Election Thread

[Hammerskjold]

>Unfortunately the small minded and ignorant do take the actions of just one or two and use them to judge an entire race. This goes both ways. There are black supremacy groups that have judged and condemed the entire white race based on the actions of a few. And there are white folks that have done the same.


Yeah, and that's their problem of idiocy and ignorance. But that still doesn't answer how she got the job of (mis)representing a whole group of people. Was she looking for the position or was she given the job by those asking for accountability of an entire race?

I know if I was expected to be the walking mascot\barometer for my race\sex\creed I'd ask for at least an annual 3 weeks paid vacation and a full health coverage. It's the least that I deserve dammit, considering my financial compensation will most likely be commission based. Every time someone says that I am a (dis) credit to my (fill in affiliated group here) I get a nickel. I doubt anyone can make a living wage by just holding one spokestitle.

[Doc]

I used to work for a local University, and sat on a few hiring committees. We had to run all of our hiring decisions through the affirmative action office, but never had any problems, even when hiring a "majority" candidate. There were never any quotas that we had to fill.

Edited to add- I think one of the reasons that the system worked so well for us was that we had a pretty coherent system of screening applicants and interviewees agreed upon in advance, so it was pretty clear that our decisions were based on the merits of the candidate.

For the love of God we need more of that here. A lot of positions, like library, various city jobs, parking clerks, various government desk jobs, all of these are hired through the Employment Office. A lot of places here can't do their own hiring because of wretched nanny influence. Beaurocracy has concluded that a lot of these places can not be trusted to hire on their own, so, the positions are filled through the SCEO. Sadly, the SCEO is a major dumping ground for Affirmative Action. About a year or so ago, maybe two by now, there was a real problem with the minority rule in the SCEO... All of the minorities hired to fill quotas decided that white folks didn't deserve to work and started destroying their applications. The solution? Hire more minorities and increase quotas so they wont feel "left out of society." Jesse Jackson had his hands in that mess. Damn.

Ever seen a government desk jockey that had to type with a pencil because her damn press on nails were 3 inches long? The department of social services, the social security offices, the department of health and human services are all FULL with folks like these. People who can barely read, people who have to read outloud very very slowly carefully pronouncing each and every word, can't do simple math, have no manners, damn sure can't use a computer with any real skill, can't type, can't do a damn thing. All they can do is fill a quota.

Quagmire. I don't see an end to this mess.

I miss the open minded idealism of the west coast.

[Griselda]

We have our share of ignorant, incompetent employees out here, too, but they tend to come in all colors. Are you sure you're not just noticing the ones that support your beliefs, and not the other ones who are equally incompent?

[Doc]

We have our share of ignorant, incompetent employees out here, too, but they tend to come in all colors. Are you sure you're not just noticing the ones that support your beliefs, and not the other ones who are equally incompent?

Gris, to be completely honest, and I hope you will understand where I am coming from, but there are so many incompetents that it is hard to tell where one kind trails off and the other picks up.

Many factors at work here, but Affirmative Action is the leading contributor here in the South. That, and democrats, republicans, all these people with their own agendas, all of them conflicting.

The Libertarians are strangely silent and mostly absent in all of these issues. Probably because we burn those types as witches round here.

And don't get me started on the bumper stickers reading "Green is the new colour of communism." How are environmentalists communists? I think it had something to do with a green party guy on tv a while back stating that people should live on earth friendly communes... You don't use big words around these cretins. It is dangerous.

[SwissMercenary]

All retired, all talking out their ass.

I do believe that's because they can't say a thing about their superior while in service.

[Occhidiangela]

"Rumsfeld already had the armed forces asking for his removal"

This one.

Mind you, I'm not a huge fan of the guy, but I've not seen any reports that the military wants him gone. A report from a 3rd source is not information to me. I need a direct result from either an unbiased poll (gl with that one, naturally), or a quote from several high ranking military officials before I believe this. Perhaps someone like Occhi can shed more light on this.

-A

Most of the guys who couldn't abide by Rummy voted with their feet in the past three years, and left the service. I am not attuned to the last year's skullduggery in DC, but Rummy has been, from what little I do hear, the same as he ever was. Hard to work for, but focused on his aims. HE's been antagonizing generals and admirals with his silver bullet transformation line since he showed up in 2001.

Nor sure how Mr Gates will do, the current pres of Texas A & M, and former CIA director. We shall see.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

All retired, all talking out their ass.

Rolan, my friend, you are talking a bit out of the old bunghole there.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton, Army
Gen Anthony Zinni, Marines
Lt Gen Gregory Newbold, Marines
Maj Gen John Batiste, Army
Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr, Army
Maj Gen John Riggs, Army
Gen Wesley Clark, Army

General Batiste gave up three stars and a corps command. Then he spoke out, as his moral uprightness dictated he do in loyalty to his men. I had the privilege of working for him for a short time, and he's both sharp, and a real gentleman.

Newbold was J3 at JCS, director of operations. He left, basically in protest, before the war started. Not a fool.

Anthony Zinni is one of the sharper folks to ever strap on four stars. His op plan for Iraq was just over 300,000 troops. Hmmmm.

W. Clark is very smart, though a self promoting pol, and was such in uniform. Due to his political ambitions, I take his remarks with a larger grain of salt, but he was JCS J3 before he was SACEUR, and again, not a fool.

I am not as familiar with some of the others, though I have read quite a bit of Eaton's recent stuff.

General Van Riper is not on that list, but he too was merciless in his critique of Rummy's style in DoD.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I do believe that's because they can't say a thing about their superior while in service.

Which is also why I, on this forum, censored my feelings on GW Bush until 01 Oct 2005, when I retired.

Occhi

[Roland]

Thanks for the information. Consider my statement retracted, in light of your information.

Since I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on the subject, I was mostly relaying what I had heard. As usual, much of what people say is spun by their own personal bias.

Personally, I have no feelings on the matter. I don't know a thing about any of it, and I don't care. I have more important things to worry about than some political bull. I'll leave the future of the country to those who know and care. I'm just trying to stay afloat in a dead economic sea. That's all I care about.

[kandrathe]

I don't know much about affirmative action policies, but your post sure sounds racist regardless of intention. In my two years at a large (28,000+) university I have not run into anyone remotely like the person you described. Why choose the most improbable (and most derogatory) example?

Edit: Oops, sorry, I'm in school mode. Maybe the situation/person you described is more common in jobs than in schools. I've never experienced such a person myself.

Not that I've seen. Up here in the frigid north, there are very few white collar minorities (especially in technology). I interview and employ many, many people over a year period and I make the first cut based on what is on their resume. Those people that are qualified to make it to the interview stage usually are very knowledgeable and articulate.

I object a bit to affirmative action, or unions when they prevent people from making reasonable decisions about who should be given a job. I do believe it is important to insure minorities get a fair chance by giving people a means for filing a complaint that would be reviewed by an objective panel if they felt discriminated against. Philosophically, I'm not opposed to collective bargaining, or affirmative action, but in practice they have both been abused (by lawyers mostly). Fair employment needs to be a two way street for employees and employers.

I believe if there is a level playing field in educational opportunity, then the employment equality will sort itself out. A company would be crazy/stupid to pass over a better qualified candidate of color, for a less competent white person. Eventually, the company that discriminated would pay the price in poorer products, and also of having a poor reputation in fair hiring. It is only morally and ethically right to hold all people to the same standards, and to do otherwise is an affront to the persons who are held to the lower standard. I understand the argument is that as recompense for years of segregation and discrimination, minorities need preferential treatment to help close the gap. I think that preference would be better expressed as numerous scholarships for minorities that excel in high school and maintain a 3.0 or above in college (and not the watered down version of high school we have now). I believe in incentives, rather than handouts.

But, the civil rights movement was a long time ago. Would 100 years be enough time to sort things out? How about 200 years? It seems to me that the present time the largest obstacle for minority equality is a crappy high school education with lowered standards so much so that even if they graduated from high school they would never make it through college. And, it's not like the schools are discriminating. They are failing all children equally.

[Chaerophon]

I can respect a constituency's right to define marriage as the term has traditionally been used. However, this...

C: "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable." Code of Virginia § 20-45.3, enacted 2004

...I find problematic. Why the need for pre-emptive action? NO arrangement is valid? I really don't understand the harm - let the poor bastards have a tax break and power of attorney. There aren't any "institutions" being corrupted here, nor is it going to have any effect on "conventional" ideas of sexuality. Their way of life is already protected under the constitution, so admitting this right wouldn't be "groundbreaking" by any means. It has already been determined that homosexuals have a right to exist. Gay people are going to live together, and they're going to do "naughty things" regardless of whether their union is recognized by the state. In sum, this is purely vindictive, and smacks of state-sponsored bigotry. I can't think of any justifiable reason (both morally and in terms of jurisprudence) to deny them civil unions of some sort. Religion is NOT an issue - in acknowledging their sexual rights the state and supreme court have already as much as acknowledged their right to civil union. At least, this seems to me to be the logical extension of their freedom of sexual orientation, and rights to non-discrimination.

[Griselda]

Multigenerational poverty is a tough thing to break out of, for kids of all races. If you don't know and don't interact with anyone who has ever been successful in school, you'll probably not enter Kindergarten expecting to succeed, much less high school. We can raise standards all we want, but until we address the problem of how to reach kids whom *nobody* expects to succeed, they'll fail to live up to any standards that we set for them.

[Doc]

Not that I've seen. Up here in the frigid north, there are very few white collar minorities (especially in technology). I interview and employ many, many people over a year period and I make the first cut based on what is on their resume. Those people that are qualified to make it to the interview stage usually are very knowledgeable and articulate.

I object a bit to affirmative action, or unions when they prevent people from making reasonable decisions about who should be given a job. I do believe it is important to insure minorities get a fair chance by giving people a means for filing a complaint that would be reviewed by an objective panel if they felt discriminated against. Philosophically, I'm not opposed to collective bargaining, or affirmative action, but in practice they have both been abused (by lawyers mostly). Fair employment needs to be a two way street for employees and employers.

I believe if there is a level playing field in educational opportunity, then the employment equality will sort itself out. A company would be crazy/stupid to pass over a better qualified candidate of color, for a less competent white person. Eventually, the company that discriminated would pay the price in poorer products, and also of having a poor reputation in fair hiring. It is only morally and ethically right to hold all people to the same standards, and to do otherwise is an affront to the persons who are held to the lower standard. I understand the argument is that as recompense for years of segregation and discrimination, minorities need preferential treatment to help close the gap. I think that preference would be better expressed as numerous scholarships for minorities that excel in high school and maintain a 3.0 or above in college (and not the watered down version of high school we have now). I believe in incentives, rather than handouts.

But, the civil rights movement was a long time ago. Would 100 years be enough time to sort things out? How about 200 years? It seems to me that the present time the largest obstacle for minority equality is a crappy high school education with lowered standards so much so that even if they graduated from high school they would never make it through college. And, it's not like the schools are discriminating. They are failing all children equally.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but I must correct you.

The Civil Rights Movement is still a plan in action. Right here where I live there are still major issues over the confederate flag. Martin Luther King day is still not recognised as a holiday. Instead of signs saying "whites only" there are signs stating "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody." The Klan still has considerable political and social power inspite all of what Klanwatch has done to keep them in check. There are still beatings, Southern trees still bear strange fruit, and all kinds of petty acts of hatred. It is still a crime to be black or brown or any colour other than white and the police will hassle you or pull you over just because they can, especially if you have out of state plates.

People STILL disapear.

The illusion of the American dream is still working, and like any other dream, people are still sound asleep enjoying it.

Waking reality is quite a bit different though.

[kandrathe]

Waking reality is quite a bit different though.

It's strange. I've been down south quite a bit lately, since my mom moved down to Arkansas. I see quite a bit more social friendships between races there, than I do here. Here, where there is a 99% white majority in most places it seems awkward (for both sides) for the same level of social interactions. In my high school of 1200 students, there was one black family. I can't imagine how that was. I hope you understand I'm not being racist, its just that when you have the opportunity to hang out with someone from another race around here it's like you feel sort of "Wow, cool, an Alien!" Like, you've heard about them, but never thought you'd ever get close to one, let alone communicate. But, then, you know you don't want to come off all weird stiff and stereotypically "white", so you try to act sort of low key and laid back. So, I guess it's awkward here. But, when I go hang out in Chicago, its more integrated there and I feel that everyone is a little more at ease with each other.

I believe what you say is true down south, but I don't see it happening that way around here. There are ghetto neighborhoods where crime is higher that get treated more gruff than others here, so I guess that might be slightly similar. The police have never treated anyone very well here though, everyone seems to get an equally rough time depending on what your doing, where and when. I guess my point before was, "Should you care as a person of color what evil plot some low class white supremacist is hatching?" Wouldn't it be better to dodge those idiots, get a great education, become a lawyer or a doctor an live the American dream? It might be that the Klan is standing between black people and success, but I don't see that around here. I see white liberals keeping poor people poor by extending plenty of free food, free clothes, and free housing without ever requiring any effort. I like the idea of a hand up, not a hand out. I like the idea of free quality education, not a free ride at the taxpayers expense.

[Occhidiangela]

I can respect a constituency's right to define marriage as the term has traditionally been used. However, this...

...I find problematic. Why the need for pre-emptive action? NO arrangement is valid? I really don't understand the harm - let the poor bastards have a tax break and power of attorney. There aren't any "institutions" being corrupted here, nor is it going to have any effect on "conventional" ideas of sexuality. Their way of life is already protected under the constitution, so admitting this right wouldn't be "groundbreaking" by any means. It has already been determined that homosexuals have a right to exist. Gay people are going to live together, and they're going to do "naughty things" regardless of whether their union is recognized by the state. In sum, this is purely vindictive, and smacks of state-sponsored bigotry. I can't think of any justifiable reason (both morally and in terms of jurisprudence) to deny them civil unions of some sort. Religion is NOT an issue - in acknowledging their sexual rights the state and supreme court have already as much as acknowledged their right to civil union. At least, this seems to me to be the logical extension of their freedom of sexual orientation, and rights to non-discrimination.

I think the political move is to pre empt the "death of the thousand cuts" or to block "the thin end of the wedge." Cover all bases ahead of time to keep a case from coming to court that otherwise might provide the beginning of a breakdown to the other law.

I still don't think these various statutes will stand the test of time, unless the 14th Amendment is repealed.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Multigenerational poverty is a tough thing to break out of, for kids of all races. If you don't know and don't interact with anyone who has ever been successful in school, you'll probably not enter Kindergarten expecting to succeed, much less high school. We can raise standards all we want, but until we address the problem of how to reach kids whom *nobody* expects to succeed, they'll fail to live up to any standards that we set for them.

The word still needs janitors. If their parents don't care about their future, why should I?

Occhi

[Griselda]

The word still needs janitors. If their parents don't care about their future, why should I?

Occhi

Because they did not choose their circumstances. I think that every child should have an *opportunity* to succeed, regardless of who their parents are. Also, they won't all be janitors. Quite a few may not work legally for a living. Who will be supporting them then (through tax dollars or as crime victims)?

I've seen a study about Head Start, for example, where they followed some Head Start and non-Head Start children longitudinally, and it turned out that the money spent to send those kids to Head Start was more than repaid by increased tax revenues from these kids as adults.

The problem of multi-generational poverty also furthers racial tension in this country, because at this point a higher percentage of children of color are in families that have been in poverty for generations. As a result, this system perpetuates economic inequality between children of different racial groups.

It's not about race, it's about money and capitalism, but race ends up being a factor because although everyone *could* succeed, children of color, as a group, do not have the same opportunity to succeed.

[Doc]

Because they did not choose their circumstances. I think that every child should have an *opportunity* to succeed, regardless of who their parents are. Also, they won't all be janitors. Quite a few may not work legally for a living. Who will be supporting them then (through tax dollars or as crime victims)?

I've seen a study about Head Start, for example, where they followed some Head Start and non-Head Start children longitudinally, and it turned out that the money spent to send those kids to Head Start was more than repaid by increased tax revenues from these kids as adults.

The problem of multi-generational poverty also furthers racial tension in this country, because at this point a higher percentage of children of color are in families that have been in poverty for generations. As a result, this system perpetuates economic inequality between children of different racial groups.

It's not about race, it's about money and capitalism, but race ends up being a factor because although everyone *could* succeed, children of color, as a group, do not have the same opportunity to succeed.

And this folks, is what makes Gris an exceptional person. She thinks in ripples and has a good head on her shoulders.

Thank God for good teachers, restores a little faith in this world.

[kandrathe]

Because they did not choose their circumstances. I think that every child should have an *opportunity* to succeed, regardless of who their parents are. Also, they won't all be janitors. Quite a few may not work legally for a living. Who will be supporting them then (through tax dollars or as crime victims)?

I've seen a study about Head Start, for example, where they followed some Head Start and non-Head Start children longitudinally, and it turned out that the money spent to send those kids to Head Start was more than repaid by increased tax revenues from these kids as adults.

The problem of multi-generational poverty also furthers racial tension in this country, because at this point a higher percentage of children of color are in families that have been in poverty for generations. As a result, this system perpetuates economic inequality between children of different racial groups.

It's not about race, it's about money and capitalism, but race ends up being a factor because although everyone *could* succeed, children of color, as a group, do not have the same opportunity to succeed.

So, why not invest more here? If I'm going to be burdened by taxes to take care of other peoples problems, then I'd rather that help be given in insuring all children get a quality K-8 education. After that, if they want to mess up, there is not much their parents, teachers, or God can do about it.

[Chesspiece_face]

Many factors at work here, but Affirmative Action is the leading contributor here in the South. That, and democrats, republicans, all these people with their own agendas, all of them conflicting.

It's been my experience that the AA programs that fill most of the south are condemned to fail not necissarily on their own merits but because opposition from bureaucriacies constantly throw wrenches into the programs. they don't like AA for their own reasons, never think it will work and then laden it down with ridiculous restrictions that gaurantee it will fail then turn around and say "AHA! Told you so!"

I think in situations like this it's less an example of the low value of AA programs and more an example of the low value of bureaucracies.

Like Gris has described, many of the colleges i've delt with and worked at in other areas of the countries don't have a lot of the issues that you describe. The little time i've spent working at colleges in the south has been laden with these issues. And what i haven't seen myself i've heard in horror stories.