Affirmative Action

[RowdyFan42]

Where we are now - interms of public education - no child left behind is a decent starting point. it's not doing nothing but it's not a grossly ambitious undoable plan.

Federal mandates without federal funding are almost always doomed to fail. NCLB is decent in theory but in practice has turned into a giant clusterfvck, driving our schools even further toward the "teaching for the test" method of "learning" than they already were.

As for affirmative action...the question is BOTTOMLINE: is whitey beholden to all the people of color they've taken advantage of throughout history? [...] Did the white man create and maintain that culture for the black man? Well.. yeah. And if some idiot wants to say we aren't responsible - well we dragged the problem by force to our shores so it's our responsibility now.

I was born in 1980. I had fvck-all to do with slavery. I didn't create any culture for anyone, I didn't drag anyone to our shores, by force or otherwise. How is it that the actions of a bunch of Southerners 200 years ago turns out to be my fault? Why is it that I have to pay for the crimes of past generations when I have committed no crime myself? If you want to improve the situation of your average black family, make it everyone's problem, not just a white guy problem.

I think Affirmative action is required to a point -- to a logical point. The logical ground is the middle ground.

The logical point is using it as a tiebreaker. All other things being equal, take the minority. It still involves preferences based on race, but it's nowhere near as meddlesome as the current system, which seeks to change the formulas so that certain groups start the game up by a few points.

[point]

In the long run, what is cheaper? to pay $15,000 per year for education for the poorest in our state, or to pay for incarceration for endless years?, and still have the same social pathologies we started with?

Education is an investment. Sure, Jimmy, there is waste and corruption, but is that to be blamed on 3-5 year old children? Are you going to tell me that Republican districts in NJ turned down SCC funds in the last ten years? And I am not about to say that a lot of money was not misspent. On the other hand, how much money has been poured down the sewer in a failed war on drugs? If half that money had been spent on treatment and prevention instead of law enforcement, we would be a lot farther down the road toward a drug free America.

Government programs throw a lot of money around, and, just like tax cuts, a lot of people can get along fine without them. That doesn't mean they are not effective or are just pork. Don't confuse bad management with bad policy.

And don't blame the Democrats for pork. Look at all the pork that the Republicans have dished out in Trenton and Washington. Does Alaska really need a bridge to nowhere? Point Pleasant Beach got $500,00 from Trenton Republicans before they left town to put playground equipment in a park that is one only town block.

At least we do know children need education.

[LOULAM1]

FY2008 'PORK' - Top Ten List

Here's some NJ Democratic pork for ya:

Hey Point... so much for the kids in NJ !

#10 BOHEME OPERA

Clearly, opera is more important

than anything else. You don

Edited January 16, 2008 by LOULAM1

[Jimmy Leeds]

Does this surprise you?

[point]

Not one bit.

But Christie Whitman screwed the states finances with the 30% across the board income tax cut. It sounded good at the time, but now the state employee pension plans are all underfunded. Speaking of which, was it Kean or Whitman who promised teachers lifetime medical insurance coverage?

Both Dems and Republicans are to blame for the mess in Trenton. They both suck as much out of the treasury for their reelection campaigns as possible. Now we are stuck with a $34Billion debt for those reelection costs.

Edited January 16, 2008 by point

[metallidevils]

Isn't the real issue here why Fat Joe can use the N-word but I can't??

Seriously, though

Somehow, some way, the economic divide that keeps minorities in the cycle of poverty has to be broken. And nobody has given a strong, plausible, solution beyond "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION = BAD". If you criticize the means to a good end, I would hope that you would have a better means in mind.

I didn't realize that someone had to have a 'better means' whenever they wanted to criticize something. Screwing white Americans over for something that they had no control over is obviously not a good way of solving this problem. If I don't get accepted to a school, but an African American does with equal or lower test scores, you're OK with that being the solution?

Also, why is OK that athletic departments and teams (both within schools and professionally) can comprise themselves of mainly African Americans, and no one cares, because they're faster and taller than us, but our higher test scores mean nothing?

One of my friends, a female half-Columbian, was accepted to Cornell. A few of my white, male, American friends who got rejected, had better SAT scores, as many activities, and frankly, were smarter and better suited for Columbia. If you want to make exceptions for minorities regarding higher institutions, I'm not a fan of it, but whatever. But the Ivy Leagues? At least reserve those for people who deserve it. It's like giving someone an undeserved filet mignon as opposed to a maybe slightly less undeserved grilled cheese.

Edited January 16, 2008 by metallidevils

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

Here's my solution

1. Eliminate the minimum wage, granting more job opportunites to the impoverished

2. Eliminate the drug laws, eliminating the potentially lucrative and incredibly dangerous incentive to deal drugs instead of go to school or work for a living

3. Have better policing on the local level to protect the rights and savings of the impoverished (and avoid the need to deal with violent gangs for protection)

Essentially to welcome the poor into the capitalist system, instead of purposely excluding them, paying them a bribe in the form of welfare to keep them from overthrowing the gov't, then picking and choosing a few dark skinned individuals to succeed because we feel guilty that their lives suck.

[Don]

I didn't realize that someone had to have a 'better means' whenever they wanted to criticize something.

Well, now you know. It's posted outside my office at work. If you don't like my solution, propose a better one. Otherwise, go away.

Screwing white Americans over for something that they had no control over is obviously not a good way of solving this problem. If I don't get accepted to a school, but an African American does with equal or lower test scores, you're OK with that being the solution?

Absolutely.

Also, why is OK that athletic departments and teams (both within schools and professionally) can comprise themselves of mainly African Americans, and no one cares, because they're faster and taller than us, but our higher test scores mean nothing?

American athletic departments are there for one reason. PROFIT. PROFIT. PROFIT. Maybe there is a better solution. Make the schools use the money brought in from the athletics departments to add more spots in each program.

Far more black children grow up in poverty than white children. Those growing up in poverty are more likely to score lower on SATs because of the environment they were brought up in. Those who grow up in poverty have to struggle a whole lot harder to get Bs than those born with a silver spoon in their mouth have to work to get As.

I really can't get over how Caucasians can say we are getting screwed over by black people when we make 66% more than they do on average (about $50,000 to about $30,000). So, on average, most of us have a huge advantage starting on the day we are born.

[metallidevils]

OK then, if YOU didn't get accepted to a school, but a minority with less credentials did, you'd be ok with that?

Well, now you know. It's posted outside my office at work. If you don't like my solution, propose a better one. Otherwise, go away.

Absolutely.

American athletic departments are there for one reason. PROFIT. PROFIT. PROFIT. Maybe there is a better solution. Make the schools use the money brought in from the athletics departments to add more spots in each program.

Schools don't 'add more spots' to ensure diversity, they take spots away from the dominating group.

[Don]

1. Eliminate the minimum wage, granting more job opportunites to the impoverished

overthrowing the gov't, then picking and choosing a few dark skinned individuals to succeed because we feel guilty that their lives suck.

Yes. Eliminate the minimum wage. As I said earlier in this thread, a large number of people going to the food banks are the working poor. You can't escape poverty AT minimum wage, much less at LOWER than minimum wage. Oi.

[RowdyFan42]

Well, now you know. It's posted outside my office at work. If you don't like my solution, propose a better one. Otherwise, go away.

We're not in your office and we don't work for you. Furthermore, you didn't have to come into this thread. YOU go away.

[Don]

OK then, if YOU didn't get accepted to a school, but a minority with less credentials did, you'd be ok with that?

Like I said earlier in this thread, I took the advantages given to me - growing up in a middle class home with access to computers, food on the table, caring parents - and I came out with far better than average grades. If someone without those advantages - someone who went to bed hungry, couldn't afford even the most basic school supplies - came in two points behind me, damn straight he should be given the nod for his perseverance. Where affirmative action breaks down is when a middle class black child is up against a impoverished white child, but the statistics say that that is rarely the case. It sucks on an individual basis, but in the end the utilitarian in me says that the good done by having quotas outweighs the bad.

[Don]

We're not in your office and we don't work for you. Furthermore, you didn't have to come into this thread. YOU go away.

I should have put quotes around that. The sign outside my office says "Constructive Criticism Only - If you don't like my solution, propose a better one. Otherwise, go away." And there's also that "take a number" hand grenade.

But the whole point is that there is a difference between those that just want to complain and those that want to be constructive. If this was a thread so that whitey can bitch and complain about being oppressed by the black people, just say so....

[metallidevils]

Like I said earlier in this thread, I took the advantages given to me - growing up in a middle class home with access to computers, food on the table, caring parents - and I came out with far better than average grades. If someone without those advantages - someone who went to bed hungry, couldn't afford even the most basic school supplies - came in two points behind me, damn straight he should be given the nod for his perseverance. Where affirmative action breaks down is when a middle class black child is up against a impoverished white child, but the statistics say that that is rarely the case. It sucks on an individual basis, but in the end the utilitarian in me says that the good done by having quotas outweighs the bad.

So we're just supposed to safely assume that all black people live in poverty? Well then, the blacks that DON'T live in poverty have it the easiest! They live comfortably, plus all of the perks of being repaid for the slavery of 50 years ago!

[Don]

So we're just supposed to safely assume that all black people live in poverty? Well then, the blacks that DON'T live in poverty have it the easiest! They live comfortably, plus all of the perks of being repaid for the slavery of 50 years ago!

A) This isn't repayment for slavery. This is about fixing the leftover effects of slavery. The things that are still here and now. Like the economic disparity between blacks and whites.

B) And as I said, AA falls down in the case of blacks that do come from well-to-do families. However, as the statistics show, there are far more blacks that need help getting out of that cycle of poverty.

[LOULAM1]

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=...&id=5893113

N-word costs $150

One man who decided to use a racial slur learned a costly lesson.

The man called a Passaic Public Works employee the N-word, and that's when the worker got even.

Department of Public Works employee Aregawi Kishen says he took his complaint to a judge to make a point.

"The N-word is a word that comes with a negative affect," he said.

He hopes the Clifton man who called him by the racial slur back in September got more than the $150 fine. He hopes he also learned a permanent lesson.

Kishen says he doesn't know how the encounter digressed in the first place. He said he had his truck parked on the corner of Washington and Hoover streets. He doesn't even think the truck was blocking the man's car.

But he says the man jumped out and hit him with a barrage of racial slurs.

"He got angry and he called me a million names, and finally the N-word," Kishen said.

Passaic joined that surging nationwide effort last year to ban the N-word. But to be fined for using it? Passaic mayor Sammy Rivera, who appointed the judge who leveled the fine, agreed with the action.

"At least fined," he said. "It's everybody's city, everybody's country.''

"All the lives we lost behind that," one area resident said.

The resident spoke openly and honestly outside City Hall about how stinging the word can be.

"I even went to jail behind that," he said. "Honestly, for a caucasian calling me that. Me acting out on it got me four years in prison.''

Kishen's case was decided yesterday. He feels comfortable now putting the matter to rest and forgiving his offender.

"The gentleman, he apologized," he said. "And apology accepted, move on.''

I can't believe this happened in the 2nd most liberal state in the union. lolllllllllll.

[Eltab213]

What does that have to do with Affirmative action?

[metallidevils]

another thought envoking post by loulam1

[LOULAM1]

"All the lives we lost behind that," one area resident said.

The resident spoke openly and honestly outside City Hall about how stinging the word can be.

"I even went to jail behind that," he said. "Honestly, for a caucasian calling me that. Me acting out on it got me four years in prison.''

Boils down to the fact that it always somehow gets back to the "blame game". "All the lives we lost behind that (word)", please... stfu and get on with life and your social/welfare entitlements! The reason this guy was given any money at all was because the New Jersey liberal establishment decided he was entitled to the money. He makes 65K plus a year with OT so the money isn't even the question here.

As far as affirmative action... didn't want to start a new thread, just heard it this morning on O & A and thought it was an interesting story.

[Super 17]

Nagger?

[Jimmy Leeds]

Where affirmative action breaks down is when a middle class black child is up against a impoverished white child, but the statistics say that that is rarely the case. It sucks on an individual basis, but in the end the utilitarian in me says that the good done by having quotas outweighs the bad.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Interesting how Dondoesn't acknowledge the silliness of his post that I quoted above.

[Don]

Very interesting. Considering I first read the message during a lunch hour at work and did not have time to respond, meaning the thread wasn't in my "unread" when I got home.

But since you want an answer so bad, I recently explained my ethics here:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpost.php?...p;postcount=133

Given that I believe in the right to life, I believe that killing even 1 innocent person via the death penalty makes it unethical and a breach of human rights. Utilitarianism has its limits as dictated in that message above.

Actually, that falls right into the baby limitation. A true utilitarianist *WOULD* say that we should take a perfectly healthy baby, kill it and save 7 or 8 other babies with the organs. Similarly a true utilitarianist *WOULD* say that we should take a perfectly innocent man, kill him, and hope that the action of killing murderers would save multiple other lives. Which is why I am not a pure utilitarianist. I cannot accept the death of an innocent even if it saves other lives.

[Devilish34]

Very interesting. Considering I first read the message during a lunch hour at work and did not have time to respond, meaning the thread wasn't in my "unread" when I got home.

But since you want an answer so bad, I recently explained my ethics here:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpost.php?...p;postcount=133

Given that I believe in the right to life, I believe that killing even 1 innocent person via the death penalty makes it unethical and a breach of human rights. Utilitarianism has its limits as dictated in that message above.

Actually, that falls right into the baby limitation. A true utilitarianist *WOULD* say that we should take a perfectly healthy baby, kill it and save 7 or 8 other babies with the organs. Similarly a true utilitarianist *WOULD* say that we should take a perfectly innocent man, kill him, and hope that the action of killing murderers would save multiple other lives. Which is why I am not a pure utilitarianist. I cannot accept the death of an innocent even if it saves other lives.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Well Don, you sound like a hypocrite.