Affirmative Discrimination and Racism

[Craig Read]

One of the most illiberal concepts is affirmative action.

I believe that beneath the surface of those who support AA are closet racists. What they really believe is that certain races and sexes are inferior. I do not, and see no need for racist legislation based on skin, hair, tie, suit, eye or any other color or religion for that matter.

The Supreme Court basically upheld the Univ. of Michigan's ridiculous claim that 'diversity' is vital to the American system.

Diversity is nonsense. What is necessary, and what Stephan Douglass and Martin Luther King and various suffragettes fought for, was 'equality before the law.'

Clarence Thomas was one of the judges that sided against the Court's decision. He quoted Douglass in essence stating that justice was more important than discriminatory laws. Basically Thomas and true liberals believe that as long as the institutions and laws are neutral as to race or religion, there is enough opportunity to seek and obtain advancement.

I believe this to be true. In a world of Jim Crow laws the opposite point can be made and was made by various activists. However since 1964 there is no reason for 'diversity' or racist quota's.

Racism, protected by the Supreme Court, is a supreme threat to the functioning of the US system.

The US is going down the wrong path on a number of key issues.

For the record here are some facts for the Univ of Michigan:

====

The presumptive admit score for the racially preferred at the Michigan Law School is lower, as it was (and as it soon again will be) at Texas, than the pre-emptive reject score for others. Of the 4,000 or so blacks who take the Law School Admission Test each year, no more than two or three dozen score as high as the 93rd percentile with a 3.5 or better GPA. Median scores at the nation's half-dozen top law schools, however, are at about the 98th percentile with a 3.8 GPA, at which level the number of black applicants approaches zero. [sce WSJ]

===

[RB]

i think a lot of people would like to see the end of affirmative action, it is absurd in modern times but if you take the wording away as it pertain to affirmative action you leave groups vulnerable, groups such as women, trend has shown in past number of years they have increased in numbers as it relates to joining the job market, minorities, whose reality exist, they do not have equal access to employment, wealth and education

in jobs men are far happier 23% more so that women in comparable jobs because they see themselves being promoted and they usually settle at the very top (and a you can dissect this further as to which male group is at the top) well putting it into perspective the white male are more incline to anti-AA and the well informed women would vote 2:1 in favor of AA

rewording affirmative action to suit today's environment might be the way to go

as for the LSAT scores, i am not sure how long it will take to readjust certain groups, but somehow they are still remain economically underprivileged and the scores reflect this, and yes i intended to infer that education and wealth have a relation - i look at it as fair representation to accept a % of other groups who would not otherwise make it into law school simply because of the very high competitive scores

i am not aware if the canadian universities also have this allowance for the LSAT scores but i say with experience they are quite competitive also

[Craig Read]

Well AA is racist - the Supreme Court decision stated that only Blacks, Latino's and Native Indians would benefit from affirmative action policy. This is extremely racist to me.

What about Japanese, other Asians, Pacific Islanders, Bulgarians, Moldovans, Islamo-Fascists, Reindeer Hunters, Vegetarians, Yoga enthusiasts, Scientologists, people who can't dress properly and dwarves ? Aren't these groups all disadvantaged ? Don't they all suffer pain ? Can't you feel their agony through their beating breasts?

Soon every group that feels hard done by will be lobbying for some sort of allowance. This is not what the US Constitution or people like ML King and S. Douglass had in mind during their civil rights crusades.

The Americans better start beating down the left liberal courts and getting a handle on their politial appointee system before they start to destroy their own society.

[Hugo]

AA is a very confused policy, which deals with symptoms and not root causes. Take the example of women in the workplace. On average, they still get paid less, don't go as high up the career ladder, etc. This is because they have children. They can't devote as much time to their careers. Men can raise children, but they can't bear them, and they can't nurse them (that being the medically preferred option for feeding infants), and they don't have the same nurturing bond with their children as mothers do. If women choose to go all-out for the career, they can (Martha Stewart, Anita Roddick, Anne Mulcahey), and can achieve parity with men.

To say that this is unfair, is basically saying that the only way we can define the value of a human life is in terms of earning power. By this rationale, the former CEO of Enron would have led a better and more valuable life than Mahatma Gandhi.

[RB]

the reality is that there are groups consistently underprivileged when it comes to equity, so be serious now, some people can make choices in life but there are no fixes for subtle institutionalized barriers, AA promote equity in terms of employment of women, members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities, and at least some problem areas are address, and adjustments made based on some policy.

women are rightly looking out for themselves financially, establishing a career first and think children after. most career minded women would have a first child in their thirties, and .... i would go further to make a selection of a sex type, which excludes men.

women are not advancing fast enough to the top for the reason that the only appeal the women have is to men – so being brazen enough would often pose the question to men as to why women in comparable jobs as men are not paid equally and it unbelievable amounts to 3-5 days a month difference – the glass ceiling still exist and as it turns out the ones who actually struggles to the top are the world's biggest "*****es" so no appeal to them either – its all unfair

[Hugo]

Sorry, RB, but I couldn't disagree more with your post.

quote

some people can make choices in life but there are no fixes for subtle institutionalized barriers, AA promote equity in terms of employment of women, members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities

Which barriers are you talking about, specifically? Provide examples. I want no talk of "glass ceilings for women" when many companies have female CEOs and women on the board. My wife and I work for the same company, yet my wife earns 50% more than me and is a supervisor.

With policies of equal opportunity, we have given everyone a place on the same starting line. Now, if everyone does not finish at the same time, that's due to who they are and their strengths and weaknesses as a person. It's fair. AA is an attempt to skew the starting line so that everybody finishes at the same time - why even bother running, then?

Given this policy, most blacks (for instance) would not try as hard, knowing that despite poor study they can still get into just as good a college as harder working white kids. Then they can walk into the same jobs without trying as hard, too - same reason.

Skip ahead a generation or two, and you find that white people all believe that blacks are lazy, stupid underachievers who coast by on hand-outs. This increase in racism will be a direct result of AA policy.

Furthermore, if you really want to end discrimination on racial and ethnic grounds, don't you think that the best way to go is to stop focusing on the differences between races and backgrounds, rather than emphasising them as AA does? All you are doing is perpetuating the myth that blacks (for instance, again) are different and deserve different treatment. OK, it's different from Southern segregation and Apartheid, but it is exactly the same idea. That is why I oppose AA - it's a knee-jerk reaction that makes the problem it "addresses" even worse. In this I agree with Craig - AA is just as racist as Apartheid, it merely swings to the opposite end of the scale.

quote

most career minded women would have a first child in their thirties

And this is another problem we need to address. A woman's prime childbearing years are her twenties, and women in their thirties run a greatly increased risk of complications with negative effects on their baby's health and their own. This has come to pass because, as a society, we have effectively told womankind that the only way that they matter or that they are useful is as wage-earners, just like men.

This is "equality" in the workplace - what women actually are biologically designed for and what they excel at is debased and ridiculed. Housewives are mocked as "stupid" and "unambitious", those who bear children in their early twenties even more so. This is effectively saying that the skills of raising children are worthless.

As a parent, I can tell you that they aren't. Raising children well is far more demanding and requires more skill than any career. If we gave women the respect they deserve, they would not need to de-womanise themselves and become "men in skirts" in order to have "equality". That's not equality, it's self-degradation.

quote

women are not advancing fast enough to the top for the reason that the only appeal the women have is to men

More of the rampant sexism that's inherent in AA policy. Perhaps it's crossed your mind that men and women are different mentally as well as physically? Of course it has, it's scientifically proven. For instance, men are far better at spatialisation and three-dimensional thinking (comes from hunting) and women are far better at verbal skills and communicating (comes from raising children). Given this biological fact, instead of taking it into account in our society, as the vast majority of cultures in history have, we ignore it completely and attempt to stamp it out.

Fine, then, as long as we are denying scientific reality in favour of "fairness", I demand that the laws of gravity be repealed since they are negatively impacting my quality of life. Who do I bring suit against for that?

[Ronda]

quote

most career minded women would have a first child in their thirties, and .... i would go further to make a selection of a sex type, which excludes men.

Oh, so you're not sexist or anything? And how would you go about your sex selection? Backwards Chinese style? Unbelievable.

Yes, men are pigs, men are scum... don't worry - hold out for cloning, then you won't have to defile yourself through any kind of male contact whatsoever for your later in life girl baby. Ah, feminism, the voice of reason and equality.

quote

why women in comparable jobs as men are not paid equally and it unbelievable amounts to 3-5 days a month difference

Do you even have a source for this claim? Do you really hold that the reasons women *may* earn less than men are due to an unfair system? That they have nothing to do with different lifestyles or biological functions (ie. child rearing)? I've never worked for a company that paid my male co-workers more than me or paid my female supervisor less than the male.

"Those who oppose pay equity do not rely exclusively on economic arguments. Some argue that the principle behind pay equity is condescending to women. "Radical feminists," says Meredith Munger-Leyva, a female executive with a Washington, D.C. firm, "are telling women that they are not capable of competing with men... they are telling women that the government will take care of them... Instead of telling women about the trade-offs in life we make and giving women the educational tools to consider who to deal with these trade-offs, special interest groups are telling women that they are not responsible for taking charge of their careers". Pay equity is, from this perspective, part of an ideology of gender victimology that also is used to defend affirmative action measures."

Quote from: http://www.policy.ca/PDF/20010126.pdf

[Craig Read]

AA, and pay equity and other 'levelling' programs only serve to buy the votes of the targeted group which claims to be suffering, and philosophically attempts to cleanse society of its White Male dominance and associated guilt.

Historically society did commit offences against minorities - Indians, Jews, Blacks, Chinese - all suffered in Canada and the States, physical and/or social abuse.

AA is a belated attempt to equalise and erase history, but I have to agree with Hugo and Rhonda that biological, social and economic incentives differ by group, by race and between men and women. These differences cannot be legislated away.

The key to society is to have justice and equality before the law and an equal opportunity to pursue ones interests without being prevented from doing so, due to skin color, or religiosity.

AA actually is a perverted policy because it discriminates against a large fraction of society and tells the targeted groups to expect, nay demand, government help. This is not the role of government. Politicians should not be buying votes of interest groups by suggesting that they have the legitimate power to elevate certain sectors of society above the rest.

This is pernicious and offensive to fairly functioning society. As much as slavery and jewish pograms were offensive and as much as racism is a disease that should not be tolerated, AA is a program that exacerbates and not alleviates the cause of conflict.

That cause is simply a racist ideology that we must [at all levels] sponge our society clean of, through the enactment of laws and statutes granting equal justice and opportunity. Such laws of which there are many, are protection enough without the cost and distortion and power that goes along with AA policy setting.

AA is more of a political tool of power, and a mistaken abuse of such power, than it is a rational and far sighted program.

[RB]

what’s this convergence of some kind

i have to apologise as i am unable to address all the posts right away

in the late 70’s voluntary affirmative action was set up by the canadian government, and note there were no significant changes were brought about, hence the legislature for employment equity and even so systemic discrimination exist today, it is far too deeply rooted and traditional and the mere fact that you are a women means you face this barrier, plug in some other stats that HRDC tracks such as:

- age,

-youths as defined under 29,

-visible minority,

and I am seeing this more often:

-your are over-qualified or over-educated as a new canadian seeking a first work opportunity

you can’t look one person and the few people in the 100 best run companies by the chatelaine magazine of women entrepreneurs to base the argument, this is a very minute picture of women in the workplace. Government of Canada buys into to any kind of program that would promote and help the identified groups because they are consistently face conditions of disadvantage in the labor market and they are serious were they track the stats of:

-Women,

-Aboriginals,

-Visible and Minorities

when use in combination descrimation is at its worst

“According to a 1995 study commissioned by the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 97% of the senior managers of the Fortune 1000 Industrial and Fortune 500 are white, and 95-97% are male. This is occuring while 57% of the workforce is either Ethnic minorities, woman, or both. The study also found that African, Hispanic (Latino), and Asian Americans do not earn the same pay for comparable positions, African Americans earning an astounding 21% less than their white counterparts in the same job” here is some other stats to check http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/2000/national.html

no woman should financially depend on another person (such as the male) for comfort, her motto should be independence, it is preposterous to wildly suggest when a women should choose to have a child. All I am saying is that mostly the independent women nowadays builds the career in her twenties and really gets established, its the best choice really, instead of starting out late in the marketplace such as in her thirties as history has shown, and has not build enough resources to retire (and she might be on her own based on those divorce rates).

women need to be educated and liberal in their thinking and its why groups like the AA exist to enforce and promote awareness

[Craig Read]

Sorry don't buy any of it. AA is discriminatory. Go down to City Hall, or the UNO - gov't is just a massive minority hiring program. Regardless of skill, productivity or need, you will be hired because you have brown skin. This is a fantasy society. Equality in justice and law are mandatory. Any programs beyond this, are pure political projects to buy votes, and appear sympathetic. Another post modern fallacy. I don't believe that certain races need help from the government. There are plenty of private societies and citizens that can help these people if and when needed. Forcing firms to abide by schemes of equity and racist profiling is unconstitutional and immoral.

[Ronda]

quote

no woman should financially depend on another person (such as the male) for comfort, her motto should be independence, it is preposterous to wildly suggest when a women should choose to have a child.

What's the difference if a woman depends on gov't handouts or a man? If a woman "needs" the gov't to force businesses to pay her more simply because she's a woman, what's the point? You can deny biology till you're blue in the face but the fact is women have babies. Lots of women actually like it. This is why women appear to earn less than men. Less women work and women tend to take a year or more off to stay home and look after children.

As far as your assertion that it's preposterous to suggest when a woman should have children... take it up with God or whoever else you believe created women. All Hugo was saying is that it's a FACT that women are in the prime childbearing years in their 20s. Choose to have children in your mid-late 30s (as many career women do) and the only problem is decreased fertility and FAR greater likelihood of complications for mother and baby.

[Hugo]

quote

no woman should financially depend on another person (such as the male) for comfort, her motto should be independence

This is, at best, highly facetious. Independence has indeed become a motto, unfortunately, those who advocate it fail to realise that nobody is independent. This is just another way in which our society has been made only to value money. Why should a woman not be dependent on a man financially, when the man is dependent on the woman for his children? Are you really so out-of-touch and mercenary to think that money is more important than children?

Though indeed it has become so, sadly, and we have the pro-abort radical-feminist camp to thank for that. They have succeeded in nothing more than debasing and belittling women, and women have been pushed into becoming imitations of men. Motherhood is now unimportant, what is important is work and money. What feminism has accomplished is to erase the differences between the sexes and make both male. How is that an empowerment of womankind, to say that the only way a woman can be worthy is to become a male in all but anatomy?

quote

it is preposterous to wildly suggest when a women should choose to have a child

Perhaps you should tell that to OB/GYNs, who do that every day. One can't tell a woman when to bear a child, but one can tell her when such bearing is risky (30s-40s) or near-impossible (50s).

Do you not think that this is a greater disservice to women? What we have done is to dupe women into endangering their health and their babies for the sake of money. This is what you advocate - money over children, career over health. You have your priorities completely and utterly backwards if you seriously believe in this inhuman perversion of society.

Until Aldous Huxley's prophecies come true (which I'm sure you await anxiously), the fact is that women are better off bearing children in their twenties, and because of said bearing will be more financially dependent on men than men are on women. This cannot be adjusted for or changed. AA is simply an attempt to sweep the problem under the carpet. Nothing has changed because of AA, except for appearances.

Furthermore, it is useless to quote statistics when you do not understand the drivers creating them. Most women I know that work, don't work because they want to, but because they have to (for extra household income), and they would much rather spend more time with their children. This leaves nobody to care for the children, and what is the solution? Apparently, state-run daycare. Obviously, complete strangers would be better able to look after children (in a group of 30, no less) than their own mothers, right?

[RB]

All I am saying is women need to adjust with changes and set standards for themselves-(oh and if they take a benchmark from the men-well that’s a start, look at the statistics and find that men have much going for themselves), be independent and so you give women tools: information and their rights, then let them make informed decisions based on ALL the choices available. If that’s one of the objectives of aa and the feminist groups, I support it.

So women are faced with the dilemma of career and motherhood, they are the ultimate ones to make the choices. History has shown that those 40% failed marriages, the women are the ones to suffer in the marketplace. This is because they have no contingencies in place and depend economically on the male. reality check is harsh when the relationship failed between the couples and the women sadly are the ones who lack up to date skills for the workplace, and usually take up several menial jobs to look after the self and children, what a tough going. It is a problem and the government knows this, and has set up programs to help mothers returning to work even if they have been away for 5 years.

There are subtleties about economic power in relationships, if there were no contributions from the women obviously the disposition of being submissive, docile and nurturing falls naturally into roles and this wrongly defines women.

In my opinion women should plan as in a career, and take responsibilities for the self, and dictate their own future, whether they choose to have career mostly now or then, but to choose wisely.

[Craig Read]

AA harms women and the target market by giving them the entitlement attitude that they should receive and not deserve. As well it creates apartheid. Read the book Mexifornia- by pandering to AA and the nonsense of multiculturalism you create a 2 and 3 tiered society. What you are really saying is that Western Liberal constitutional society is no good. There is no evidence to support this view.

As a woman if you want kids fine, that is your choice, we don't have to give you something because you made that choice and anyways you receive entitlements through the social safety net so what more do you want. A completely and freely paid life style of your choice ?

It is insane that hispanics, blacks and native indians get preferential treatment.

What do you do with the girl who's dad is white, mother is 1/2 Cherokee and whose great grandfather was black.

Is she a minority ? Not really. Though she can argue that she is and play the race card to get what she thinks she deserves.

How about the Asian man who marries a white women whose dad was Native American. Is their kid a minority ? Not under the current legislation. Why is an Asian inferior to a Black ?

AA is drivel. It tries to recompense for past wrongs. It imposes today's morality on yesterday's actions. This is revisionist engineering at its worst.

[Guest Guest_RB]

i believe everyone should be treated fairly/equally, but in this society the truth is that there is consistency of descrimiation against groups (hispanics, blacks and native indians) and i have in my hand a report of last week to now track single parent in which 90% of the group are WOMEN - who by the way following the guidelines of proverty living conditions are substandard. reality is men will not be the ones to inform women on how to cope thereof, so a need exist for a "women helping women" organisation for empowerment and dissemination of information at grassroots level and advocacy level. the stats in contrast for the single parent men - they are doing well above average but so far only account for 10%.

i am firm in my believe for career choices and becoming a parent. this dependency on the male is absurd and is a horrible embarrassment. i would put forward the argument that if a woman chooses to have a child, should plan economically to maintain for herself and the child. the safety net to $416/week cannot support much and is very much an entitlement and not a free lifestyle - we all contribute.

[Craig Read]

What nonsense you offer. The only discrimination i see is in government hiring - Toronto City Hall is a minority jobs program for instance, as are most government depts regardless of what needs to be done in terms of skill or productivity. I have never met someone in the private sector who cares a jot about race, religion or the color of the person's hair, as long as the job gets done well, efficiently and accurately, and as long as the person helps the firm make a profit.

In the real world, if you are a racist, a bigot, a moron, a thief, a clown or a drunken mental midget, people will not work for you. Period. They just leave or if egregiously treated, will ensure you are investigated ie. for sexual or racial harassment.

Your mantra that only whites are racist, and that only whites created slavery and that only Anglo Saxons plan, implement and coddle a philosophy of discrimination borders on fantastical ignorance.

Slavery is still practiced in the world - in Africa and Brazil mostly and has very little white involvement. Slave trading long predates White involvement - it was going on thousands of years before British, Dutch and French traders discovered West African labor. As recently as 1000 AD the Muslims wrote in various letters that the Franks ie. Europeans, made good slaves.

In 1807 Britain became the first country to ban slave trading and in 1843 became the first country to brand slave owning a crime. 500.000 whites died in the US civil war, in part to free Blacks.

Black power, Muslim hatred of the West, Oriental contempt for 'barbarians', and other such racial profiling exists in the world. Are you for or against this? Probably for it, since it is anti-white, I would assume.

One should stop rewriting history and justifying reverse racism on the grounds that some historical crime must be atoned for. Using your logic, as a Britisher, i can sue the Normans, the Danes, the Germans, the Italians, and the Dutch for war crimes and acts of bondage and slavery.

The Fact that such a claim is piffle, basically sums up the inanity of AA.

[RB]

I am sure you are incorrect in your assumption of the meshing of skills to a job description for the City of Toronto. All the government jobs are competition for the general public, and there are screening criteria for an initial interview and a grading scale on performance level for the interview, obviously the best fit eventually secures some job, sometimes it is necessary for testing as with some federal jobs. well I can understand if you say some of those minority groups get caught in a loop and are under-represented within an institution hence your equity law because this is a reality.

and the private sector is even worst when is comes to the equity - its hard to believe, but there is major descrimation (this is with employment), and now i am fed-up saying this

but i shall continue with this, unless programs, groups exist and representation is available for these groups, they will be caught in a vicious cycle of remaining poor, less educated and accessing your social systems all their life. So give those the tools they need to do well. It is a win-win outcome and so allow the activist groups to do what they do best – service the people.

I don’t proffer explanation OR succumb to such statements of racial iniquities nor do I don’t profess to be racial against any one group. I obey, practice and operate within the confines what is the law.

But I do have some opinion, there is no doubt about the existence of some superior culture, and they dominate and have control and power that is real however much you would like to stifle this. This group has a history of reaping benefits from others, but this is in the past – chalk this down to experience and grow now, move on and away.

For the African regions they really need to feed the starving nation, and I suggest to copy the government style of the Chinese, COMMUNISM, and work the land and water – back to agriculture.

Oh and those aa and feminist groups should also gather momentum and access those folks like early, er.... I basically would like to see women rule the world.

[djpark121]

I think AA is useless, and extremely unfair in determining a person's capability. Why is it that in college for example, when the majority of applicants accepted are white, it's racism, but when the majority of applicants accepted are African-Americans, Latinos, or Native-Americans, it isn't? If you attempt to reduce the number of ANY race ANYWHERE, it's racism. AA is probably one of the stupidest legislations out there because it contradicts itself and defeats the purpose of itself. If a student truly has the capability to do whatever they're applying for, they'll get in. It's totally unfair for the intelligent student to be rejected because they didn't fall in a certain racial category. This could lead to unqualified students entering colleges. Leading to a degrading in educational standing for that college. Civil rights activitists constantly say AA is absolutely necessary for people of diverse background's to succeed, but I think is weak. All AA does is promote racism but people refuse to look at that aspect because they have to depend on legislation, not brains.

[Nuclear]

I completely agree that AA is racist. I believe that in the attempt to become 'diverse' that we acknowledge the difference between people of different races and therefore continue to take that into account. Have you ever thought of how you notive hair colors on people? Most people don't and if they do, they don't judge them by it. It's like they are saying it's ok for racism to exist so long as it's against the 'majority'

[Craig Read]

AA extends to the media as well.

Muslim sniper in Virginia is called by his Christian name. A name he never used in the past 19 years.

Muslim extremists blow up Bombay's Jewellry market and the media reports that 'unhappy' agents were responsible.

NY Times reward skin color and diversity to the point of allowing black reporters to file completely falsified stories. No legal charges please we are black.

Professional media, law and business schools will now try to determine if your brown skin qualifies you for entrance - it will depend if you can prove that your ancestor was on the march with Cortes, or picked cotton in Alabama, or galloped with Geronimo. Failing that you can claim that some evil Scottish slave owner raped your grandmother.

Muslim extremists in prision are referred to by the media as religious Islamists ignoring their doctrine of hate, violence and racism, akin to Nazism. They have simply found 'comfort in religion'.

Failed African nazi-socialist regimes are referred to as populist governments with agrarian reform policies - that have somehow failed.

Palestinian murderers are covered by the innocous banner 'intifada', as if they are nice kids just out throwing stones on the weekend.

White people who point out that the terrorists are extremist muslims and wonder why Canada imports 1/2 of its immigrants from muslim countries are called racist.

Orwell's World ? Just plain assinine if you ask me.

[RB]

well i happen to disagree when there is good in an organisation such as this

go ahead and dream on about an ideal society when choices are avaiable to all, and so each person is allowed to equal access in this land of free for all

go ahead in pretense and be corward and cloak and not to accept discrimation of groups as it exits

those law and business school scores of acceptance are highly competitive - and there are numerous reports out on a corealation of wealth and education. some groups are kept economically in the dumps because even though they can problably perform a job or do well in school as good as the next non-identify group - they are not given an opportunity - look at those at the top of the management team of companies and decide for yourself - there much consistency there

under-representation of minority groups in the majority is a reality, i am glad that at least business and law schools are willing to compromise that minus point percentage, if they don't we continue with a non-balance of abusive power stucture - and you still wonder why the folks cannot help themselves

[Craig Read]

You talk piffle. I know who you are RB and i know you don't believe half the nonsense you prattle on about.

Martin Luther King, and Stephen Douglass said it best. Give equality under the law and blacks [and other minorities] must help themselves.

Neither wanted an AA society and felt that AA would hurt not help black Americans.

They are right.

Since AA for blacks became standardised during LBJ's Great Society Crusade [another example of a dumb liberal program], black families have dissolved, crime is up, single mother families are up, teenage pregnancies are up, and a subculture of underachievement is rampant.

Why try if you know that your skin or ethnicity is your trump card ?

You dream on in your little bubble world RB where all people are equal, all things are relative and white people are racist pricks who hate all skin color and businessmen when they are not whipping their employees spend long hours in darkened rooms plotting how to destroy the soul of immigrants with dark skin tones.

[RB]

well in that case you should know that I hardly take on a defeatist role and very much pro active er bono - aiming for that campaigning to promote and represent groups that are mis and under-represented of social evil

dont blame aa and other groups for what is it you practise, your long list of institutionalised barriers is real - it no wonder the folks are cultured shock when the arrive in this land. you keep rallying to elimate the aa group, now no wonder they did not get to these issues in time

quote

"black families have dissolved, crime is up, single mother families are up, teenage pregnancies are up, and a subculture of underachievement is rampant"

unquote

but here is my take

Theme on women/single mother families, teenage pregancies

we need better planning, aa is the group of women conversing with women, and that the non-traditional women (and if I have anything to do with this would include all women, from thenceforth) should not have kids unless they intend to support the child themselves and from a financial standpoint marriage is a thing of the past. i believe now marriage works in favor of the government, so for their sake, I am glad we can approve of gay and happy marriages, but mostly concern about those failed ones, the folks who will experience that root of all evils rest on getting past those institutionalized notions is a major feat..why

This is just an observation that even when women have won, they really loose. warning to the career oriented, independence comes in prizes, that when there is failure, there is also transference of support payments and alimony from the female to the male for maintenance of a lifestyle.

[Craig Read]

RB, you talk nonsense. Drivel.

From a recent US study:

A decade ago, black students taking the SATs typically scored 153 points below the national average and 187 points below the white average. Today the gap has expanded to 163 points and 206 points, respectively. But instead of working to close this gap in the places where it starts -- primarily, our lousy inner-city public school systems -- the education establishment tries to sidestep the whole thing by lowering the bar at the college level. Which is why affirmative action admissions programs periodically wind up in the Supreme Court.

People like yourself never want to solve problems. You just want to sugar coat everything and present it with a nice bow.

Too much work to actually solve problems now isn't it ?

This goes for health care, Terrorism, Immigration and all the other policy issues that need courage, ideas, and commitment.

The Lie-beral leftist rabble would rather just hug the problem and hope it goes away.

Clinton tried that with Terrorism and er...it kind of failed didn't it?

[Pellaken]

some people discriminate against minorities.

affirmative aciton, un-does that. unfortunatly, un-discriminating, is still discriminating.