. It's like if I were talking to a friend and they said, "I sure do love fish." to me. Should I be offended and think that the comment was racially motivated because I'm half Asian? No. Quit being bullheaded and look at the actual facts.

Was it a bad idea given the fact that the media is a filled with sharks and leeches? Yes.

Was it racist? Fuck. No.

Killuminati

09-30-2005, 07:17 PM

Do you say stupid things on purpose? I had a higher opinion of you before, but this is ridiculous. He was taken out of context, he used a statistic that as widely known in a hyperbolic statement that was designed to show the ignorance of a caller, this doesn't make him racist. It's like if I were talking to a friend and they said, "I sure do love fish." to me. Should I be offended and think that the comment was racially motivated because I'm half Asian? No. Quit being bullheaded and look at the actual facts.

Was it a bad idea given the fact that the media is a filled with sharks and leeches? Yes.

Was it racist? Fuck. No.

I haven't heard the audio just the text and by the text it seemed racist.. He's stereotyping crime and blacks. Show me some valid stats and it would still be very insensitive. That's like me saying " If all blacks were aborted before death there would be a negative economic impact on watermelon sales." He is stereotyping. In my opinion. Let's keep this civil now.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 07:30 PM

Do you say stupid things on purpose? I had a higher opinion of you before, but this is ridiculous. He was taken out of context, he used a statistic that as widely known in a hyperbolic statement that was designed to show the ignorance of a caller, this doesn't make him racist. It's like if I were talking to a friend and they said, "I sure do love fish." to me. Should I be offended and think that the comment was racially motivated because I'm half Asian? No. Quit being bullheaded and look at the actual facts.

Was it a bad idea given the fact that the media is a filled with sharks and leeches? Yes.

Was it racist? Fuck. No.

I'm not being bullheaded you frickin' genius.

I linked and quoted the CNN article which contains the caller's comments. IT STILL comes off with a racist air about it. Even in the context, which I've heard/read a combined total of 8 times today, it sounds horrible.

I completely understand your point, however, is still reads/sounds bad.

kyaa the catlord

09-30-2005, 07:50 PM

I have to say, the orange comments are comedy gold.

What you're missing Roxie is that it was INTENDED to sound bad, in order for Bennett to illustrate his point he used an example that was so blatantly obvious to anyone with three brain cells to rub together to show why a fault in logic will destroy an argument.

The problem is that people are so hypersensitive that they can't stop emoting and THINK things through and learn anything.

And with this post, I take my leave from this thread. I hope that by pointing out the truth I made a difference.

(Oh yes, thanks Keitai, I hope that made you chuckle.)

Praetorian

09-30-2005, 07:58 PM

oh, you are soooooooooooooooooooo correct. i completely agree with you. :rolleyes:

Look lads. How was I suppost to know the radio show host was being sarcastic?

Oops. I couldn't. And neither could many in this thread, apperantly. In fact, I still can't make out if he was sarcastic.

I'm glad at least Keitaidensha agreed with me.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 08:00 PM

I have to say, the orange comments are comedy gold.

What you're missing Roxie is that it was INTENDED to sound bad, in order for Bennett to illustrate his point he used an example that was so blatantly obvious to anyone with three brain cells to rub together to show why a fault in logic will destroy an argument.

If that is the case, he didn't do it very well.

His words, following the infamous quote, unfortunately, do not harbor the strength that would make his intentions clear.

keitaidensha

09-30-2005, 08:02 PM

Look lads. How was I suppost to know the radio show host was being sarcastic?

Oops. I couldn't. And neither could many in this thread, apperantly. In fact, I still can't make out if he was sarcastic.

I'm glad at least Keitaidensha agreed with me.

we're on the same page here.

one hundred percent.

really.

:rolleyes: all sarcasm aside i really do agree with you

Praetorian

09-30-2005, 08:03 PM

Yes, I know you support me. You're being annoying now.

Roxie

09-30-2005, 08:04 PM

Look lads. How was I suppost to know the radio show host was being sarcastic?

Oops. I couldn't. And neither could many in this thread, apperantly. In fact, I still can't make out if he was sarcastic.

I'm glad at least Keitaidensha agreed with me.
I was saying I was being sarcastic, not that guy...although that's apparently what he was trying to do.

Praetorian

09-30-2005, 08:07 PM

I was saying I was being sarcastic, not that guy...although that's apparently what he was trying to do.

Then, apperantly you missunderstood me and visa versa. I was talking about the guy, too.

keitaidensha

09-30-2005, 08:10 PM

Yes, I know you support me. You're being annoying now.

you didn't even bother to quote me :(

Ichisan

09-30-2005, 09:56 PM

It's a pretty nasty disgusting thing to say even though he was doing it to make a point. In fact it just draws attention away from the point he was making. I wouldn't vote for anyone capable of being that much of an ass and in the public eye too.

CNagy

09-30-2005, 10:03 PM

I absolutely loathe political correctness. "Why did he have to say black? Why didn't he choose another race instead?" Because, like it or not, the race that gets blamed for a majority of crime is african american, and because he obviously didn't want to dilute the power of his argument by making his listeners have to make the association between just any old race and crime-- he wanted it to be understood clearly and simply.

Is this reinforcing a negative stereotype of african americans? Indeed, but I sincerely doubt any of you watch the media looking for reports of young black men involved in crimes, cross-reference it with young white men who committed crimes on the same day in the same area, and then call the media out for unfairly portraying african americans as a bunch of criminals by choosing not to mention caucasian criminals.

One guy makes one off-handed comment that merely echoes what the rest of the media drills into the american public's head on a daily basis, and suddenly the dogs of war are let loose on his ass. If you ask me, it is as much a problem that is it takes someone coming out and saying something like this to illicit a response as the problem of racism itself. Covert racism (we won't say anything to your face but we'll sure as hell stack the deck against you) is so much harder to root out and deal with than overt racism, since you can simply tell Mr Brenner or whatever his name is that his comment, while an effective argument, unfortunately reinforces the negative stereotype of african americans as criminals, and ask him to retract it on that basis.

Instead, people are too lazy to root out the more insidious form of racism, and prefer to just wait for someone to slip up and say something, intentionally or not, and then pounce-- turning what should have been a slap on the wrist into condemnation from anyone and everyone, many of whom are rather racist themselves.

koku

09-30-2005, 10:20 PM

As somone who chooses environment over race as the variable that has a bigger impact on one's potential to become a criminal, I DON'T agree nor sympathise with this guy; therefore, It's easy for me to say, "wether he meant it in a bad way or not, he should have been smart enough to know comments like that will get blown out of porportion."

Does it suck that someone has to be extra careful when making comments regarding race? Of course. Had Brenner not made the assumption that black = crime rate, would I have supported him and proclaimed the media as the 'bad guy?'

Most likely. But I'm on the opposite side of the environment vs. race arguement, but at the same time, I'm also objective enough to take the entire quote into consideration before pulling the race card. Doesn't mean I have to cry and stick up for the guy ^^.

I choose to distance myself and laugh @ how careless some people can honestly be. :P

CNagy

09-30-2005, 10:49 PM

You aren't necessarily on the opposite side of the argument, though. If you eliminate any race from the calculations, the number of crimes will go down. That is because anyone from any race can be a criminal. The issue is really the fact that he chose to say black instead of hispanic, caucasian, asian, native american, etc. He's not making the point explicitly that black people are more likely to become criminals, though as I said earlier he is implicitly reinforcing that stereotype.

The original outcry was based on the suggestion of aborting all black babies. Despite of whatever immediate response he gave afterwards about how horrible such an idea is, people chose to fillet him for daring to utter those words even as an admitted ridiculous example to show a how horrible you can get when you decide that the end justifies the means.

Now that most people have read the transcript, and put it in context, there's still fire left over from that baby statement. So the race card gets pulled, despite the fact that this is one of the weakest occurences of passive racism I've seen in a long time, as I sincerely doubt the guy was thinking fast enough on his feet to word his hyperbole about how genocide would reduce the crime rate to include a subtle race shot against blacks. Chances are, that came out just like anyone on the street might make some sort of racist comment, only this guy is a public figure, so it gets blown out of proportion.

Ichisan

09-30-2005, 10:53 PM

CNagy

09-30-2005, 11:13 PM

I hate political correctness too when it means hypersensitivity to trivial issues, but this is just plain insensitivity to the point of obscenity. Are we now so desensitized we can just casually bring up mass genocidal slaughter of babies and expect everyone to just subliminally blink and then focus on the argument being made?
How about when the original caller tried to justify a prolife stance with the idea that Social Security would be okay if all the aborted babies since Roe vs. Wade had grown up instead? Personally, justifying a belief that something is wrong because of the possibility that, had it not occured, some completely unrelated problem might not be as big of a problem is as absurd as the mass genocidal slaughter of babies. Because to use it as a reason to try and illegalize abortion now, you aren't changing the past one bit, and thus your reason (social security) would still be in shambles. It's like trying to illegalize paper because if we hadn't cut down all those trees years ago, our ozone layer might be okay. Now we have no paper and no ozone. Smart move.

It's as if you handed in a paper to a professor with blood and shit all over it and then when they reacted in disgust said 'Surely professor it's the quality of my argument that counts, not the blood and shit?'. Ok so technically you're right but *why the hell did you smear that all over the paper in the first place*?!
I see Mr. Bennett is not the only one skilled at the use of hyperbole, except that yours is inherently flawed. The idea being presented was that the end justified the means: if you killed another student and took his paper (morally reprehensible act, and a means to an end) you might get a great grade on it, but that still doesn't change the fact that your means were abhorrent.

The point is those are real people with real babies he's talking about, not some objects, and he just disrespected their feelings and the feelings of everyone else out there with some natural sympathy too.
Yeah, because I'm sure in the process of making his caller look like an idiot, he made the conscious decision to offend all expecting parents everywhere. This is the problem with political correctness and sensitivity. People assume that it means that they should be completely sheltered from anything that may offend their poor sensibilities, regardless of freedom of speech or expression. You don't have the right to have your feelings looked after by anyone and everyone around you. It is a common courteosy that most people extend to one another (I would hope) but there is a time and a place where it doesn't apply.

mediocre

10-01-2005, 01:51 AM

Anyone who thinks that man is a racist is an idiot.

Nekesu

10-01-2005, 06:25 AM

well I wonder if he knows a good majority of the african american population is related to Thomas Jefferson

Cybren

10-01-2005, 06:43 AM

It's true, though. Of course, aborting all the white people will have an equally (perhaps greater) effect on the total number of crimes commited (though likely not the crime rate)

NERD

10-01-2005, 07:08 AM

It's true, though. Of course, aborting all the white people will have an equally (perhaps greater) effect on the total number of crimes commited (though likely not the crime rate)

Well, if there was no human population to start with, there would be no crime. EVER. Don't believe me? Go ahead and start us off by taking one for the team, then we'll all follow.

stillbornsinger

10-01-2005, 07:16 AM

well I wonder if he knows a good majority of the african american population is related to Thomas Jefferson

Well I wonder if Nekesu read the good majority of the rest of this discussion...

Marie

10-01-2005, 07:16 AM

you know what's sad? they won't kick this guy out of office. he'll stay where he is, and probably make more asinine comments.

i find it ironic he published a book on morals.

Kash

10-01-2005, 07:17 AM

The caller is a total idiot. Social Security would be just find and dandy if congress hadn't looted it like a pack of gun waving niggers in 'Nawlins after a hurricane.

Just for the record, I'm serious about congress looting Social Security. They've drained a fund for all sorts of projects that it was never intended for. If it had been left alone, there would be trillions of dollars left in there right now. I think it was Reagan that made the IOU's disappear that had been in the fund prior. Now, it's empty and we have only our pork barrel representitives to thank for it.

The rest of my comment was a joke.

Praetorian

10-01-2005, 08:18 AM

Roxie

10-01-2005, 12:14 PM

on cnn, they had a quote for him saying he was using noxious hyberole to illuminate on how noxious that caller's comment was...

Needless to say double noxious hyberole doesn't go over very well.

Ichisan

10-01-2005, 12:20 PM

How about when the original caller tried to justify a prolife stance with the idea that Social Security would be okay if all the aborted babies since Roe vs. Wade had grown up instead? Personally, justifying a belief that something is wrong because of the possibility that, had it not occured, some completely unrelated problem might not be as big of a problem is as absurd as the mass genocidal slaughter of babies. Because to use it as a reason to try and illegalize abortion now, you aren't changing the past one bit, and thus your reason (social security) would still be in shambles. It's like trying to illegalize paper because if we hadn't cut down all those trees years ago, our ozone layer might be okay. Now we have no paper and no ozone. Smart move.

Ah well now you're putting it in context, it makes sense. You read the article the quote came from didn't you? That's cheating that is. Ok so next time I'll read the article, carefully, sorry about that.

Jai

10-04-2005, 04:41 AM

You guys that read the entire quote and still think its racist just go to show that the world is full of fuckwits who are just dying to beat their favourite horse.

Asians have yellow skin! ARGH teh EBIL RACIST comment, quick, flame me.

Anyone else notice that the best way to offend a hard core socialist is to tell them the truth?

Kass

10-04-2005, 11:00 AM

you know what's sad? they won't kick this guy out of office. he'll stay where he is, and probably make more asinine comments.

i find it ironic he published a book on morals.

He's not in office and hasn't been for years. He's a private citizen, so quite frankly, he can say whatever he wants and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it.

And if any of you still condemning him as a racist EVEN AFTER seeing the context and intent of the statement had read any of his published writings (especially The Book of Virtues), or listened to his radio show, you'd know he isn't racist. Of course, that would require some time, thought, effort, education and consideration.

I'm sure if he had said, "that is like saying taking the driver's licenses of all women away would reduce traffic accidents, but that doesn't make it a good idea" you'd argue he is a misogynist.

OliveButtercup

10-04-2005, 10:10 PM

Conservative Radio Host Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou Could Abort Every Black Baby In This Country, And Your Crime Rate Would Go Down"...

So the Republicans are against abortion -- for whites.

If you're black they're all in favor of it.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/index.html

"white man down!" lol

OliveButtercup

10-04-2005, 10:11 PM

He's not in office and hasn't been for years. He's a private citizen, so quite frankly, he can say whatever he wants and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it.

And if any of you still condemning him as a racist EVEN AFTER seeing the context and intent of the statement had read any of his published writings (especially The Book of Virtues), or listened to his radio show, you'd know he isn't racist. Of course, that would require some time, thought, effort, education and consideration.

I'm sure if he had said, "that is like saying taking the driver's licenses of all women away would reduce traffic accidents, but that doesn't make it a good idea" you'd argue he is a misogynist.

Yeah well, there are a lot of people who are racist and don't really know it. Those people amuse me. Hell, some of them I even call "friends"

Kass

10-05-2005, 12:13 AM

Pierrot le Fou

10-05-2005, 05:23 AM

Statistics on Crime Rates by Race (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm)

The reason he said black is because the rate crimes for black people are higher than for any other racial group. If he had said white or Asian, he would have been wrong, because the rate of crime would have INCREASED without the white folk or Asian folk lowering the crime rate averages.

Anyone who read that quote and has the slightest semblance of intelligence would realize that he was never suggesting that we actually abort all black babies, and the fact that some people think he did tells us a lot more about those people being idiots, than it does about Bennet being a bad man.

Roxie

10-05-2005, 03:23 PM

Then you have lousy taste in friends. You should be embarrassed to admit that.

William Bennett has taken very equality-oriented, anti-racism stances. Again, it only takes a little time to find that out, but white Republican men aren't entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

You know, not every white Republican is a racist, just like not every white Democrat is an ignorant cracker from the South.

I'm Roxie's boyfriend and was just passing through.

Well, being from Georgia, that is a hard point to prove considering that our current Govenor, the first Republican one in decades one his post simply by promising to help get the confederate stars and bars back into the GA state flag. He had no other major stanse beyond that, and every rural voter came out in droves to support him (most of Georgia).

It is also hard to convince me of your point when every bill that can help other races with low cost( Affirmative Action, which in the years that it hs been in place has not caused a rise in white unemployment, Hate Crime laws that will hurt no one other than the criminals, etc.) is fought against tooth and nail by white republicans. Hell, when Bush fought that college in Michigan, neither his secratary of state nor Condeleeza Rice would back him because they knew that without it, they would not have been able to get into school or excel to their current positions.

Invictus

10-05-2005, 03:38 PM

You know, not every white Republican is a racist, just like not every white Democrat is an ignorant cracker from the South.

Anyone who read that quote and has the slightest semblance of intelligence would realize that he was never suggesting that we actually abort all black babies, and the fact that some people think he did tells us a lot more about those people being idiots, than it does about Bennet being a bad man.

Both quoted for truth!

Idlethought

10-05-2005, 03:41 PM

even if he didnt mean it, he should be beaten for havin the audacity to say somethin like that on TV

Invictus

10-05-2005, 03:50 PM

I don't think he should be beaten as such, but I'll admit it was a monumentally stupid thing for him to say, given how easily it's taken out of context.

Kass

10-05-2005, 03:59 PM

even if he didnt mean it, he should be beaten for havin the audacity to say somethin like that on TV

Radio. In response to a moronic question from a caller.

Bruti

10-05-2005, 04:24 PM

Motto: "Blood in the water full of amphetamine-crazed sharks"

This must be a Pavlovian reflex that turns people into berserkers. I admit that I don't know much about the US' internal politics. What I see here, though, is quite the same technique as I see on forums being used by trolls and more intrepid trollhunters.

You see the red rag and go into seek-and-destroy mode immediately. Jump in and start attacking and continue attacking. Force the opponent into a defensive. Cite the ignition sentence (the one that is suitable for inciting anger and proving the other party's absolute insensivity) as many times as possible while disregarding the context. Leave no space for counter-argument.

The man is the very type that endangers all the values we believe in. Because he said The Words That Must Not Be Said. (The fact that he also said that TWTMNBS are well on their way from here to the kingdom of the Ultimate Foolery, is conveniently left untold.)

Well, this kind of argument belongs more to an unhealthy breed between a virtual bulldog and a chihuahua than someone who can actually think without exaggerated points for mental crutches. Yeah, I love to use this technique, too, because it's easy to master and, provided that the opponent is a total idiot, it brings quick success, but it tends to become unwieldy if the opponent actually has the ability to think and retort. If that happens, the attacker will sooner or later look like a parrot. "He said TWTMNBS, therefore he must be exterminated. He said TWTMNBS, therefore he is a mental plague that will turn your children into paramilitary troops that commit hate crimes instead of having breakfast." Vary as you please, ad nauseam.

Back to the point. Based solely on the transcript, there is no way I could believe that the man was a racist.

Bye,
Bruti

LJustus

10-05-2005, 05:11 PM

I'm Roxie's boyfriend and was just passing through.
Nice to have you.

Well, being from Georgia, that is a hard point to prove considering that our current Govenor, the first Republican one in decades one his post simply by promising to help get the confederate stars and bars back into the GA state flag. He had no other major stanse beyond that, and every rural voter came out in droves to support him (most of Georgia).
Certainly, as a candidate of one of the two major parties, the Governor certainly had to have more stances on more issues than putting the "stars & bars" back onto the state flag. More than likely, this was one minor item that was included to garner to a small segment of the population. It is likely that the media focused on this small item, rather than tell the whole story. As a voter, you have the responsibility to educate yourself about each candidate. If you choose to hear this and stop learning about the candidate, that is your choice, but please don't insult the intelligence of the members of this board by stating that this was the one plank on the Governor's platform.

It is also hard to convince me of your point when every bill that can help other races with low cost( Affirmative Action, which in the years that it hs been in place has not caused a rise in white unemployment, Hate Crime laws that will hurt no one other than the criminals, etc.) is fought against tooth and nail by white republicans. Hell, when Bush fought that college in Michigan, neither his secratary of state nor Condeleeza Rice would back him because they knew that without it, they would not have been able to get into school or excel to their current positions.
The climate of this country is greatly different than the days when Secretary Rice or Secretary Powell went to school. The major factor that affects a person's options today is socio-economic status. (Poor people have to work harder to get ahead.)

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why is it wrong that any person be judged solely by his qualifications for a job, scholarship, award, or some other such recognition or opportunity? Why is it okay that a minority be given a special opportunity simply because the color of his skin, but it is not okay to judge someone who is a minority if it affects them negatively? Do you not see that both are cases of racism? The only difference is how it affects you. In my mind, that is selfish and egotistical. Shouldn't we be consistent and simply accept the best person for the scholarship, admittance to the university, to hire, etc.?

Roxie

10-05-2005, 05:20 PM

If you choose to hear this and stop learning about the candidate, that is your choice, but please don't insult the intelligence of the members of this board by stating that this was the one plank on the Governor's platform.

Don't feel insulted by the truth. This was his most major point, publicized and real.

In fact, many Georgians are upset with him b/c he didn't do this. There are "Sonny Lied!" stickers all over the place.

During the election, planes flew over the capitol with msgs attached talking about the flag and sonny. I know, I saw them with my own eyes.

The climate of this country is greatly different than the days when Secretary Rice or Secretary Powell went to school.
Yes it's very different, but it's still racist. But if you think about it, how old are Powell and Rice? late 40's, early-mid 50's?

It wasn't long ago, not by a long shot. I wish people would stop with that bullshit, "Oh, but it was so long ago...." It was my mother's childhood. That isn't long by stretch of the imagination. Cause really, it would take imagination to pretend it was a long time at all.

Shouldn't we be consistent and simply accept the best person for the scholarship, admittance to the university, to hire, etc.?
Oh, sweetness! And shouldn't it snow on every Christmas and never rain on your birthday?

It would be great, if we could be consistent, but we can't. With 400+ yrs of an extremely biased history, we can't possibly make it even at 50 yrs.

LJustus

10-05-2005, 05:50 PM

Don't feel insulted by the truth. This was his most major point, publicized and real.

In fact, many Georgians are upset with him b/c he didn't do this. There are "Sonny Lied!" stickers all over the place.

During the election, planes flew over the capitol with msgs attached talking about the flag and sonny. I know, I saw them with my own eyes.
But can you not admit that your contention that this was THE ONE plank in the platform is ludicrous? What would such a candidate say in a debate . . ."Well, I don't exactly have a stance on state's rights vs. federal rights, schools, roads, taxes, [other important state issues], but I sure know that I want to see the Confederate flag again!"?

That is ludicrous.

Yes it's very different, but it's still racist. But if you think about it, how old are Powell and Rice? late 40's, early-mid 50's?

It wasn't long ago, not by a long shot. I wish people would stop with that bullshit, "Oh, but it was so long ago...." It was my mother's childhood. That isn't long by stretch of the imagination. Cause really, it would take imagination to pretend it was a long time at all.
Actually, Colin Powell was born 5 April 1937. That makes him 68, unless my math is off - which it isn't.

Condoleeza Rice was born 14 November 1954. That makes her 51.

To anyone on this boards, 50 years is a long time. I am one of the oldest here. (We're plagued by teenagers and early twenty-somethings. They're like fleas. . . You just can't get rid of them.)

I prefer to remember the past and not make the same mistakes that our forebearers made. Many of the people in power before in previous generations, especially those in the South, believed in institutionalized racism. I think that we can both agree that this is a bad thing, right?

Well, how do you define racism? Merriam-Webster says:

"1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination".

Basically, discrimination based on the color of a person's skin. Do you agree that discrimination based on a person's skin color is a bad thing? (Italicized because I would really like a response to this question.)

Oh, sweetness! And shouldn't it snow on every Christmas and never rain on your birthday?

It would be great, if we could be consistent, but we can't. With 400+ yrs of an extremely biased history, we can't possibly make it even at 50 yrs.
Now, I see the problem. You are trying to get back at the "people" who oppressed "you". Well, that will get you nowhere in life. How exactly have you, personally, been oppressed for the last 400 years? I don't expect a year by year account, of course. Feel free to break it down by decades. Please start with 1605-1615.

Perhaps my attitude derives from the fact that I have come from an area and schooling in which people were indeed judged by their accomplishments and their skills. Growing up next to a military base and then joining the Army will do that to a person.

Roxie

10-05-2005, 06:52 PM

That is ludicrous.
Of course it wasn't his only point, but it was his MAJOR point. It was the MAJOR reason why he was elected.

Many of the people in power before in previous generations, especially those in the South, believed in institutionalized racism. I think that we can both agree that this is a bad thing, right?
Sure, 50 yrs is half a century. But looking at history, righting wrongs and such, 50 years is nothing.

Not long enough to expect serious wrongs becoming right. Not near long enough for all the people to truly become equal in everyone's mind and heart.

Well, how do you define racism? Merriam-Webster says:

"1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination".

Basically, discrimination based on the color of a person's skin. Do you agree that discrimination based on a person's skin color is a bad thing? (Italicized because I would really like a response to this question.)
No, it's not basically.

It has to do with the idea of "an inherent superiority of a particular race". An issue with which Affrimative Action tries to combat. It is an institutionalized thing b/c racism itself was institutionalized. You fight law with law.

It's not "Basically, discrimination based on the color of a person's skin", to say that leaves all the all important element of "inherent superiority of a particular race"

Now, I see the problem. You are trying to get back at the "people" who oppressed "you". Well, that will get you nowhere in life. How exactly have you, personally, been oppressed for the last 400 years? I don't expect a year by year account, of course. Feel free to break it down by decades. Please start with 1605-1615.
No, you don't see.

To be fair, I can only take you back to 1700's. I'll be happy to scan in the tax records (when I get home) that show my family as "property" if that's what you need. Of course, that is only my father's side of the family.

I am not trying to get "back" at anyone. I want people to trully be equal. If I could snap my fingers and have it happen, I would. If it would make sure people where judged on their abilities, I'd snap faster than I could type this sentence.

But to think that this has happend or that getting rid of affirmative action will make it happen is just ludicrous. Pure & plain.

So far, we've only gotten to the point of "racism shouldn't be institutionalized". We've got a ways to go until it's erradicated.

Perhaps my attitude derives from the fact that I have come from an area and schooling in which people were indeed judged by their accomplishments and their skills. Growing up next to a military base and then joining the Army will do that to a person.

It probably does.

I've lived in Georgia all of my life. It's not like that here.

We've got people dressing in civil war soilder uniforms marching on the capitol, praising a canidate about his promises to have referendum on placing the confederate flag back in the state flag.

We've got planes circling doing the same! Do you think I'm making this up or something?!

LJustus

10-05-2005, 07:07 PM

Okay, now please answer the italicized question in my previous post. I'll repeat it:

Do you agree that discrimination based on a person's skin color is a bad thing?

No, it's not basically.

It has to do with the idea of "an inherent superiority of a particular race". An issue with which Affrimative Action tries to combat. It is an institutionalized thing b/c racism itself was institutionalized. You fight law with law.

It's not "Basically, discrimination based on the color of a person's skin", to say that leaves all the all important element of "inherent superiority of a particular race"
Actually, if you dissect the issue, Affirmative Action does nothing to combat the idea of an inherent superiority of a particular race. If you reason the idea through, can't you see how the idea would actually perpetuate the myth that minorities are somehow inferior; that they need a leg up to make it?

To be fair, I can only take you back to 1700's. I'll be happy to scan in the tax records (when I get home) that show my family as "property" if that's what you need. Of course, that is only my father's side of the family.

No. I was asking how YOU have been oppressed for the past 400 years - not your family. I can show you the oppression that my ancestors faced as well. (I am predominantly Irish and Cherokee.) I'm sure some Jews would like to discuss oppression with you as well. They have been oppressed for MILLENIA.

I am not trying to get "back" at anyone. I want people to trully be equal. If I could snap my fingers and have it happen, I would. If it would make sure people where judged on their abilities, I'd snap faster than I could type this sentence.
So, having an advantage makes you equal, exactly how?

CNagy

10-05-2005, 09:24 PM

Affirmative Action is reverse racism in the present in hopes of an equal playing field sometime in the indeterminate future. Instead of bettering public education in the poorest parts of the country which could effectively even the playing field as much as possible in the shortest amount of time, the government has decided to set quotas on racial employment, with the idea that those minorities who benefit from it can send their children to good schools, and that those children can then apply for positions and scholarships based on their merits, without being disadvantaged by a background that includes poor public schooling.

This, of course, ignores the fact that poor public schooling is the root cause of the problem, and tries to solve it in a piecemeal fashion that will not succeed in our children's children's children's time.

Roxie

10-05-2005, 10:11 PM

Okay, now please answer the italicized question in my previous post. I'll repeat it:

Do you agree that discrimination based on a person's skin color is a bad thing?
I can't answer this question in seperation from the issue.

I agree, discrinimation, in the traditional sense, which is basically a synonym for racism (the important element being the idea of superiority), that yes, it is bad.

In the context of which you're trying to use the word, no. Because you're neglecting the history behind the situation which absolutely impossible.

Actually, if you dissect the issue, Affirmative Action does nothing to combat the idea of an inherent superiority of a particular race. If you reason the idea through, can't you see how the idea would actually perpetuate the myth that minorities are somehow inferior; that they need a leg up to make it?
No. I disagree. It doesn't perpetuate the myth that minorities are inferior, but hightlights the fact that they have been treated as such in an institutionalized manner, there for, it must be dealt with in an institutionalized manner.

No. I was asking how YOU have been oppressed for the past 400 years - not your family. I can show you the oppression that my ancestors faced as well. (I am predominantly Irish and Cherokee.) I'm sure some Jews would like to discuss oppression with you as well. They have been oppressed for MILLENIA.

So, having an advantage makes you equal, exactly how?
I have been followed in stores, been asked about my racially confusing appearence very rudely, told I couldn't be someone's friend b/c I was black, been bullied to break up w/ my white b/f b/c his parents thought we were getting "too serious" (it didn't work btw), I've had my hair made fun of for being what is.

Obviously I haven't lived 400yrs, but to ignore the history and the legacy of such is absoluetly an impossible thing. In order to build a better a future, you must reguard, remember, and learn from your past.

I also have Cherokee and Chickasaw relatives, however, I'm not trying to compare atrocities (why did you even think so?). I believe that's an extremely counterprodcutive idea that isn't worth any time.

Roxie

10-05-2005, 10:23 PM

CNagy

10-05-2005, 10:54 PM

Reverse racism is also a generally accepted term dispite its incorrectness. I've called AA racism and had people fight me for that wording, and they often times accept the term reverse racism. Racism carries a negative connotation that not a whole lot of people associate with AA.

Yes, the Supreme Court removed quotas. They kept a narrower version of Affirmative Action, since schools can't use point systems they have to turn to more creative methods of acceptance. Without being able to see any clearly defined system (which would, in itself, be unconstitutional by violating the 14th amendment) there is no real way to even tell if the program is working or not anymore.

The alternative is simple: pour money into the schools of the poorer areas. Give the teachers better training. Reduce class sizes. Make the prospect of becoming a teacher more attractive through higher wages. It all comes down to the schools. As we've seen in almost any issue, reparations is far, far less effective than preventative measures.

Roxie

10-05-2005, 10:59 PM

The alternative is simple: pour money into the schools of the poorer areas. Give the teachers better training. Reduce class sizes. Make the prospect of becoming a teacher more attractive through higher wages. It all comes down to the schools. As we've seen in almost any issue, reparations is far, far less effective than preventative measures.
Yes, there are plenty of alternatives, but what about the plan?

Where are you going to get the money for the schools and teachers? The parents in the poor area can ill afford it and I highly doubt the parents on the other side of the tracks will want to provide.

However, if it were possible, I'd like to do that.

People would argue this is a reperations of a sort, in fact, I've heard people argue this is the kind of reperation that they want.

Idlethought

10-05-2005, 11:03 PM

hey ive long thought they should siphon money out of defense and into education

CNagy

10-05-2005, 11:35 PM

Yes, there are plenty of alternatives, but what about the plan?

Where are you going to get the money for the schools and teachers? The parents in the poor area can ill afford it and I highly doubt the parents on the other side of the tracks will want to provide.

However, if it were possible, I'd like to do that.

People would argue this is a reperations of a sort, in fact, I've heard people argue this is the kind of reperation that they want.

Has NASA been doing anything important lately? Not really. We could cut their funding, since they are paving less of a road in space exploration and more of a road in space observation. We could tax the rich, the people who are already ahead. We could add a 1 cent additional gas tax. Education on how to better plan and spend a school's budget. Checks on just who calls the shots as far as where the money goes. An additional 1 cent tobacco tax. An additional 1 cent alcohol tax. Taxation seems to be the easiest route. There are also thousands of government grant programs that are rather ludicrous. Shut those down, divert those funds to education.

The poor are not all black, so it wouldn't qualify as reperations to any one race, but rather it would increase the education and social mobility of the lower class; be they black, white, hispanic, asian, etc.

DarkFire168

10-05-2005, 11:38 PM

Also, you could probably kill 90% of the buearacracy in our governments and save a couple billion dollars, finish NAFTA for fucking god sakes, and add a 1 cent additional tax to pornography.

Invictus

10-06-2005, 12:44 AM

DarkFire, you are a man of few words, but you have some brains. ;)

Kass

10-06-2005, 10:32 AM

Roxie's boyfriend, you really need to get OUT of Georgia before you start passing off those assertions as fact. I won't deny that there are parts of the South that still need to join this century, but please don't have the pigheaded audacity to tell me you know every single white Republican in this country and know for a fact that every one of them is a racist.

I live in the political capital of this country. I can't get away from this crap if I tried. Unfortunately, I deal with these politicians and their parties every damned day. I actually know these people. You know--talk to them, find out how what they think, read their published works, etc. The vast majority of them are NOT racist at all--in either party.

Disagreeing with affirmative action is NOT equal to racism. I don't like affirmative action because I firmly believe that nothing but the merits and qualifications of any applicant for anything should be considered. I do NOT believe that overcompensating by favoring a race previously put at a disadvantage in any way makes them equal. It makes them less equal because the assumption to many will continue to be that the only reason they get where they are is because of race, not because of their intelligence, skill or ability.

Oh, William Bennet is not equal to your gubenatorial candidate either. For you to argue that every white Republican is a racist is exactly the same as arguing that every black is inferior. It is a gross exaggeration based in ignorance. That's the entire point of this thread--people are wrong to make judgments based on out of context statements, especially when their knowledge of the judged wouldn't fill a thimble.

Oh, as for the proposed additional penny to the gas tax... Gas taxes are regressive taxes that tend to impact the middle and lower economic classes more than the rich. You want to make sure you don't penalize the people you want to help with these taxes, simply get rid of the thousands of loopholes in the tax code for those making more than $100k. You'd balance the budget in no time and would barely have to cut spending on anything.

Invictus

10-06-2005, 12:44 PM

Oh, as for the proposed additional penny to the gas tax... Gas taxes are regressive taxes that tend to impact the middle and lower economic classes more than the rich. You want to make sure you don't penalize the people you want to help with these taxes, simply get rid of the thousands of loopholes in the tax code for those making more than $100k. You'd balance the budget in no time and would barely have to cut spending on anything.

I minored in Political Economy, so such arguments are quite familiar to me. You're absolutely right, the gas tax doesn't hurt the rich as much as the poor. I should know, I come from a family that's not exactly upper-crust! ;)

However, taxing the rich more is not the solution, either. Presently, one percent of the population generates over ninety percent of annual tax revenue. Know who that one percent is? The rich. They're already taxed to high heaven. The best solution is to slash the size of government and promote free trade, as cnagy and DarkFire suggested. (If you'd like to know why exactly overtaxing the rich won't get you anywhere, I recommend Economic Harmonies and Economic Sophisms by Frederic Bastiat.)

Personally, as someone deeply concerned with the slipping standards of schools in the United States, the first thing I would do is phase out/privatize the Department of Education. Government tends to work at its problems by throwing money at them rather than actually doing something constructive in a competitive environment. I was homeschooled, and later went to a "traditional" school, so I take a rather dim view of how efficiently the DoE is doing its job. I mean, heck, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, you had a lot of kids graduating Harvard at 16 and so forth, and they'd graduate Harvard speaking Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and being masters of philosophical and scientific discourse. Why does it take an extra six years now, with the graduates being held to much more relaxed standards?

By the way, your post suggests that you live in D.C. Whereabouts? I used to live a block down from Union Station...

Flowah

10-06-2005, 01:09 PM

It has to do with the idea of "an inherent superiority of a particular race". An issue with which Affrimative Action tries to combat. It is an institutionalized thing b/c racism itself was institutionalized. You fight law with law.
Haha, AA has to be one of the most racist things I've ever seen put into law. "Yes, I see, not all races are inherently equal. Asians, while immigrating to the US with many disadvantages such as language and money, are vastly overrepresented at all colleges, especially at Ivy League institutions. They also make more money on average than whites. They score higher on IQ tests and on the SAT's. Are whites just biased towards asians more than they are themselves? No, that can't be it. Lets just lump asians with whites and give affirmative action to everyone else. ohohohoho"
As soon as some colleges in California(Berkley I believe), dropped AA, black and hispanic rates plumetted. White rates stayed the same. Asian rates soared. Am I pissed? You bet your ass I am. As an asian, that means my chances are greatly reduced for the vast majority of colleges that enact affirmative action. I have no alumni boost, my dad immigrated here with less than $500 and still can't speak english on a proficient level, but fuck my family has suceeded. Affirmative action is basically what made me go right. Fucking lefties and their skewered sense of justice and equality. Equal OPPORTUNITY, not OUTCOMES.
People would argue this is a reperations of a sort, in fact, I've heard people argue this is the kind of reperation that they want.
Reparations is utter bullshit. You got blacks who moved here on their own after slavery ended who have never ever been slaves. You got whites who moved here who never owned slaves. You got asians and hispanics who never even contributed to the slave trade in ANY way. How the hell are you going to make sure that only the families of former slaves recieve their benefits, how are you going to ensure that only those who profited from slavery have to pay? I'm already paying the price, so is every white person who gets tagged a racist for speaking the truth, just because he's not black. Black people can criticize white people and their problems with no backlash, but whites can't do the same? Can we drop the double fucking standards please?

Or what about blacks in New York and Los Angelos attacking Korean storeowners over things WHITE people did? "lol rodney king, burn the korean grocers!" Yes, there was a /real/ intelligent move.

And I'm sorry to burst your kids bubbles, but there IS a correlation between race and crime. And blacks are at the top, by a shitload.wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime)
You can argue all you want about social environments, racial profiling, or whatever other excuses you come up with besides lack of strong family bonds, but the fact is, blacks make up the majority of prisoners. So yes, the statement is totally true, and it is more true when he uses the word black than if he were to use asian, or white. Even Chris Rock and Bill Cosby have observed this problem. They keep stressing family issues. Blacks have more single mothers than any other racial group, you think that helps? Of course, everytime they bring up looking inwards instead of placing blame on others, these leaders of the black community get jumped by the 'real leaders' known as race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

The rich. They're already taxed to high heaven. The best solution is to slash the size of government and promote free trade, as cnagy and DarkFire suggested.
I love you.

Condelezza Rice's position on Affirmative action is too unclear for anyone to make assumptions.Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice)
In 2003, Rice was also drawn into the debate over the affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan. On January 18, 2003, the Washington Post reported that she was involved in crafting Bush's position against race-based preferences. On the same day, Rice released a statement that somewhat contradicted this, saying that she believes race "can be a factor" in university admissions policies [14].
However, if you look at her academic record, you can see that she had 0 need for it. She was brilliant on her own merits, her OWN determination. That is beautiful to me.

Invictus

10-06-2005, 01:52 PM

Hearken unto new member Flowah. With Wikipedia skillz and a love of yours truly, Flowah definitely has some brains. ;)

(And no, I don't know Flowah IRL. :p)

Kass

10-06-2005, 02:19 PM

I minored in Political Economy, so such arguments are quite familiar to me. You're absolutely right, the gas tax doesn't hurt the rich as much as the poor. I should know, I come from a family that's not exactly upper-crust! ;)

However, taxing the rich more is not the solution, either. Presently, one percent of the population generates over ninety percent of annual tax revenue. Know who that one percent is? The rich. They're already taxed to high heaven. The best solution is to slash the size of government and promote free trade, as cnagy and DarkFire suggested. (If you'd like to know why exactly overtaxing the rich won't get you anywhere, I recommend Economic Harmonies and Economic Sophisms by Frederic Bastiat.)

I'll take your word for it. In depth discussions of economics make my brain bleed. I do try to educate myself in the basics, but my daughter gets upset when my gray matter leaks out onto the sofa.

I'm all for stimulating the economy and creating new business, but even though the rich are paying 90% of all the taxes, they receive a disproportionately large percentage of the tax breaks. Someone making $100k per year should not be able to claim all their deductions and pay the same amount ot taxes that someone making half what they do does. Our tax code is buggered beyond belief and needs reform more than anything else.

I'd love to see certain aspects of our government slashed to bits. I can hand you the list of agencies I'd love to see gone, starting with the Department of Education. The Federal Government has no business whatsoever imposing itself in that arena. They've no Constitutional authority to do so. That comes under the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") That is a state obligation and is best handled at the state and local level. Where that reform needs to happen is at the state and local level.

Personally, as someone deeply concerned with the slipping standards of schools in the United States, the first thing I would do is phase out/privatize the Department of Education. Government tends to work at its problems by throwing money at them rather than actually doing something constructive in a competitive environment. I was homeschooled, and later went to a "traditional" school, so I take a rather dim view of how efficiently the DoE is doing its job. I mean, heck, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, you had a lot of kids graduating Harvard at 16 and so forth, and they'd graduate Harvard speaking Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and being masters of philosophical and scientific discourse. Why does it take an extra six years now, with the graduates being held to much more relaxed standards?

The Department of Education needs to be gone, not privatized. I do not at all like the idea of corporate America imposing itself on education either. That is the responsibility of the states.

Don't kid yourself though. A "lot" of kids didn't graduate from Harvard. Only a very small number of male children of very wealthy families graduated from universities fluent in several languages and masters of philosphical discourse. It might have been the best education money could buy at the time, but it was the education ONLY money could buy. A privatized education system now would become the same thing.

Funding is not the only key to a good education so the argument that poorer states would suffer is disingenuous. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the union, spends only a few thousand per student yet it manages to graduate students who can read and offers their first year of college tuition at a state university FREE if the students maintained a B+ in high school. DC (allegedly) spends a staggering $10,000+ per student and couldn't graduate student who could read at grade level if its very existence depended upon it. (They have people on the payroll they can't even verify are actually employed with the district!) what allthat money is being wasted upon is beyond me because it sure isn't the schools, the texts or the students.

The difference between the two is management and focus. West Virginia focuses on their children. DC focuses on their pocketbooks.

By the way, your post suggests that you live in D.C. Whereabouts? I used to live a block down from Union Station...

I actually live in Northern Virginia and work in DC. I've worked for various federal agencies for more than five years now. I wouldn't enroll my kid in DC schools if you put a gun to my head.

LJustus

10-06-2005, 02:19 PM

I agree, discrinimation, in the traditional sense, which is basically a synonym for racism (the important element being the idea of superiority), that yes, it is bad.

In the context of which you're trying to use the word, no. Because you're neglecting the history behind the situation which absolutely impossible.
So, discrimination based on skin color is okay in certain circumstances?

No. I disagree. It doesn't perpetuate the myth that minorities are inferior, but hightlights the fact that they have been treated as such in an institutionalized manner, there for, it must be dealt with in an institutionalized manner.
That is the biggest load of crap that I have heard. I think Flowah's post sums it up pretty well. I'll summarize what I believe to be his main points:

Immigrants, especially non-English speaking immigrants, face a multitude of inherent roadblocks to their success. Many of these immigrants, however, work hard to achieve success.
As a minority, he is negatively affected by Affirmative Action. It actually limits his opportunities.
Not all American blacks had ancestors who were oppressed by slavery, yet they reap the benefits of the system as it is today. This creates a double standard.
There is a correlation between race and crime rate, so Mr. Bennet's statement was made to achieve maximum effect of absurdity - not to oppress anyone.

I have been followed in stores, been asked about my racially confusing appearence very rudely, told I couldn't be someone's friend b/c I was black, been bullied to break up w/ my white b/f b/c his parents thought we were getting "too serious" (it didn't work btw), I've had my hair made fun of for being what is.
And how, exactly have any of these actions - taken by individuals and NOT the state itself - oppressed you, exactly? Have you not been able to apply for a job, a loan, a scholarship, or anything else important? Or is it just that you don't like people singling you out? (Guess what, we are all singled out for one reason or another. We are not one big homogenous mixture. Get over yourself.)

Obviously I haven't lived 400yrs
And this is exactly my point. You haven't been oppressed by the system. Your ancestors have, but as has been stated before, not all blacks in America today have ancestors who were oppressed in America.

What's more, there are people whose ancestors HAVE been oppressed, but they do not receive the same accomodations based on the color of their skin.

Please enlighten me as to exactly how this is enlightened thinking.

but to ignore the history and the legacy of such is absoluetly an impossible thing. In order to build a better a future, you must reguard, remember, and learn from your past.
And how does Affirmative Action accomplish this goal. If to 'ignore the history and the legacy of such is impossible, why do we need AA?

I also have Cherokee and Chickasaw relatives, however, I'm not trying to compare atrocities (why did you even think so?). I believe that's an extremely counterprodcutive idea that isn't worth any time.
My statement was not to compare atrocities, but to point out to you the very obvious fact that there are other people whose ancestors have been oppressed who garner no advantage from the system of AA.

Yet, that seems okay to you because AA garners YOU and people who are similar to you an advantage.

Logic, then, leads me to understand that you truly don't care about helping those who are at a disadvantage. If so, you would be up in arms that immigrants don't always get advantages.

Logic also leads me to understand that you don't care about helping those whose ancestors have been oppressed. If so, you would be up in arms that Jews, Indians, Irish, etc. do not receive all of the advantages under AA.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but your stance appears, on the outside, to be a very slefish one.

Roxie

10-06-2005, 02:29 PM

Am I pissed? You bet your ass I am. As an asian, that means my chances are greatly reduced for the vast majority of colleges that enact affirmative action. I have no alumni boost, my dad immigrated here with less than $500 and still can't speak english on a proficient level, but fuck my family has suceeded. Affirmative action is basically what made me go right. Fucking lefties and their skewered sense of justice and equality. Equal OPPORTUNITY, not OUTCOMES.
:confused: wait, so what're you pissed about exactly? AA existing or AA not existing?

Reparations is utter bullshit. You got blacks who moved here on their own after slavery ended who have never ever been slaves. You got whites who moved here who never owned slaves. You got asians and hispanics who never even contributed to the slave trade in ANY way. How the hell are you going to make sure that only the families of former slaves recieve their benefits, how are you going to ensure that only those who profited from slavery have to pay? I'm already paying the price, so is every white person who gets tagged a racist for speaking the truth, just because he's not black. Black people can criticize white people and their problems with no backlash, but whites can't do the same? Can we drop the double fucking standards please?

There's a chillpill with your name on it.

No one is talking about giving out any checks to any family. You're the only to bring that up.

Reparations isn't bullshit, btw. They have been given out before and were actually fought for directly after slavery ended, but were never recieved.

Invictus

10-06-2005, 02:33 PM

Kass, I love you. You're absolutely right, the DoE needs to be gone. Sorry about not making myself clearer... what I meant by "phasing out" and "privatizing" was basically to get rid of the DoE over a period of a few years rather than from one day to the next. Minimize the chaos and all.

Anyway, you're much more articulate than I am, so keep sockin' it to 'em. ;)

DarkFire168

10-06-2005, 05:45 PM

My official position: I want to make sweet love to Invictus, Flowa and Kass. I love you three.

Oh and Flowa. DF = ASIAN! :D

DarkFire168

10-06-2005, 05:46 PM

One thing though, the DpE needs to at least be held to certain standards, otherwise certain crazies would take over and we'd all be brain washed into believing we popped up out of nowhere because a crazy guy in a robe said so. It should be privatized and regulated in my opinion.

DarkFire168

10-06-2005, 05:49 PM

Oh and LJustus, he makes my knees weak too.

NERD

10-06-2005, 05:50 PM

I actually live in Northern Virginia and work in DC. I've worked for various federal agencies for more than five years now. I wouldn't enroll my kid in DC schools if you put a gun to my head.

I believe you are referring to K-12, because it's a different story with colleges in DC. K-12 in DC is crap though, they are always looking for volunteers from my school to help out those kids as they need help in and outside of school. I would do so if I didn't have a tight schedule.

Flowah

10-06-2005, 06:06 PM

:confused: wait, so what're you pissed about exactly? AA existing or AA not existing?

There's a chillpill with your name on it.

No one is talking about giving out any checks to any family. You're the only to bring that up.

Reparations isn't bullshit, btw. They have been given out before and were actually fought for directly after slavery ended, but were never recieved.
Isn't it obvious? I hate affirmative action. I hate being penalized because my race is seen as successful. And yes, it //is// a penatly. I think it was a Princeton study, and you can go wikipedia search this on your own time, but the study showed that especially at more name brand colleges, if AA were taken out, every 4/5 seats lost by blacks/hispanics (and there would be a lot) would go to asians. So when you take race out of the picture, qualifications only, guess who wins? Of course, in California, after some schools dropped AA, minority attendance at colleges went UP, just not for name brand colleges. But blacks/hispanics shouldn't presume that they deserve to go to Stanford just because they think they're oppressed, go to a different college, one thats not above your level. And it IS above your level. Have you ever noticed the dropout rate of blacks at these prestigious institutions as compared to whites/asians? They got into Ivy leagues because of pity pandering, not on their own merit, and then they fail. That's not a very helpful thing that affirmative action is doing.

I never said pay up as in a monetary amount, look PAST the actual literal meaning and garner the deeper truth. Going to college, higher education is a privilege, not a right. And it is basically money being thrown at you. College graduates make substantially more than those who haven't. And yes, reparations //are// bullshit. IF they didn't happen right after slavery, they are no longer viable. Tough luck. Over 100,000 japanese were essentially screwed after world war II, the insignificant reparations that they recieved weren't enough to cover their losses for the most part. Do you see them bitching even 60 years later? Hell no, in fact they're one of the most successful minorities in the country. Whats the difference here? I don't feel I should be punished for the small minority of slave owning whites over a century and a half ago.

Let me share this story of a Korean friend that I have. Real smart kid, went to a prestigious high school known at all colleges for their academic standards. Cranbrook Kingswood if you wanna look it up. He went free, though it costs ~$22k a year if you didn't get a scholarship of somesort. He had nothing lower than a 4.0 his 4 years there. He had several AP classes starting from his sophomore year. 1600 on his SAT, 35 on his ACT, 5's on all the AP tests he ever took. His chem SAT II was a perfect score, unsure about his other SAT II's but this kid was a genius. I was in his European History AP class last year, we were kinda close. He aced the class obviously, but he kept talking about Stanford and how much he wanted to go. I admit, he didn't have the extracirriculars, but still, his academics alone should have been enough right?

Hell. No. He didn't get in. And I know plenty of people with lesser qualifications who got in, one of them from my family. My female cousin. Damn women and their AA benefits. There are more women than men in colleges these days and they still recieve it, to whatever sense THAT seems to make. Now this little tale shouldn't mean shit to any of you unless you want it to. IT's just a story, I could have easily made it up, but if my word means anything, I swear it's true. And I hate colleges for rejecting brilliant kids like my friend, and taking subpar students like my cousin. We want the most brilliant minds coming out of our most brilliant colleges right? Well, I guess not.

Oh and Flowa. DF = ASIAN!
I actually like white people more than asians. Even though I /am/ asian. I just like to use asians as a counterpoint to all the "zomg minorities are oppressed beyond all hope" claim that a lot of idiots make these days. I do thank God everyday that I'm asian though. It seems you have to BE of a certain race to say anything about that race.

NERD

10-06-2005, 06:30 PM

I've worked at an admissions office for the graduate school in my uni, and I got to say, though AA is in place, it's hard to tell if AA favors one minority over another. I've been involved in the process of applicant selection and the interview process, and it is true that if there are two candidates that have similar qualifications, the race may be the tie-breaker. But it is hard to make a general assumption about it as the applicants come from very diverse backgrounds. It's hard to tell the overall effect of AA, because with minorities, especially black/hispanics, the financial aspect of attending college is the most important issue.

Flowah, though your friend may have been flawless in terms of academic accomplishments, it is probably the extracurricular activites that made the admissions to reconsider. Schools tend to look for someone that will interact well with other students, and one way to decide that comes from the extracurricular activities- I've got the impression that admission office would choose someone who's more outgoing and social over someone with better academic qualifications but more likely to keep to him/herself than to interact with others.

DarkFire168

10-06-2005, 08:02 PM

I was just pointing out that it's nice to have another Asian who hates AA too.

OliveButtercup

10-06-2005, 08:18 PM

Flowah

10-06-2005, 08:37 PM

I've worked at an admissions office for the graduate school in my uni, and I got to say, though AA is in place, it's hard to tell if AA favors one minority over another. I've been involved in the process of applicant selection and the interview process, and it is true that if there are two candidates that have similar qualifications, the race may be the tie-breaker. But it is hard to make a general assumption about it as the applicants come from very diverse backgrounds. It's hard to tell the overall effect of AA, because with minorities, especially black/hispanics, the financial aspect of attending college is the most important issue.
Ahhh, you might not have noticed it, but certainly statisticians have. It is quite noticable if you look at schools like Texas A&M or Berkley in California. They do favor black/hispanic minorities as opposed to asians. They have little effect on white attendance however. And graduate school is a bit different. For example, in the University of Michigan case where the Supreme court upheld it for the undergraduate school, it banned it for the law graduate school, for whatever reason they had. They also did away with quotas, so no longer can you have set limits based on race, but they are still considered.

NERD

10-06-2005, 09:31 PM

Well, as I've said, it is hard to generalize the overall effect of AA as

a) many schools choose to be secretive about the admissions process
b) many schools also have their own preference in choosing applicants, AA or no AA.

And I've studied Statistics- one thing about such statistics is that the data can be manipulated in order to support the arguments. Polls and surveys are known to be inaccurate despite the companies behind them saying otherwise, and the statistics do not necessarily represent many intricacies behind applying to/being admitted by colleges.

I'm an Asian too, and though I may have been hurt by AA, if my position was given to a black/hispanic person who needed education more than I did, then I have no problems with it. I think what bothers most people is because of the application process, and how the selections are all based upon the opinions of a selected few, but for now, I do not see any other viable option.

Jai

10-06-2005, 10:12 PM

AA has got to be the most racist come sexist law enacted in the last 50 years.

Flowah

10-07-2005, 01:44 AM

I'm an Asian too, and though I may have been hurt by AA, if my position was given to a black/hispanic person who needed education more than I did, then I have no problems with it. I think what bothers most people is because of the application process, and how the selections are all based upon the opinions of a selected few, but for now, I do not see any other viable option.
Screw that. "Need"? They're not entitled to shit. No one is, you earn what you earn and you keep it. If you wanna give that away, fine, thats your choice, don't force others to do the same. You want to give up your spot? Don't apply to college. I'm sick of the feeling of entitlement that people have these days. Merit based plz. I fail to see how Princeton would skewer their stats against affirmative action.

Invictus

10-07-2005, 05:51 AM

Screw that. "Need"? They're not entitled to shit. No one is, you earn what you earn and you keep it. If you wanna give that away, fine, thats your choice, don't force others to do the same. You want to give up your spot? Don't apply to college.

Ah, "succeed or fail on your own merits, and your own merits alone." Such a beautiful philosophy. I love capitalism...

Ichisan

10-07-2005, 06:24 AM

Personally, as someone deeply concerned with the slipping standards of schools in the United States, the first thing I would do is phase out/privatize the Department of Education. Government tends to work at its problems by throwing money at them rather than actually doing something constructive in a competitive environment. I was homeschooled, and later went to a "traditional" school, so I take a rather dim view of how efficiently the DoE is doing its job. I mean, heck, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, you had a lot of kids graduating Harvard at 16 and so forth, and they'd graduate Harvard speaking Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and being masters of philosophical and scientific discourse. Why does it take an extra six years now, with the graduates being held to much more relaxed standards?

Less government, less government, less government, let's all repeat the mantra shall we? More government bad, less government good. Spread the word, repeat the message and lo and behold an entire country takes it as an article of faith. In the UK people concerned about education respond in exactly the opposite way, i.e. they say the government should put more money into education rather than, say, into the military.

Personally, I'd rather not get all ideological about it. Whatever works best, I reckon. That's my understanding of what Blair's famous 'Third Way' is supposed to be about. I totally agree with you that it doesn't matter how much money you put into education if it's misspent, but I fail to see how privatizing the Department of Education will help. Or rather, privatization itself is not a magic pill but how you privatize matters very much. Are you going to introduce competitiveness in such a way that it improves education? Or are you going to set it up in such a way that education companies find the best way to sell their products is not to improve their educational quality but to put advertising in with them and pressure local education boards into signing long term contracts.

I agree home schooling can be great. A lot is down to the parents, how educated they are, and how much they educate their own kids. Everyone knows that. And it was the parents of the Founding Fathers together with an elite education system that turned out these geniuses. Don't blame the present day mass education system for failing to do what only the privileged few were able to achieve 300 years ago.

Invictus

10-07-2005, 06:55 AM

Read "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville. He was amazed how, in the beginning of the 19th century, even the "uneducated" farmers were quite conversant in ethics and political philosophy.

CNagy

10-07-2005, 10:58 AM

Uneducated farmers might have been "quite conversant in ethics and philosophy" but so are alot of highschool dropout poets. You don't need an education to talk about philosophy and ethics. I wonder how many of those farmers were holding conversations about the ancient greek philosophers.

At the beginning of the 19th century (early 1800s,) they had only just finished a war a few decades back that the common man felt was based on philosophy. No taxation without representation, the Social Contract, Common Sense, these things were on everyone's lips the way breaking news is today, and it would not surprise me if those who grew up during that time had a natural bent towards philosophy, nor does it surprise me that their children might have had some lingering interest in philosophy. The Bill of Rights is essentially a document about ethics, and the lack of it in the original constitution was a splitting point on the nation until George Washington promised that it'd be the first order of business after the Constitution was ratified. These were monumental events.

It does not surprise me that a french born philosopher and lawyer, whose own descriptions of America are laced with poetry and hardly without bias (even though it is a positive bias, at least in the first part of the book) would find the "uneducated" farmers rather vocal on matters such as the rights of man versus the powers of government, basic ethics (human rights,) etc.

Flowah

10-07-2005, 02:23 PM

Read "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville. He was amazed how, in the beginning of the 19th century, even the "uneducated" farmers were quite conversant in ethics and political philosophy.
I have read it =P.

He was... difficult to place. Yes, it was obvious he had some great admiration for American democracy, but he also held the aristrocracy of France in high regard, saying it had some things that America lacked, and sorely needed. He also applauds the way American citizens formed hundreds and hundreds of organizations and associations to form political power, where alone, they would have been nothing. But he is also weary of majority tyranny. The founding fathers at least, saw that these "associations" could exercise considerable and disproportionate influence on the country's politics. We today call them small interest groups.

Also, when Toqueville was writing his book, it was a much different country. Politicians weren't as tied to polls and the mood swings of the people as they are now in the age of mass media. So the politicians could do their job, instead of worrying about popularity. Isn't that great? We tell our kids, "Do what's right, not what's popular" "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?" "Don't try to please everyone, or you'll end up pleasing no one". And yet, it doesn't apply to politicians. Especially in some offices where benefits of certain actions, or the huge mistakes of some actions, aren't obvious right away. The people these days are too "now now now", instead of a long lasting solution. That's why we keep throwing money at problems instead of taking a step back to find what really needs to change.

I like Toqueville's message on "soft despotism" though. Welfare state bad!

Bowling Pin

10-12-2005, 03:53 AM

Just wanted to throw this out.

Now, in high school I was at the top 20% of my class, taking AP courses and geting a 3.2 GPA. I was a solid B-student who neglected neither my studies or my social life (at least as much of a social life I could get in the middle of nowhere, Texas). I lived with a single mother and brother, with our father giving child support. Despite her college education, she couldn't find a decent job as a teacher that her degree and prior experience warranted. She was once a high school teacher, but couldn't even land elementary school in Texas. She finally found a job working as a special education assistant teacher; really stressful, heart-breaking work. Mom barely made enough to pay for rent, groceries, and utility bills, because the only apartment she could find happened to lie on the edge of a higher-income residential zone. Every time she tried to buy a house over the years, (and she was a previous home owner), she got outbid. Basically, we got dicked and were living a lower-income life in Texas.

So eventually I got accepted to the University of Texas at Austin. My main ace was my 1330 SAT, but I wrote a couple good essays and my grades, while not Top 10%, were Top 20. I felt I had the academic merit to go study in Austin. The problem was funding it; my parents certainly couldn't afford to fund my entire education, so I applied for financial aid. A little over half my education is paid for completely by grants, with the rest of it in loans.

My main question here is am I without merit? You see, I'm Hispanic. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but reading Flowah's posts came off as her (him?) telling me that if Affirmitive Action weren't in place, there's a good chance I wouldn't even be here. Hell, the way that read off, I might be in prison for moving kilos, statistically speaking of course. Sure, I like capitalism and I like the idea of earning what you deserve through merit. But even though my mom, with a college education, certainly has a merit, she doesn't have the income to show for it. I've got merit, but the grants I received I didn't get because of my high school performance; I got them because my mom was poor.

I mean, I feel I deserve to be here. I know that I'm just as, if not brighter than some of the students I met here already. But the government doesn't throw money at high school students with B averages. In order to get here, in my situation, despite what I feel is my own merit... I had to take government hand outs, and I had to use taxpayer money.

Not that I'm ashamed or anything, but I'm naturally going to sympathize with poorer families, because I come from one.

keitaidensha

10-12-2005, 04:23 AM

jesus christ thread

just die already

Bowling Pin

10-12-2005, 04:52 AM

Never.

NECROMANCAR

Roxie

10-12-2005, 05:11 AM

ahhahahahahaha

DarkFire168

10-12-2005, 08:14 AM

Pierrot le Fou

10-12-2005, 09:13 AM

Not that I'm ashamed or anything, but I'm naturally going to sympathize with poorer families, because I come from one.

But AA has nothing to do with wealth. A black person with a net worth of $5 billion would be favoured in a dead heat over the white kid from the trailer park who had a negative net worth. It's not about money, it's about race, the colour of your skin. It has nothing to do with merit, or redistributing chance. It's just racism.

Kass

10-12-2005, 12:13 PM

But even though my mom, with a college education, certainly has a merit, she doesn't have the income to show for it. I've got merit, but the grants I received I didn't get because of my high school performance; I got them because my mom was poor.

I mean, I feel I deserve to be here. I know that I'm just as, if not brighter than some of the students I met here already. But the government doesn't throw money at high school students with B averages. In order to get here, in my situation, despite what I feel is my own merit... I had to take government hand outs, and I had to use taxpayer money.

Not that I'm ashamed or anything, but I'm naturally going to sympathize with poorer families, because I come from one.

Merit does not equal reward. Merit means there is worth, tangible or intangible, to an intangible quality. A proposal has merit. A person's work ethic has merit. It is superior and of high quality. It is worthy of praise, one of the definitions of merit. None of the definitions, however, includes the idea of some sort of tangible compensation for any effort or idea. Yes, some employers use "merit" as a justification for raises, but more often than not, the raise is pre-determined based on profits and the merit scale is adjusted to fit the economics.

The average raise at my company was 3.75 percent. That was set BEFORE raises were given out and outstanding merit might get you an extra percent, but that had to be justified. I got a lot more than that because I took on additional duties that get compensated at a higher rate (network admins get paid more than documentation specialists). I deserved a good raise, but I took on a different job to get it.

The wage someone earns and the job someone gets is economics. Teaching jobs in Texas are hard to get and and the pay sucks eggs. I know more Texas teachers who drive school busses in the mornings to supplement their income than you can shake a stick at. It isn't because there isn't a need for more teachers. The need merits more teachers. The economics, however, say that there isn't enough money to hire those teachers.

Your mother worked hard for what she has and she has a lot of rewards that don't come in the form of a fancy car or a big house, including an obviously bright and thougthful kid. Our mother has a lot of merit, but that doesn't obligate anyone to give her money. She gets paid a wage for her work that is determined by the economic factors in place in Texas (which unfortunately suck). The market says a special ed teacher gets paid $x in Texas. That is what your mom gets paid.

The problem with AA is that when all other things are equal, the sole determining factor is race. What about the poor, white kid just like you? The one who gets good grades, has a single mother who works her butt off for her kids, can't afford even in-state tuition at a public university and has merit just like you. That kid could be your paler twin. Now, all other things being equal, what exactly makes you more entitled to acceptance at a university than the poor, white kid? Are you really telling me that the color of someone's skin genuinely makes them of higher value than someone else?

Or even better, when I applied to schools, I was living in Europe. I had no option of in-state tuition anywhere because my father was stationed in Germany with the military. I wasn't limited by cost to where I applied. Everyplace was too expensive. I applied based solely on the location and quality. I had a 3.8 GPA, clubs, honors classes, sports, charitable works, etc. all on my resume. I applied to a Florida university, along with a friend at school. He was black, a mediocre student (maybe a 2.5 GPA), didn't play a sport, wasn't in any extracurricular activities, spent his time out of school hanging around the rec center playing pool and his family made the same amoutn of money as mine did. (There is no real disparity in pay for people of equal ranks in the military. A sergeant makes what every other sergeant of the same time and grade does.)

He got in. I didn't. The deciding factor was they needed more black males on the rolls who did NOT play football or basketball so that they could show how diverse the university was. White females are a dime a dozen.

All because the university had to meet a racial quota. X number of blacks, X number of hispanics (which is really an ethnicity, not a race--you can be black and hispanic or white and hispanic at the same time), X number of Asians and whatever is left goes to whomever is left.

Where exactly is the merit in that?

Oh yeah. UT sucks. Sic 'em Bears!!!!! :p

deleted and reposted because this damned software won't let me edit a post... GRRR

Bowling Pin

10-12-2005, 05:09 PM

Merit does not equal reward. *snip*

Hmm. Okay, I can see where you're coming from here. Merit is a vague intangible quality that cannot be adequately translated into something tangible like a reward or a salary.

The problem with AA is that when all other things are equal, the sole determining factor is race. What about the poor, white kid just like you? The one who gets good grades, has a single mother who works her butt off for her kids, can't afford even in-state tuition at a public university and has merit just like you. That kid could be your paler twin. Now, all other things being equal, what exactly makes you more entitled to acceptance at a university than the poor, white kid? Are you really telling me that the color of someone's skin genuinely makes them of higher value than someone else?

I actually have a friend just like that; no, even worse off, actually. I admire him because even though his parents died while he was young, he was able to carve his own niche and had this way of thinking that was both vulgar and genius. He really could have applied for FAFSA, and he did, but he told me that the application got screwed up through some process and he was unable to get any money. I know that he could have gotten to UT based on his grades and his financial situation, and I think he was a little brighter than me (his left-side, calculating mode of thinking was probably greater than my more abstract, right-side interpretational thinking).

I'm not saying that I'm, or any other minority student is more valuable than a poor white kid. What I meant to say was that I'm not quite as confident that I would be where I am now, if AA didn't give me that extra nudge.

*snip* Where exactly is the merit in that?

I know that sucks, but I don't really have an answer, because like what was stated earlier, if AA weren't in place, the higher tier universities wouldn't have as many students of color in them. And from my viewpoint, that might put my own position in jeopardy, and I don't know what I can do.

Oh yeah. UT sucks. Sic 'em Bears!!!!! :p

Wanna box?