Discover Freedom - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/27/2004 01:20:54 AM · #1176

Originally posted by RonB:

As I have already stated, once the conditions of their conviction have been fulfilled, every ex-criminal should be re-enfranchised as soon as they meet the registeration requirements in their state. As for those states that maintain a life-time ban, those laws should be changed.

This is the most egregious problem, and this would certainly be a good step. Of course, had Florida had this policy in place, it is likely that Vice President Lieberman would be chasing Osama now ...

I'm not sure whether those incarcerated should vote myself; I am not completely opposed to (temporary) disenfranchisement, but I think there's far too great a disparity in the level of criminality required to trigger that step, and that those crimes which trigger it are, in fact, weighted to more heavily impact non-whites.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/27/2004 01:21:57 AM · #1177

From The New York Times: 9/25/04

by Pete Hammill

After Vietnam, the press in general, and photographers in particular, were never as free again to cover American wars. A rigid system of image control was imposed in Grenada, Panama and the Persian Gulf war. Though the Pentagon's experiment with embedding loosened some of those controls, there were still limits. No soldiers bleeding in the sand, please. No body bags. No coffins.

The Pentagon image-mongers had learned from Vietnam that all great war photography is essentially antiwar photography.

09/27/2004 03:00:26 PM · #1178

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
1) I'd be interested in knowing which points you believe are supreme mis-statements of what the article says ( seriously, I would ).

These two sections bothered me the most:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by NYTIMES:
In particular, they cite the racist backlash in the South during Reconstruction, when former slaveowners were forced to endure the sight of former slaves' lining up to vote at polling places and actually holding seats in state legislatures.

Led by Mississippi, the Southern states eventually adopted a series of measures that wrote black citizens right out of the state constitutions. New statutes barred black Americans from the ballot box with poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and laws that took the vote away from people who committed certain crimes.

The crimes were carefully selected so they would affect the maximum number of black Americans while exempting as many whites as possible. For example, new state laws sometimes disenfranchised people for petty theft, minor swindling and wife-beating - crimes that were more likely to be prosecuted among blacks - while omitting murder and robbery. The legislative intent relied heavily on the unequal enforcement of the law.

What is the relevance of recounting the discriminatory rulings of the past? Are any of those laws still on the books? I don't think so. Even so, there was an obvious, easy solution to whatever disparities existed, if one had been so inclined - namely, stop stealing, stop swindling, and stop beating wives.

Ron

The relevance is that it helps to establish a pattern of continuing unequal treatment under the law and in society in general. For example, why is the punishment for possession of crack-cocaine significantly greater than for possession of a similar quality of powder cocaine? A look at the demographics of who uses which type will provide a clue.

A look at the relative differences between crack and powder cocaine would provide a different clue. Even though there are roughly five times as many powder cocaine users in the United States as there are crack cocaine users, the effects are inverted. In 1999, for example, nearly a quarter of a million people were admitted to hospitals for treatment of cocaine abuse - of those, about 3 times as many were admitted for abuse of crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. Crack cocaine is more psychologically addictive than powder cocaine, and studies show that the crack cocaine users are more prone to violence.

The truth is that the sentencing statutes don't impose longer sentences for crack cocaine - rather, they just establish a lower weight threshold to get to an equivalent sentence for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. The average amount of crack cocaine per federal inmate convicted for crack cocaine is about 700 grams, which converts to approximately 7,000 "rocks", hardly the stock of a small-time pusher or addict.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The solutions you offer might suffice in an economy where there was truly equal opportunity, but not in the USA as currently constituted. When people get desperate enough they will beg, borrow or steal. We pass laws against begging for alms, you can't get credit without a lot of stuff (like an address), which option would you suggest? It's probably illegal to starve to death on the steps of City Hall, something about loitering or vagrancy ...

How about getting an education? and/or a job? Might it be difficult? Sure. Is it impossible? No, way. Why do you think that most agricultural states have to hire "illegal aliens" to harvest their fruits and vegatables? It's because American citizens are too lazy to work - that's why. They'd rather deal drugs because it's "easier", then complain when they end up in jail.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by NYTIMES:

The disenfranchisement campaign swept black Americans from elected office and knocked them off the voting rolls.

So, by implication, a disproportionate number of black office-holders stole, swindled, and/or beat their wives than white office-holders did? Sounds to me like they SHOULD have been removed from office.

Here you baselessly attribute to black office-holders the crimes purportedly perpetrated by people who would vote for them -- there's a specific name for this kind of logical error or false reasoning, but I can't remember what it is right now.

Ididn't baselessly attribute anything. The article says:
"For example, new state laws sometimes disenfranchised people for petty theft, minor swindling and wife-beating - crimes that were more likely to be prosecuted among blacks - while omitting murder and robbery. The legislative intent relied heavily on the unequal enforcement of the law.

The disenfranchisement campaign swept black Americans from elected office and knocked them off the voting rolls"

If the NYTimes writer meant to disassociate the crimes from elected blacks, he failed to do so.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

All this says is that by creating more black criminals (by defining more things as criminal activities), there were fewer people to vote for black politicians. There is not one word (other than your's) stating or implying that the office-holders themselves had committed any crimes whatsoever, except for having chosen non-caucasian parents.

Hmmmm. Let me repeat what you say, with emphasis:

"All this says is that by creating more black criminals (by defining more things as criminal activities), there were fewer people to vote for black politicians. There is not one word (other than your's) stating or implying that the office-holders themselves had committed any crimes whatsoever, except for having chosen non-caucasian parents."

The IMPLICATION of what you say is that it is assumed that black people vote for black politicians.

Now, if one were to say something like "sending WHITE people to jail means fewer people to vote for WHITE politicians", they would probably be called a racist or, at best, be accused of stereotyping.

On the other hand, I, and most Republicans I know, make no assumptions. We feel that black people are fully capable of looking beyond the color of a candidates skin, and can judge fairly which of several candidates will best represent their positions on a variety of issues, and will cast their vote for the best candidate. As proof, one need look no further than Bradford Brown, a white man, who ran unopposed for the position of President of the Miami-Dade NAACP in 2003.

Ron

09/27/2004 03:35:24 PM · #1179

09/27/2004 04:08:42 PM · #1180

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Something very familiar about this photo.

Ahh! It just dawned on me. I should have guessed right off the bat. Only the left-wing is presented.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/27/2004 04:16:12 PM · #1181

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Something very familiar about this photo.

Ahh! It just dawned on me. I should have guessed right off the bat. Only the left-wing is presented.

Even though it is on the left as you view it, that is anatomically the right wing : )

09/27/2004 04:27:33 PM · #1182

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Something very familiar about this photo.

Ahh! It just dawned on me. I should have guessed right off the bat. Only the left-wing is presented.

Even though it is on the left as you view it, that is anatomically the right wing : )

actually, if you look close, you'll see both left and right

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/27/2004 04:29:13 PM · #1183

Originally posted by RonB:

The IMPLICATION of what you say is that it is assumed that black people vote for black politicians.

I'm not implying that -- it seemed to be from information gathered after the elections.

And yes, the crimes disenfranchised -- removed the right to vote -- from a disproportionate number of black voters. The effect (demonstrated, not postulated)of that was to cause the defeat of previously elected black incumbents, none of whom were impeached or convicted of crimes.

Virtually every study shows that when equally qualified black and white applicants compete -- for housing, jobs, or education -- white applicants receive preferential treatment in the vast majority of situations. Until that kind of insidious injustice is truly obliterated from the political and economic landscape, I think all arguments based on "equal opportunity" must be tempered by the reality that even our completely lame and inefficient "safety net" does not come close to providing a level playing field.

Unemployment rates for blacks are always higher than for equally qualified whites. And your call for urban blacks to return to the fields in competition with ~~braceros~~ guest workers sounds incredibly paternalistic.

Your statement that "American workers won't work" at some jobs ignores the reality that they won't (and shouldn't) work at wages which preserve profits for billionaire stockholders while leaving them below the poverty line.

09/27/2004 05:04:32 PM · #1184

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
The IMPLICATION of what you say is that it is assumed that black people vote for black politicians.

I'm not implying that -- it seemed to be from information gathered after the elections.

And yes, the crimes disenfranchised -- removed the right to vote -- from a disproportionate number of black voters. The effect (demonstrated, not postulated)of that was to cause the defeat of previously elected black incumbents, none of whom were impeached or convicted of crimes.

How can you say for certainty that none of them were convicted of crimes? What are the jurisdictions? what are the timeframes?

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Virtually every study shows that when equally qualified black and white applicants compete -- for housing, jobs, or education -- white applicants receive preferential treatment in the vast majority of situations.

Serious question: What do you suppose is the reason for this "preferential treatment"? Racism? Bigotry? Stereotyping?

Other questions: Do you support racial quotas or 'affirmative action" in any business or educational institution?

Do you support "preferential treatment" toward minority owned businesses in the awarding of government contracts?

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Until that kind of insidious injustice is truly obliterated from the political and economic landscape, I think all arguments based on "equal opportunity" must be tempered by the reality that even our completely lame and inefficient "safety net" does not come close to providing a level playing field.

You're right. The playing field is not level.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Unemployment rates for blacks are always higher than for equally qualified whites.

In the same geographic area? Inner city to inner city; urban to urban, suburban to suburban; rural to rural? I'd like to see the numbers.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

And your call for urban blacks to return to the fields in competition with ~~braceros~~ guest workers sounds incredibly paternalistic.

If there are jobs in the country, and no jobs in the city, why do they stay there? Just because they're too proud to "return to the fields"? Well, let me tell you, pride doesn't feed your kids, put a roof over your head, or put clothes on your back. Seems strange though - why don't the "guest workers" refuse to work in the fields?

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Your statement that "American workers won't work" at some jobs ignores the reality that they won't (and shouldn't) work at wages which preserve profits for billionaire stockholders while leaving them below the poverty line.

Ahhh. The real reason - they would rather deny their children a decent place to live, decent clothes, and decent food, than fatten the pocketbook of some stockholders. Yeah - that makes sense.

I'm curious though why YOU think that they SHOULDN'T work to support their families, if it means that those who made the job possible, by providing investment capital, would benefit from the company making money.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/27/2004 05:08:56 PM · #1185

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
The IMPLICATION of what you say is that it is assumed that black people vote for black politicians.

I'm not implying that -- it seemed to be from information gathered after the elections.

And yes, the crimes disenfranchised -- removed the right to vote -- from a disproportionate number of black voters. The effect (demonstrated, not postulated)of that was to cause the defeat of previously elected black incumbents, none of whom were impeached or convicted of crimes.

How can you say for certainty that none of them were convicted of crimes? What are the jurisdictions? what are the timeframes?

I can't. But there was absolutely nothing in the original article implying that they had, so the suggestion/implication (in this discussion) originated with you. Why?

09/27/2004 05:19:24 PM · #1186

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
The IMPLICATION of what you say is that it is assumed that black people vote for black politicians.

I'm not implying that -- it seemed to be from information gathered after the elections.

And yes, the crimes disenfranchised -- removed the right to vote -- from a disproportionate number of black voters. The effect (demonstrated, not postulated)of that was to cause the defeat of previously elected black incumbents, none of whom were impeached or convicted of crimes.

How can you say for certainty that none of them were convicted of crimes? What are the jurisdictions? what are the timeframes?

I can't. But there was absolutely nothing in the original article implying that they had, so the suggestion/implication (in this discussion) originated with you. Why?

My interpretation of the wording "swept from office" usually connotes that they were removed for reasons that upset the citizenry. That usually is for one of two reasons: 1) they didn't act in a manner consistent with the citizens wishes on too many issues, or 2) voting them out was the only legal way to remove them from office. That coupled with the fact that there was no "disjoint" in the article between the description of the crimes and the "swept from office" statement, led me to tie the two together.

09/27/2004 05:37:14 PM · #1187

exchange phone numbers

09/27/2004 05:50:00 PM · #1188

Originally posted by ericlimon:

exchange phone numbers

Left a comment.

09/27/2004 06:17:22 PM · #1189

[b]

Originally posted by RonB:

There is a bill in Congress to do away with the IRS, eliminate ALL federal withholding taxes ( including Social Security and Medicare ), AND be fair ( I think ) to every worker in America. It's called the Fair Tax Act of 2003 and was introduced by Representative John Linder as H.R.25. The bill currently has 54 co-sponsors. Here is the essence of the bill's provisions:

In place of all current federal taxes, the FairTax would place a 23 percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. Exports and business inputs (i.e. intermediate sales) would not be taxed.

Individuals would file no tax return at all. Businesses would only need to deal with sales tax returns. The IRS and all 20,000 pages of IRS regulations would be abolished.

Under the FairTax, no federal taxes would be withheld from employees' paychecks. Social Security and Medicare would be funded by sales tax revenue.

The FairTax would provide every family with a rebate of the sales tax equal to spending up to the federal poverty level. The rebate would be paid in advance and updated according to the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Based on the 2003 guidelines, a family of four would be able to spend $24,240 annually tax free. They would receive a monthly rebate of $465 each and every month ($5,575 annually). Therefore, no family would pay tax on essential goods and services, and middle income families would be effectively exempt from tax on a large portion of their annual spending.

According to Rep. Linder, the current tax code violates the principle of equality. Special rates for special circumstances violate the original Constitution and are unfair. Under the FairTax, all taxpayers would pay the same rate and control their liability through their spending. Tax paid would depend on the individual's chosen life style. Basically, the more you spend, the more tax you pay

More info can be found at FairTax.Org

Regardless of who is elected in November to be President of the U.S. for the next four years, you should write your representatives and urge them to push for, and vote for the FairTax legislation.

[[b/]

Ron, It's not OK to post your political views in the comment section of other peoples photos.

I think you should remove the comment you left ASAP.

You tried to post your views on one of my photos, and you messed up and posted it on someone elses.

Not very cool.

Eric

09/27/2004 06:18:00 PM · #1190

Originally posted by RonB:

[b]There is a bill in Congress to do away with the IRS, eliminate ALL federal withholding taxes ( including Social Security and Medicare ), AND be fair ( I think ) to every worker in America. It's called the Fair Tax Act of 2003 and was introduced by Representative John Linder as H.R.25. The bill currently has 54 co-sponsors. Here is the essence of the bill's provisions:

In place of all current federal taxes, the FairTax would place a 23 percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. Exports and business inputs (i.e. intermediate sales) would not be taxed.

Individuals would file no tax return at all. Businesses would only need to deal with sales tax returns. The IRS and all 20,000 pages of IRS regulations would be abolished.

Under the FairTax, no federal taxes would be withheld from employees' paychecks. Social Security and Medicare would be funded by sales tax revenue.

The FairTax would provide every family with a rebate of the sales tax equal to spending up to the federal poverty level. The rebate would be paid in advance and updated according to the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Based on the 2003 guidelines, a family of four would be able to spend $24,240 annually tax free. They would receive a monthly rebate of $465 each and every month ($5,575 annually). Therefore, no family would pay tax on essential goods and services, and middle income families would be effectively exempt from tax on a large portion of their annual spending.

According to Rep. Linder, the current tax code violates the principle of equality. Special rates for special circumstances violate the original Constitution and are unfair. Under the FairTax, all taxpayers would pay the same rate and control their liability through their spending. Tax paid would depend on the individual's chosen life style. Basically, the more you spend, the more tax you pay

More info can be found at FairTax.Org

Regardless of who is elected in November to be President of the U.S. for the next four years, you should write your representatives and urge them to push for, and vote for the FairTax legislation.[[b/]

Ron, It's not OK to post your political views in the comment section of other peoples photos.

I think you should remove the comment you left ASAP.

You tried to post your views on one of my photos, and you messed up and posted it on someone elses.

Not very cool.

Eric

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/27/2004 06:18:45 PM · #1191

It's so complicated answering these : ) I hope I got the formatting right!

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Virtually every study shows that when equally qualified black and white applicants compete -- for housing, jobs, or education -- white applicants receive preferential treatment in the vast majority of situations.

Serious question: What do you suppose is the reason for this "preferential treatment"? Racism? Bigotry? Stereotyping?

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Whites are not the only ones to do this either -- I have plenty of personal experience to tell me that "people of color" can exhibit racist behavior. Bigotry and stereotyping include economic and social differences as well as racial ones.

Originally posted by RonB:

Other questions: Do you support racial quotas or 'affirmative action" in any business or educational institution?

My only answer right now is that there's no one blanket answer. I have both supported and opposed affirmative action under different circumstances. Sorry if that seems like "situational ethics" but I feel like 8000 years of grievances can't be redressed instantaneously with a one-size-fits-all solution.

Originally posted by RonB:

Do you support "preferential treatment" toward minority owned businesses in the awarding of government contracts?

Maybe. Sometimes. How else do you suggest making up for the headstart given to white-owned businesses by 200 years of preferential treatment in awarding of contracts? Seems like one of the parties was already allowed to creep ahead of the starting line before the flag was dropped -- do you really think it unfair to say that they now have to give back some of that advantage?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Until that kind of insidious injustice is truly obliterated from the political and economic landscape, I think all arguments based on "equal opportunity" must be tempered by the reality that even our completely lame and inefficient "safety net" does not come close to providing a level playing field.

You're right. The playing field is not level.

We do agree on quite a few things ...

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Unemployment rates for blacks are always higher than for equally qualified whites.

In the same geographic area? Inner city to inner city; urban to urban, suburban to suburban; rural to rural? I'd like to see the numbers.

I'm not that good at research. How many numbers do you want? It may be easier for me to find local or state numbers than federal.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
And your call for urban blacks to return to the fields in competition with ~~braceros~~ guest workers sounds incredibly paternalistic.

If there are jobs in the country, and no jobs in the city, why do they stay there? Just because they're too proud to "return to the fields"? Well, let me tell you, pride doesn't feed your kids, put a roof over your head, or put clothes on your back. Seems strange though - why don't the "guest workers" refuse to work in the fields?

Because where they (the "guest workers") come from they are paid even less to sew jeans or pick coffee -- why do you think so many of them grow coca and other cash crops with a more reasonable rate of return? With regard to urban blacks being told to return to the fields -- if you can't see the negative PR value to such a proposal I don't think I can help.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Your statement that "American workers won't work" at some jobs ignores the reality that they won't (and shouldn't) work at wages which preserve profits for billionaire stockholders while leaving them below the poverty line.

Ahhh. The real reason - they would rather deny their children a decent place to live, decent clothes, and decent food, than fatten the pocketbook of some stockholders. Yeah - that makes sense.

Worker: Picks lettuce or strawberries for ten hours -- truly "backbreaking" labor (try it for ten minutes). Gets 30 minutes in a field with (maybe) a porta-potty available for a lunch break. Sleeps (maybe) in a mobile home or van parked near the fields. Has no health insurance, is exposed to pesticides at the highest possible levels on a daily basis.
Stockholder: Watches competitor's stock prices on computer. Is able to get lunch reservations at the trendy "organics only" restaurant on only 30 minutes notice, and a massage appointment for four o'clock -- there runs into network exec who says that main competitor's CEO will be accused of fraud and embezzelment on 60 Minutes. Despite complete contempt for Dan Rather's credibility calls broker to arrange after-hours acquisition of an additional 100,000 shares before the news drives up the price in the morning as a hedge.

Of such scenarios are revolutions made ...

Originally posted by RonB:

I'm curious though why YOU think that they SHOULDN'T work to support their families, if it means that those who made the job possible, by providing investment capital, would benefit from the company making money.

I think that common sense, Christian fairness, ethics, compassion, whatever you want to call it, dicatate that there should be upper and lower limits to how much wealth individuals can accumulate, and the depth of poverty to which we allow the destitute to sink. Otherwise, what's the point of civilization at all -- just let the law of the jungle prevail.

Where and how those limits should be drawn should make for a lively debate, but that some lines should exist really should not.

09/27/2004 06:25:03 PM · #1192

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:
[b]There is a bill in Congress to do away with the IRS, eliminate ALL federal withholding taxes ( including Social Security and Medicare ), AND be fair ( I think ) to every worker in America. It's called the Fair Tax Act of 2003 and was introduced by Representative John Linder as H.R.25. The bill currently has 54 co-sponsors. Here is the essence of the bill's provisions:

In place of all current federal taxes, the FairTax would place a 23 percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. Exports and business inputs (i.e. intermediate sales) would not be taxed.

Individuals would file no tax return at all. Businesses would only need to deal with sales tax returns. The IRS and all 20,000 pages of IRS regulations would be abolished.

Under the FairTax, no federal taxes would be withheld from employees' paychecks. Social Security and Medicare would be funded by sales tax revenue.

The FairTax would provide every family with a rebate of the sales tax equal to spending up to the federal poverty level. The rebate would be paid in advance and updated according to the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Based on the 2003 guidelines, a family of four would be able to spend $24,240 annually tax free. They would receive a monthly rebate of $465 each and every month ($5,575 annually). Therefore, no family would pay tax on essential goods and services, and middle income families would be effectively exempt from tax on a large portion of their annual spending.

According to Rep. Linder, the current tax code violates the principle of equality. Special rates for special circumstances violate the original Constitution and are unfair. Under the FairTax, all taxpayers would pay the same rate and control their liability through their spending. Tax paid would depend on the individual's chosen life style. Basically, the more you spend, the more tax you pay

More info can be found at FairTax.Org

Regardless of who is elected in November to be President of the U.S. for the next four years, you should write your representatives and urge them to push for, and vote for the FairTax legislation.[[b/]

Ron, It's not OK to post your political views in the comment section of other peoples photos.

I think you should remove the comment you left ASAP.

You tried to post your views on one of my photos, and you messed up and posted it on someone elses.

Not very cool.

Eric

09/28/2004 10:54:46 AM · #1193

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It's so complicated answering these : ) I hope I got the formatting right!

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Virtually every study shows that when equally qualified black and white applicants compete -- for housing, jobs, or education -- white applicants receive preferential treatment in the vast majority of situations.

Serious question: What do you suppose is the reason for this "preferential treatment"? Racism? Bigotry? Stereotyping?

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Whites are not the only ones to do this either -- I have plenty of personal experience to tell me that "people of color" can exhibit racist behavior. Bigotry and stereotyping include economic and social differences as well as racial ones.

We agree on this. The problem is what can be done about it. I personally take this approach: 1) when I see evidence of racism, bigotry, or stereotyping, I challenge it immediately - this exposes those exhibiting such behaviours, and puts others on notice that such behaviours are not acceptable, at least in my presence; 2) when in the company of those who I know harbor feelings of racism or bigotry, I take the opportunity, whenever possible, to make positive statements about individuals, and groups, who are the targets of their ill feelings. Fortunately, there are many in the target groups who are making a supreme effort to break the stereotypes.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Other questions: Do you support racial quotas or 'affirmative action" in any business or educational institution?

My only answer right now is that there's no one blanket answer. I have both supported and opposed affirmative action under different circumstances. Sorry if that seems like "situational ethics" but I feel like 8000 years of grievances can't be redressed instantaneously with a one-size-fits-all solution.

We agree here, as well. The problem is that as long as "subjectivity" is allowed, then it can go either way. Historically, as you say, it has worked in FAVOR of caucasians in "white" universities, and AGAINST caucasians in historically "black" universities. This historic disparity has resulted in "special" black equivalents of most socio-economic constructs ( like the Miss BLACK America pageant, for example ). As a society, we need to be aware that people of all ethnic and racial groups tend to gather in "segregated" groups naturally, becuase of shared history, culture, and values, but that they still have a strong desire to not be stereotyped as not being able to think, and act independently, and of sharing history, culture, and values that exist outside of those groups, as well.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Do you support "preferential treatment" toward minority owned businesses in the awarding of government contracts?

Maybe. Sometimes. How else do you suggest making up for the headstart given to white-owned businesses by 200 years of preferential treatment in awarding of contracts? Seems like one of the parties was already allowed to creep ahead of the starting line before the flag was dropped -- do you really think it unfair to say that they now have to give back some of that advantage?

Not at all. I just don't support having "quotas", because that often leads to forcing a contract with a sub-par vendor purely because they satisfy the quota criteria.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Until that kind of insidious injustice is truly obliterated from the political and economic landscape, I think all arguments based on "equal opportunity" must be tempered by the reality that even our completely lame and inefficient "safety net" does not come close to providing a level playing field.

You're right. The playing field is not level.

We do agree on quite a few things ...

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Unemployment rates for blacks are always higher than for equally qualified whites.

In the same geographic area? Inner city to inner city; urban to urban, suburban to suburban; rural to rural? I'd like to see the numbers.

I'm not that good at research. How many numbers do you want? It may be easier for me to find local or state numbers than federal.

My point is that there is more to employment than qualification. A qualified worker who cannot get to the workplace, will not get the job. Many inner city folks do not have private transportation, so the suburban jobs will go to those who do ( mostly suburbanites ).

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
And your call for urban blacks to return to the fields in competition with ~~braceros~~ guest workers sounds incredibly paternalistic.

If there are jobs in the country, and no jobs in the city, why do they stay there? Just because they're too proud to "return to the fields"? Well, let me tell you, pride doesn't feed your kids, put a roof over your head, or put clothes on your back. Seems strange though - why don't the "guest workers" refuse to work in the fields?

Because where they (the "guest workers") come from they are paid even less to sew jeans or pick coffee -- why do you think so many of them grow coca and other cash crops with a more reasonable rate of return? With regard to urban blacks being told to return to the fields -- if you can't see the negative PR value to such a proposal I don't think I can help.

Sure I can see the negative PR value. So what? Would you stand by and see your family suffer because you refused a job based on its negative PR value? If so, then you do not warrant their admiration, or mine.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Your statement that "American workers won't work" at some jobs ignores the reality that they won't (and shouldn't) work at wages which preserve profits for billionaire stockholders while leaving them below the poverty line.

Ahhh. The real reason - they would rather deny their children a decent place to live, decent clothes, and decent food, than fatten the pocketbook of some stockholders. Yeah - that makes sense.

Worker: Picks lettuce or strawberries for ten hours -- truly "backbreaking" labor (try it for ten minutes). Gets 30 minutes in a field with (maybe) a porta-potty available for a lunch break. Sleeps (maybe) in a mobile home or van parked near the fields. Has no health insurance, is exposed to pesticides at the highest possible levels on a daily basis.
Stockholder: Watches competitor's stock prices on computer. Is able to get lunch reservations at the trendy "organics only" restaurant on only 30 minutes notice, and a massage appointment for four o'clock -- there runs into network exec who says that main competitor's CEO will be accused of fraud and embezzelment on 60 Minutes. Despite complete contempt for Dan Rather's credibility calls broker to arrange after-hours acquisition of an additional 100,000 shares before the news drives up the price in the morning as a hedge.

Of such scenarios are revolutions made ...

a) I have. I picked tomatoes for the Campbell Soup Company near Fresno, California in 1965 - I worked 10 hours in the hot sun and was rewarded with a sum total of $8.65. Meanwhile, the bracero in front of me in the pay line took home $55.35. I didn't go back ( I had only done it to augment my military pay - yeah, right. ).
b) Your scenarios, while interesting, are obviously meant to create class envy and promote socialism. There is no group structure in nature in which class hierarchy does not occur naturally. Packs, Prides, Pods, Flocks - you name it; each one has those who get the best, and those who do not. It is a competitive world, and that is the nature of things. Some work hard to earn higher positions in the pecking order, and some do not.
Revolution of the type you imply does not solve the problem. Look at Zimbabwe. Once called Africa's Breadbasket, Mugabe has turned it into a famine ridden nation. Why? Because as "oppressive" as the white farmers were, they knew how to operate the BUSINESS of farming. The oppressed could "farm" but not run the "business" of the farm - so the farms failed. And now, the whole nation suffers. Indeed, much of Africa suffers because Zimbabwe is no longer able to supply food.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

I'm curious though why YOU think that they SHOULDN'T work to support their families, if it means that those who made the job possible, by providing investment capital, would benefit from the company making money.

I think that common sense, Christian fairness, ethics, compassion, whatever you want to call it, dicatate that there should be upper and lower limits to how much wealth individuals can accumulate, and the depth of poverty to which we allow the destitute to sink. Otherwise, what's the point of civilization at all -- just let the law of the jungle prevail.

Where and how those limits should be drawn should make for a lively debate, but that some lines should exist really should not.

Unfortunately, I can't agree that there should be limits. I'm all for Christian fairness, ethics, and compassion, but the fact is that there are people who will despise the best efforts of society to help them lead healthier lives. I've seen people trade food stamps on the black market for cash ( pennies on the dollar ) so that they could buy alcohol, cigarettes, or worse. The "guarantees" of a lower limit - if cash ( or instruments that can be converted to cash ) is involved, will NEVER solve the problem of poverty - because it does not, indeed, it cannot change the fact that people will squander that income in ways that are not profitable to their, or their dependents well being.

On the other hand, imposing upper limits would stifle the incentive to invest time, effort, energy, and capital in growing companies.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/28/2004 12:52:07 PM · #1194

RonB: From your last post I see we (substantially) agree on even more things than I thought : )

You didn't mention quotas the first time, neither did I. You are right that strict quotas don't seem to work. Neither do (most of)the "revolutions" which have been carried out to date, as your example shows ... but neither has unrestrained capitalism. Obviously no one has yet come up with the ideal "fair and balanced" economic/social structure or we'd all subscribe to it and quit blowing each other up.

The negative PR value was supposed to be ascribed to you and your suggestion, not to anyone who actually chose to move someplace and get an agricultural job.

Your bit in response to the unemployment rates is interesting ... you point out how the deck is stacked against those already poor/disadvataged in terms of the pool of jobs available.

But, the purpose of suburbs is to provide sleeping space ("bedroom communities") for people who work in the city -- suburban jobs aren't an issue here. The issue there is more one of preference given to a white suburban commuter (also major polluter) over an equally qualified black urban resident, who can walk/bike/bus to a job.

I found lots of incomprehensible unemployment data at California's Employment Development Department and at the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Originally posted by RonB:

b) Your scenarios, while interesting, are obviously meant to create class envy and promote socialism. There is no group structure in nature in which class hierarchy does not occur naturally. Packs, Prides, Pods, Flocks - you name it; each one has those who get the best, and those who do not. It is a competitive world, and that is the nature of things. Some work hard to earn higher positions in the pecking order, and some do not.

Does the historical ubiquitousness of hierarchical structures necessitate a current commitment to their perpetuation, or can we continue to strive towards a level of civilization and mutual responsibility higher than a flock of chickens?

One of the unique aspects of the human herd is that we don't just turn out the injured, infirm, or insane to die -- we ascribe value to every human life (and soul for those who believe), regardless of their ability to "compete" in the struggle for survival. I think blaming the victims has gotten old ... I think it's time the greedy start bearing some responsibility for the world's current state of affairs.

MadMordegon

09/28/2004 12:56:29 PM · #1195

We should be more like Iceland

09/28/2004 01:52:29 PM · #1196

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

We should be more like Iceland

Why?
According to the sources you point to
Iceland has a population of around 294 Thousand people with an account balance of -574 Million dollars ( $1,952 per person ) and an external debt of 2.6 Billion dollars ( $8,843 per person ).
The U.S., on the other hand has a population of 293 Million people with an account balance of -541.8 Billion dollars ( $1,849 per person ) and an external debt of 1.4 Trillion dollars ( $4,778 per person ). So on both an account balance basis, and an external debt basis, each Icelander's debt apportionment is greater than his/her American counterpart.
Was that your point? That America should INCREASE it's budget deficit to match Iceland's?

MadMordegon

09/28/2004 01:55:37 PM · #1197

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
We should be more like Iceland

Why?
According to the sources you point to
Iceland has a population of around 294 Thousand people with an account balance of -574 Million dollars ( $1,952 per person ) and an external debt of 2.6 Billion dollars ( $8,843 per person ).
The U.S., on the other hand has a population of 293 Million people with an account balance of -541.8 Billion dollars ( $1,849 per person ) and an external debt of 1.4 Trillion dollars ( $4,778 per person ). So on both an account balance basis, and an external debt basis, each Icelander's debt apportionment is greater than his/her American counterpart.
Was that your point? That America should INCREASE it's budget deficit to match Iceland's?

Cause they are nice people.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/28/2004 02:06:23 PM · #1198

RonB: You seem to have ommitted this from your calculations:

The Debt To the Penny

Current Amount

09/27/2004 $7,349,252,011,039.25

//www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Based on your pupulation figure of 293 million, that comes to $25082.77* per person (remember, that includes kids, incapacitated, and retired people).

*Rounded from 25082.771368734641638225255972696

MadMordegon

09/28/2004 02:08:41 PM · #1199

Last on the list.