Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY college!

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

FredAtGolf:
I will have some debate comments later. I am busy at work today and have evening plans. Perhaps sometime tomorrow.

I suppose I should turn on java and java script to do quoting and spell check. I tend to browse the net with cookies, java, and javascript disabled. I think it is safer that way - if one could be safe on the internet.

Michael

 

Here goes....

Fred, thank you for your kind words. I actually don't think I deserve it, I've often gotten some details wrong, as some here in PriusChat have been very quick to point out. Though I don't think those errors were central to my points -- such that they destroyed my arguments. However, you could tell that those who don't share my conclusions got a thrill out of finding those errors. But that's just my opinion. And much of my grasp of history comes from LOTS of books, as well as google. I've got 2 bachelors degrees, and a Masters in Nursing. But I love to read history and politics and autobiographies.

I am also against lotteries, though I'm more against the advertising of lotteries than the lotteries themselves. I'm a bit of a libertarian in many ways, and if people want to waste money on foolishness then they have that right. However, I find it absurd that taxpayer dollars are used to advertise these lotteries. If you want them fine, but we should not be encouraging people to want them, which is what advertising is for after all.

As for affirmative action, I'm in favor of an equal playing field. And by that I mean a really equal playing field. And sometimes to get a truly equal playing field, you need affirmative action. But I actually believe that "class" should be a bigger factor than color in 2005. Thus, I don't think Wil Smith's or Jesse Jackson's or Colin Powell's or Clarence Thomas's kids should ever get any "special" treatment under any circumstances.

But for the inner city black kid I have a different opinion.

 

I am afraid I don't disagree with what you said. There are only shades of differences which would result in nitpicking or intellectual masterbation. So, no debate yet...we'll see.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"96847)</div>

That's very true, although depending on what the question is, then being right is the only thing that really matters!

Really though, it is pretty clear that both of us thinks our view of the Republicans is "right" and will not persuade the other, it doesn't mean we can't make a reasonable effort to try.


To further the AA debate: I would like to see no affirmative action, and people higher the best person for the job. Being a realist, this doesn't always happend, but I dont' see quotas as the answer.

Affirmative action, IMO, ignores the majority of the social science research on racial differences in these country. Similarly to what you mentioned Prius04, many of the perceived racial differences are really differences in SES. Then again, I don't like quotas, so perhaps I am a Democrat in that all I can is say is "no" and "bad idea" without any ideas of my own! (I am being facetious and not serious with that remark).

 

Michael wrote: That's very true, although depending on what the question is, then being right is the only thing that really matters!

That is thought provoking, but nonetheless, I believe I should be willing to let infinite wisdom have dominion over what I believe. That's not to say that I am willing, only that I believe I should be willing.

Now let me say something that I would never fill up this site with illustrations to prove. In my lifetime, I have gotten in more trouble for being right than for being wrong. Conventional wisdom reigns no matter how off target it may be. I think really wise people learn to accept that and work with what is doable or attainable. I've rarely been that wise.

Additianally, I am content with not trying to change anyone's mind and just continue to believe they are stupid. :wink: That's my "just kidding".

 

Qoutas are not affirmative action and affimative action are not quotas. Quotas have in the past been used as a simplistic way to implement affirmative action. But no longer.

Qoutas are illegal.

Bringing up quotas is a red herring.

As for Democrats being the "no" party. Although I agree totally that the best solution to a stupid idea is a better idea, sometimes you have to settle for simply stopping the stupid idea without a better idea in the wings. Going in a "NO" direction is better than going in a horribly wrong direction.

You are absolutely right that going in a better direction is even better than doing nothing, but sometimes "nothing" is good.

As an example:
We have a horrible deficit NOW in 2005 with no end in sight. SS will have a smaller deficit in 40 years. So why this preoccupation with 40 years from now and ignoring 2005?

I'll tell you why... Privitazation of SS is a stealth attempt to dismantle SS. The Repubs have wanted to kill SS since it's inception. In 2005, GW thought he actually had the political capital to finally (start to) pull off what his party has wanted to do for 40 years. Thank God the Demmos were able to get a great big NO out there.

And getting an anti flag burning amendment is a version of "NO". It's a diversion from the real issues plagueing America. It's a Republican attempt to divert attention from those issues. So in that sense, it is a Republican "NO", every bit as much as the Demmo NO was on privatizing SS. We ignore real problems while we create diversions. It's the Gay Marriage Amendment of 2005. And it's a great big "NO" to actually solving problems.

 

I apologize if you saw my using the term quotas as a red herring. Don't be too quick to judge the ill-intent of someone you are debating with. My intention was not to distract from AA and should have used a different term probably, but didn't realize there would be such a strong reaction. Yes, quotas are illegal, yet I see the "percentage of minority and women hired goal" as similar in many respects. I fear you missed my overall point in battling my using quota. Bottom line, focusing on the things AA focuses on without looking at SES is missing the big picture.

I am not going to get into an exercise in futility to debate the merits or nonmerits of Democrats being a no party or in the flag burning or other no techniques of Republicans. I myself do not believe that Democrats are a no party or that they have no ideas, hence why I stated I was being facetious by saying this.

 

Sorry about that. Targets are not the same as quotas, and sometimes they do have merit. Some programs are found to work better with diversity and if you have 100 people, and only one minority, that is not diversity. However, if minorities make up 20% of the particular area, and your target is therefore 20% minority, that makes sense as a target., but never as a quota.

Conversely, I really do believe that racism has not been eradicated from American Society. Thus, when you have a black AA who has roughly the same qualifications as a white man -- with everything else being equal -- the black man is probably the better candidate because he got where he did in a racist society. (Of course, this cannot always be true -- I'm speaking theoretically.)

And I would contend that that black man is probably the better candidate even if the white man comes out with a better "score" on some test.

I've often used this example:
Say you have a job candidate, or PhD candidate, or MD candidate or whatever candidate and person "A" is white and came from a 2 parent home and went to prep school and got all A's in high school and then the best college and got good grades. He has never been employed for longer than a few months.

Person "B" is black and came from a broken inner city home and went to a horrible high school and always worked part time jobs or even full time jobs. His mother had no use for schooling and he went to a mediocre college and got c''s for grades. He worked all through college and when you look at his employment it looks like he always worked as a supervisor. When you ask you find out that he always seemed to get promoted quickly to the leadership jobs. and stayed in those jobs for a few years.

So who do you take for your college or MD school or job? I would say that when you consider what each person had to overcome, the black man seems to have the initiative and drive and self discipline that you might prefer, but his grades are lower.

(For the sake of argument, lets assume that the black man actually is by far the better candidate. The reason his grades are lower is because of what he had to overcome.)

Now change the scenario a little and you now don't have 2 applicants for 1 opening, you have 10,000 applicants for 200 openings, so you cannot interview them all. How do you set things up so you end up getting the black man from above? The answer to that is affirmative action.

You give a few points for having made it out of a broken home and finished college.
You get a few points for starting out life being poor.
You get a few points for always working your way through school.
And yes, you get a few points for being black -- just because racism is not gone from this country.

Conversely, you get a few points subtracted for having gone to a prep school.
You get a few points subtracted for having had too many jobs that only lasted months and not years.

And as for grades, you do get some points for getting good grades, but only a few.

Add up the score and hire the best candidate. In my scenario you will hire the guy with the lower scores and having gone to the lessor college.


Now I've written the above scenario on the fly and I'm sure I've missed things. But my point is that the guy who reached your door to apply for a job and did so jumping over hurdle after hurdle is by definition someone who did not start life on an equal playing field. To hire the white guy just because he had a better GPA is not fair and you just may not be getting the best candidate.

So that's why there should be some kind of affirmative action system to LEVEL that playing field. But I think race should be only one small part. That's why I said Jesse Jacksons and Colin Powells kids SHOULD not get special treatment because they started life more like the white kid did in my example above. However, they should still get at least some points for race because I believe American society is still racist. It's certainly not the 50's, but racism is not gone. However, race alone should no longer be too big a deal.

So affirmative action then could be designed to TRULY equalize the playing field. Personally, I think race can only be removed from any such equation when that day comes when racism in America is truly gone. We ain't there yet.

 

I wondered if anyone would bring up the flag "no issue". It's not even an intelligent diversion. But then, who ever accused these guys of expressing intelligence. I can't believe the media is not exposing this for what it is. I may be wrong, but in the days of Edward R. Murrow, I think the whole thing would be tanked.

 

I posted before Prius04's last post. I think it is as fair and detailed an explanation as one could expect.

When I was a business owner and also when I was in outplacement I always contended that the person who would make you the most money was the one who had the highest integrity and was the most committed. I never favored skill-specific hiring. I think the same judgement call applies to the issues described above

 

Most of your post makes perfect sense to me, hence why I said this in an earlier post: I would like to see no affirmative action, and people higher the best person for the job. Being a realist, this doesn't always happen because I know racism does still exist.


I would agree with your formula as well, I like the idea of looking at a variety of a person's life and not just one aspect of it. It appears that various assumptions has made it seem like we are on opposite sides of the issue. I don't support AA as it is currently because it does not have the description in your post. An improved AA as you described would have my wholehearted support. I support the idea of AA, just not the current implentation of it.

 

I may be opening a can of worms here, but here goes. While I cannot speak to the issue of non-issue of the flag in the hearts of politicians (and I dont' think you can either), there are many voters for who this is an important issue. Below is where I am getting this from.

In my latter years of high school, I went to Oklahoma's Boys State. Not everyone may be familiar with this, but it is a week-long program in the summer put on by the American Legion in every state (as far as I know) to help educate boys (and girls at Girls State) about their government and how it works. Anyway, at one of our group sessions, there was a big deal about the evils of flag burning and asking everyone to stand up who would be against flag burning. Of course, this has been almost ten years ago, but to the men (and women) running the camp, flag burning was a big issue. Now I can only assume that it still is for this group of individuals.

 

You know, maybe so. The first time I can recall flag burning becomming an issue was forty years ago when people started burning flags in protest of the Viet Nam war. The Jaycees that I was a member of wanted to send a condemnation to Congress from our club. They needed unanimous consent out of the 176 present but could not get mine, so I personally killed the initiative. I had been reading about some of these flag burners and in my mind, they were just as patriotic as anyone in our assembly. If anyone today favors such an amendment, I would encourage that they should be educated (as the group mentioned in Michael's post should have been educated) to the meaning of real constitutional values. Then maybe they could rise above their emotional revulsion into the same thoughful arena I wish we could have on all such issues.

 

Here's a good article on the flag-burning:

A Burning Desire to be a Patriot

Speaking as an outsider, the US has always seemed to me a bit creepy, with its rather extreme flag fetish, love of the military, and confusion over whether the President is supposed to be a figurehead or elected representative.

 

Canadians, who are Americans, by the way, have proven to me over many years that they have an interesting and clear view of the United States. If we are patriotic enough, maybe we will not pay any attention to them. As a matter of fact, we have failed too often to do so.

 

KMO, whaaat??

 

Very observant. Bush is clearly a figurehead, and Reagan certainly was one in his second term. Maybe spokesman is a better term.

As for the flag, the GW team is clearly fearful. Their house of cards is coming down and they need to do something to divert attention. Hence the flag amendment and Karl Rove's recent slander of "liberals". And the cow that was just announced as having mad cow disease died 7 months ago. It's got me wondering if the release of the info on this disease is yet another diversion. They knew they had to release it someday, might as well release it for the best mileage. They just gotta get people's attention off the messes that are coming to a head.

The timing must not be right for the Gay marriage amendment or they would be raising that one again too. Maybe they are holding onto that one until the invasion of Iran.

So you clearly hit the nail on the head.

And to Fred, don't tell Canadians that they are Americans. Yes, we are all from North America so we are all Americans in that sense, but I've got two friends who plan on spending this summer crossing Europe. They have every intention of telling people they are Canadian. They read the newspapers and know how much hatred there is today for America, and they fear some of it might rub off on them.

 

Prius04: That's a good point and I will refrain. I once referred to those of us in the US as Americans in front of Canadian friends who scolded me by pointing out that Canadians are just as "American" as I was. That was many years ago and things have changed. I doubt they now prefer being referred to as American.

I began my respect for Canadian opinions about that time. I asked a Canadian lawyer what he thought of the '72 US election. His response was, "You have the same thing you had in 1964, a smart man who is a crook running against an honest man who is stupid." Boy was that prophecy ever born out. And who in the US would have ever stated it thus?

I thought the article posted by KMO was one of the cleverist I have ever seen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"101689)</div>

I did as well, but from your post I think you think KMO is Canadian. Take a closer look at his flag and where he is from in his avatar.

I think Cambridge is across the pond, as they say.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Did any of you who linked to KMO's link check the link in the header? Interesting. Not the first time I've seen that suggestion, but what about top-tier?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-25.htm
"Buy Your Gas at Citgo: Join the BUY-cott! by Jeff Cohen"