Election Thread

[Doc]

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.

Yeah, I was tring to imply that my self, the people who want to make sure it fails.

The South must be cleaned up. The problem with Southern politics is that it is full of Southern politicians.

And damnit, somebody send some flame resistant libertarians this way please. I am lonely.

[kandrathe]

Yeah, I was tring to imply that my self, the people who want to make sure it fails.

The South must be cleaned up. The problem with Southern politics is that it is full of Southern politicians.

And damnit, somebody send some flame resistant libertarians this way please. I am lonely.

When the world descends into "Hell in a hand basket" mode, I might be packing up my guns, ammo and moving in to the boonies, but I don't think I'd go to far south. Living off the land is pretty hard up north here, but perhaps global warming will end up being a good thing for us. The grain belt will probably shift north 800 miles into Central Canada after the poles melt. The east coast and west coast cities will be 50 feet under water, and everything south of Iowa will probably return to an inland sea. Maybe not in my life time, but it's always a good idea to be prepared for the worst. The ATF and liberals never understand why "survivalists" own so much ammo. Maybe now is a good time to pick up a new hobby, gun smith and ammo reloading.

[MongoJerry]

Bush even had lunch with the woman "who thinks she's gon' be speaker, but she's not" yesterday.

It's interesting to hear you say that, since in the SF Bay Area, her election to Speaker is considered pretty much a done deal. Everything I've read or seen in interviews has been Democrats congratulating Pelosi on her tireless efforts to target Bush, raise money, and lead an election victory. It seems like even former foes of hers within the party are now supporting her. So, do you have any solid indication that anyone is going to seriously challenge her for the position or that said person has any serious support from House Democrats?

I for one am looking forward to the pork projects coming my direction after many years of federal dollars being siphoned away.

[Griselda]

It's interesting to hear you say that, since in the SF Bay Area, her election to Speaker is considered pretty much a done deal. Everything I've read or seen in interviews has been Democrats congratulating Pelosi on her tireless efforts to target Bush, raise money, and lead an election victory. It seems like even former foes of hers within the party are now supporting her. So, do you have any solid indication that anyone is going to seriously challenge her for the position or that said person has any serious support from House Democrats?

I for one am looking forward to the pork projects coming my direction after many years of federal dollars being siphoned away.

That description of Pelosi was a quote from W., the day before the election. Clearly, times have changed since then. I probably should have been clearer.

[Baylan]

Proposal 2, which banned affirmative action, was passed here in Michigan which has been huge news all over campus this week. Apparently I'm still a racist around here for wanting colorblind admission policies (go figure?), but at least it's nice to know that almost 60% of the state agrees with me.

Hi Mith, long time no see. Remember me? I was/am the Andover grad... :-)

The perspective at that other school (being MSU) in the James Madison College (which is a policy-based res. college) is pretty similar. The issue that people have brought up in contention with my opinion is that the policy is being completely abandoned, not replaced. I personally am an advocate for help for the poor based on their economic status, not on their race.

My problem with the policies is that help on the basis of race is simple - I went to one of the premier public schools in the state in the most affluent county in the state. I saw many minorities gain admission into premier universities from my school, kids who have had every advantage. How is affirmative action helping those that need help, if it is not helping the poor? It is helping the affluent minorities make more inroads into better schools. If a school is attempting to fill a quota and all things are equal, will that school take the African-American student from the great school, or will that school take the African-American student from the poor inner city school?

The same issue applies to hiring situations. Interviewing a candidate, are you going to even look at the new graduate who came out of Oakland University when you have a candidate from the University of Michigan applying for the same job?

I always have felt that affirmative action needed to be changed, I just felt that this was the best way to get to that point...

-Baylan

[Doc]

Hi Mith, long time no see. Remember me? I was/am the Andover grad... :-)

The perspective at that other school (being MSU) in the James Madison College (which is a policy-based res. college) is pretty similar. The issue that people have brought up in contention with my opinion is that the policy is being completely abandoned, not replaced. I personally am an advocate for help for the poor based on their economic status, not on their race.

My problem with the policies is that help on the basis of race is simple - I went to one of the premier public schools in the state in the most affluent county in the state. I saw many minorities gain admission into premier universities from my school, kids who have had every advantage. How is affirmative action helping those that need help, if it is not helping the poor? It is helping the affluent minorities make more inroads into better schools. If a school is attempting to fill a quota and all things are equal, will that school take the African-American student from the great school, or will that school take the African-American student from the poor inner city school?

The same issue applies to hiring situations. Interviewing a candidate, are you going to even look at the new graduate who came out of Oakland University when you have a candidate from the University of Michigan applying for the same job?

I always have felt that affirmative action needed to be changed, I just felt that this was the best way to get to that point...

-Baylan

Ah, well, see, here, where I live, they would dredge the bottom of the barrel for the worst black student they could find from the worst school district they have. And stick him in to a situation he was not prepared for at all, surrounded by a class of people he had no experience with, and leave him to drown.

They would then use this event to show the world that poor black kids really don't fit in to the white man's world.

[eppie]

"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

I read already several weeks ago that most generals in Iraq wanted him to go. I can't give you a link but surely that was known in the US as well???!

[LemmingofGlory]

If I may recast what you've said, Chaerophon, in order to make an analogy...

...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 handedness. Lefties' 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 lefties have a right to exist. Southpaws are going to live among us, and they're going to do "sinistral 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 portside 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 manual orientation, and rights to non-discrimination.

First, I offer profound apologies for the left/right punnery. Second, I offer this analogy for the sake of this observation: If any of the above sounds like someone's overthinking the issue into absurdity, it's because anyone who said that would be. The same would be true if said of a racial minority. And the same is true for gay people, regardless of how much of the U.S. population currently realizes it. And that's unfortunate because they still need to hear stuff like this.

However, Chaerophon, you don't want to play into the word games that opponents use. "Way of life" is essentially a synonym for "lifestyle", which carries the opponents' message because it implies that gay people fundamentally live differently. My gay dads live the same as any other married couple, with the primary difference being that they're not married to each other.

And their house is better decorated.

-Lemmy

[eppie]

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

Occhi

Are you implying that the lounge is being monitored by the CIA, and all our identities are known by them?

...that is probably why I have to wait at the airport customs for such a long time when entering the US. Instead of being really interested in the fact that I might be smuggling weapons into teh US, they are actually checking teh BS I have been writing on the LL the last year.

[Doc]

Clickity

A fine example Southern tradition. :(

[GhastMaster]

Clickity

A fine example Southern tradition. :(

Ugh...rewriting history?

[GhastMaster]

I do not like supporting people's "way of life" through the government. That applies to everyone. I do however understand that homosexuality is never going to go away, even though I do not like it or agree with it. I am not currently willing to give tax breaks and whatever else comes along with marriage for anyone who is not using marriage to create a "family"(god only knows what that means anymore)...I can sit here and try to define what I think but even as I speak society is changing and ideals are changing. It is almost impossible to define some things even though I know in my heart what they are and what they mean. One thing I do know is I do not like the abuse of marriage. Even heterosexuals abuse the tradition of marriage. I think marriage should be taken out of the government alltogether. Which is one reason I do not support civil unions. Another reason I do not support it is because by allowing it through the government I am inderectly supporting something I think is bad for society and bad my children. As far as I see it, a civil union is much like a homosexuality permit. By agreeing to civil unions I am agreeing that it is ok to be gay. However, I could use a civil union to get tax breaks and what not with a male friend even though we are not gay. I consider that abuse. Just as two people getting married for perks rather than the family is abuse. Marriage is a religious and traditional practice and should not be incorporated into government. Civil unions should not be an issue.

That said, I hate everyone. Stop changing what I grew up thinking was unchangeable. Stop altering my reality. I cannot wait till everyone dissapears and society no longer exists. I wish I was a monkey again.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Are you implying that the lounge is being monitored by the CIA, and all our identities are known by them?

Occhi is not the only officer I've made contact with via a forum that has absolutely nothing to do with the armed forces, whether they be retirees, on active duty, or folks who signed up later on. If a USN man can amble in here as casual-as-you-please, then "anyone" can.

[SwissMercenary]

Are you implying that the lounge is being monitored by the CIA, and all our identities are known by them?

Either that, or he has respect for the law.

[Ashock]

Multigenerational poverty is a tough thing to break out of, for kids of all races.

I'm curious. How do you explain the fact that Asians as a group are so successful? I mean, they came to the US just like so many other immigrants, poor with no language skills. Yet they've got to be the most prosperous and successful group in this country. They don't seem to need any "special" programs either. In fact, they're so successful that while they are definately a minority, I think that as far as special programs are concerned, they get as much benefits from them as whites do - less than zero. Yet, many of these people have been poor for generations in their old country, and often enough the first generation stays poor in this country also. I, of course know why this is the case. Your explanation?

-A

[wundergore]

Either that, or he has respect for the law.

Or he has respect for the oath he took when he entered the service. I don't understand why some people can't understand that........

W<

[kandrathe]

...Marriage is a religious and traditional practice and should not be incorporated into government. Civil unions should not be an issue.
...

That's pretty much where I stand, except I wouldn't want to confuse the state construct with the religious construct.

The state in desiring to maintain a separation of church and state, and through tradition offers "equality" to marriages by licensing equally any members of qualified and certified religious organizations, and for those that want a non-religious wedding the state steps in and offers a civil marriage ceremony. The state gets to determine who is a religious organization worthy of performing marriage. The state offers a service to religions by allowing them to co-exist without cooperation in managing the whole marriage thing. So the state and religions have been into this tangled web since the beginning. It is all well and good to desire a separation of church and state, but without it being written in the Constitution, as it stands now, the government cannot deny religious practice, while religious practice is free to go where it wills.

The state traditionally has maintained morality laws in deciding that sexual behavior is lawful only inside of marriage, thus for the morally inclined lawmakers the state sponsorship of marriage also is useful in then having evidence of moral turpitude. This is more of the tangled web.

Now roll forward 200 years where many people ( I believe jokingly) belong to the frisbetarian church, and those formerly puritan lawmakers are chasing page boys, or have other zipper problems. For an increasing minority, traditional religious values have no meaning, and thus marriage and traditional morality has no meaning. The state cannot and should not delve into what is "marriage" or risk making a mockery of the tradition. Now, I've used Brittany Spears as an example before, even heterosexuals make a mockery of marriage. I would not mind declaring that all civil ceremony and non-religious unions would be called "Civil Unions" to separate the religious tradition of marriage from those sham marriages that are in license only. As it is now, however, it would be hard for "Civil Unions" to degenerate into "Man marries Pig", or "50 men and 30 women form huge Gordian love knot" type spectacles. In many ways the modern age regresses. It's like 200 years ago this infant nation had good manners, and now you give them a PB&J and they are smearing it on the walls.

So, then what? Should tax laws be written around marriage or civil unions? Probably not. From the states point of view they should both be viewed as a contract of community property. Should the state encourage family cohesiveness? I have mixed feelings there. As a libertarian I would say they should not, but promoting family cohesiveness is better than the opposite.

[Occhidiangela]

Are you implying that the lounge is being monitored by the CIA, and all our identities are known by them?

No, Eurotrash, it is a matter of personal accountability. It was against the regs I was bound by to speak perjoratively of my chain of command, so I did not. Alias or no, I am still me.

I guess you wouldn't understand that.

Why don't you change your alias to "Anonymous Coward?" It fits your idea on the uses of "internet anonymity."

Occhi

[Maitre]

-- snip --
Now, I've used Brittany Spears as an example before, even heterosexuals make a mockery of marriage.
-- snip --

I have to agree with your comment here about the validity of a "civil unions undermine the institution of marriage" argument. I know a few gay couples that I would rather see married than many of the hetero couples I know, simply based on their prospects for future divorce (that is to say, several hetero couples I know seem to have no reason to be together, and seem sure to have their marriage end in divorce). Heterosexuals are indeed doing enough to undermine the institution of marriage, that maybe we should open up the eligibility criteria a little. Would the government really loose that much estate tax revenue from granting more folks joint-tenancy with right of survivorship (which is, in Virginia, automatically granted to most property acquired by a married person, [I think I'm right here, but my wife is the one who's a lawyer]).

[Merlinios]

And then there's the Atheists to worry about. If you make marriage a religious-exclusive right, you are going a step further than gay marriage issues are now--that is, gays are being excluded on the basis that they were never included in the first place, but if you take away atheist (or other non-accepted religion) marriage, you're actively taking something away. There will be an outcry. Shots will be fired. Heads will be torn off. It won't be pretty, and I suspect, at the end, the Atheists (myself included, so take this with a grain of salt) will have their way without a constitutional redefinition of marriage, which will open the doors (for better or worse) for just about everything else.

Marriage has been, since the inception of the state, as far as I know, a tool of the state, mainly for definition of household. Maybe it is a religious ceremony as well--that's not my area of expertise, but do we really want marriage law getting more complicated than it is? Do we want to discriminate against non-religious folks (as they will see it, anyway) just to keep the so-called sanctity of marriage (and let's face it, if this sanctity is/was threatened by governmental marriages, it's been non-sacred for hundreds of years by now)?

--me