<div align="center"><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#111111" bgcolor="#C9C0A7" width="414" height="66"><tr><td background="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/little_back.gif" width="56"><img src="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/trr.gif" width="56" height="56"></td><td width="358"><font face="Impact" color="#000000" size="6">In My Opinion</font><font face="Arial" color="#000000" size="3"><i><br><b> by Trevor Bothwell</b></i></td></tr></table></div>
On Wednesday President Bush delivered a much-anticipated speech denouncing the use of racial preferences by college admission boards. Subsequently, the Bush administration submitted a legal brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, two white students who have filed suits against the University of Michigan, after being denied admission to the school due to the university’s affirmative action policy giving preferential treatment to minority students.

In two separate lawsuits against UM, district court judges ruled that the College of Literature, Sciences, and the Arts and the University of Michigan Law School’s race-based admissions policies were unconstitutional. According to Adversity.net, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman “disagreed with the university's contention that racial diversity is a ‘compelling’ state interest and described the school's admissions policies as an unconstitutional quota system … He called the University of Michigan system ‘indistinguishable from a straight quota system.’”

As reported by the Washington Times, the president alluded to the university’s policy that awards a 20-point bonus (on a 150-point scale used for admissions) to blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians just for being black, Hispanic, or American Indian. "To put this in perspective,” the president stated, “a perfect [emphasis added] SAT score is worth only 12 points in the Michigan system,&quot; which means that a person’s race is often the decisive factor for admission.

Predictably, President Bush’s pronouncement elicited outrage from many Democrats, presumably due to the fact that even a modest reformation in the use of ubiquitous quota systems and racial preferences could destroy their façade that they actually care about minorities.

For starters, Jesse Jackson hopped to the mic to call President Bush &quot;the most anti-civil rights president in 50 years.&quot; This from Mr. “Hymie-Town” himself. But hey, did we really expect Mr. Bush to be as committed to equality as America’s First Black Prez (WJC)? Come on, now!

Rep. Richard Gephardt also swiftly announced that he intends to file a legal brief on behalf of the University of Michigan to support its dedication to advancing “diversity.” As Michelle Malkin points out in her book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261464/qid=1042828709/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-9521416-9908904" style="text-decoration: underline; text-underline: single">Invasion</a>, this is the same man who is so dedicated to America’s diversity that he vociferously supports the government’s 245(i) program, which allows illegal aliens to eventually adjust their illegal status in order to become legal permanent residents (even if they have been previously connnected to terrorist activity!). Unfortunately, President Bush has also voiced his support for this program inasmuch as it protects illegal Mexican immigrants, but this should at least serve to quell, not exacerbate, ridiculous accusations that he is not devoted to advancing civil rights.

Not to be outdone, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, America’s most-wrinkled (er, most-recent) 2004 presidential candidate, said Mr. Bush &quot;sided with the right wing of his party, and sent a signal that equal opportunity in higher education is a low priority for his administration.&quot; Interestingly, I was under the impression that the president’s speech was intended to support these students’ fight for equal opportunity..

And saving the best for last, Sen. John Kerry stated that "[t]he Bush administration continues a disturbing pattern of using the rhetoric of diversity as a substitute for real progress on a civil rights agenda.&quot; I must admit I’m more than a little confused here. Hasn’t the Democrats’ rhetorical version of “diversity” during the past decade gotten us into this current situation at Michigan?

While affirmative action programs are a reflection of our nation’s consciousness and sensitivity to peoples of all races and cultures, this fact paradoxically stultifies the argument for an actual need for these programs in the first place. Whether Democrats will ever admit it or not, this nation has progressed beyond the years of Jim Crow; with the multitude of institutions and organizations in place today that fight for civil rights, how can anyone realistically believe that government-mandated discrimination will yield equality for all? If anything, inherent assumptions that the color of one’s skin classifies a person as possessing a certain level of ability can only lead to further divisions between individuals and races.

It is regrettably true that some colleges in the U.S. have been found guilty of discriminating against minority applicants in the past. But far more often than not, minority candidates have been denied admission to colleges due to a lack of meritorious achievement rather than a lack of the “right” skin color. Just because some universities may believe that the “right” skin color now belongs to certain minorities, it shouldn’t qualify that this is any more a justification for admission than it would be for rejection.

This argument, however, is underscored by the one interminable belief among today’s current educators, whether at the college or elementary school level: all students must be considered “equal.” Educators nowadays are either disallowed or unwilling to distinguish between those students who excel and thus deserve credit for their achievement, and those who put forth a minimal amount of effort and fail to achieve anything. By minimizing our demand for true academic excellence we can concentrate on more important things, like social engineering programs that guarantee all students will have the same opportunities, whether deserving of them or not.

There are many institutions of higher learning in this country that are geared toward students of modest intelligence or limited levels of high school achievement. Students who can do little more than sign their names can gain entrance to junior and community colleges, and there are a plethora of four-year institutions that aren’t nearly as academically demanding as some of the nation’s elite flagships. Thomas Sowell has argued for years against the use of affirmative action programs in education, citing that in many cases minority students who have been admitted undeservingly to select universities end up being expelled from or dropping out of school as a result of their inability to compete. In this scenario, racial preferences clearly end up working against those they claim to help.

Perhaps the most deplorable reality associated with race-based set-asides and preferences is that in reality these programs have very little to do with the authentic academic advancement for minorities that their proponents claim to endorse. Liberals want a world where achievement is relative. Failure is casually dismissed not as the fault of any one individual, but as the result of a prejudicial society that discriminates against those who are “less fortunate,” even if by less fortunate they really mean less motivated or concerned.

The consequences of this mentality are potentially disastrous. First, we have already been witnessing for some time the dumbing down of curriculum in today’s primary and secondary schools. Schools conveniently lower academic expectations to give the impression that all students can learn at similar rates. And when it turns out that not all of our children progress or achieve equally, schools utilize social promotion measures, where students are passed to the next grade despite their failure to realize any tangible achievement, to perpetuate this myth. Colleges can only look forward to falling victim to this same fate by employing admission standards that are not based primarily on academic qualifications.

Second, pretending that racial makeup is as qualitatively valuable as intellectual competence (or even more so, when UM awards more admission points for heritage than a perfect SAT score) is sheer foolishness. This mindset gradually decreases the significance of the importance of a quality work ethic, and in concomitance contributes to an ideology of entitlement where one eventually expects to be rewarded for what one is as opposed to what one earns. The current dilemma surrounding the SAT, where it is being transformed from a reliable test of aptitude to a more subjective analysis of “achievement,” is merely one consequence of this brand of thinking.

Finally, and certainly the most detrimental latent effect of racial bean counting programs like the one at the University of Michigan, will be the perpetuation of a race-obsessed society, where its attendant myths purport that opportunity and ability should be determined more by family background, history, and skin color rather than by each individual’s everyday determination and accomplishment. To believe this is to buy into the validity of a discriminatory society, not to condemn it. Perhaps it’s time for Democrats to begin buying wholesale into President Bush’s “rhetoric of diversity.”


Trevor Bothwell is editor of <a href="http://www.therightreport.com/"> The Right Report</a> and author of the cookbook, <a href="http://www.therightreport.com/pubs/cookbook.htm">50 Ways to Impress Your Girlfriend’s Parents</a>. He is a former elementary school teacher and college instructor.</font>

I am going to say right now that the University of Michigan's system of admitting students is incredibly fair to all races.

I cannot see how the system can be construed as a quota system. Where are the dictates of a percentage or number of blacks, or Native Americans, or Hispanics? No, the system is consistent with Bakke in that race is used as one factor of many in order to achieve diversity. I can vouch that the only way that we learn is through the presentation of dissenting ideas or ones that come from a different background. There are other universities that take into effect one's socio-economic background in order to determine which applicants to accept.

The allusion to the SAT score is misleading in that the standarized test has recently fallen out of favor with many within in college campuses. California higher education schools do not even accept SAT scores anymore because they are not seen as a bellweather of a student's academic ability. Instead, more and more schools are more focused on secondary school records, just as the University of Michigan is. Under their system, a 4.0 GPA receives 80 points. This is four times more valuable than being a minority. Doesn't that sound fair?

Athletes that receive a scholarship also receive 20 points. Doesn't that discriminate against non-athletes? It certainly does under the conservatives' logic. Those who have a parent alumnus also receive points. Doesn't that discriminate against those whose parents did not attend college? It certainly does under the conservatives' logic.

Those who brought this lawsuit before the court are merely bitter that their package was not as outstanding as they felt that it was. When a white person's record is even with a minority, the minority should receive admission because diversity must be achieved. Those who apply to college have it together, they are inherently outstanding. It becomes hard to judge the applicants because often they are all equally valuable. Minority status offers more to the educational experience of whites and thus it makes minority applicants stand out from their white counterparts that have just the same record.

Bravo, Rick! Can't agree with you more.

You know, the Republican administration is currently referring to President Bush's "Affirmative Action" programs in Texas that guaranteed every student in the top 10% of their class a place in UT schools. So, in order to help foster equality, we should rely on segregated schools that are the result of segregated neighboorhoods? Doesn't sound like equal opportunity to me.

:clap: Vicos! You go!

The system at Michigan is flawed because of preference given as to race or ethnicity. Affirmative action is leveling the field, not tilting it to one side or the other. If all factors are equal and the candidates are otherwise eligible I would see no problem with them working for a diverse mix by selecting a minority. To give “bonus” points to the three categories mentioned is biased and will be found to violate the civil rights of the students that filed suit.

Ken, that's basically what Colin Powell and Condi Rice said about it. And since Rice is one of the smartest people I've ever heard of, I'll take her word for it.

Since when does athletic achievement have anything to do with the classroom?

This is Affirmative Action at work...It works in the constraint the Bakke case established that race can be one factor of many when decided who to accept in the admissions procedure.

Originally posted by demsformd
Since when does athletic achievement have anything to do with the classroom?

This is Affirmative Action at work...It works in the constraint the Bakke case established that race can be one factor of many when decided who to accept in the admissions procedure.
Ability to run, jump, throw, shoot a ball, swim, etc. has nothing to do with the protected categories covered by affirmative action.

Colin Powell is in "respectful" disagreement with the President on the system. He agrees with the belief that the University of Michigan is correctly using race in its system. I just saw a clip on CNN about it from an interview that he had yesterday.

From CNN.com - "Powell said he had talked with the president on many occasions about affirmative action and believes him to be "committed to diversity in education," but that Bush felt Michigan's policy went too far.

"It's just that he found that the University of Michigan case did not meet what he believed was a constitutional test," Powell said.

In the past, Powell had said he believed the university had a strong case, but he and Rice deferred Sunday to the court for the final decision. "

Ken, I think that you missed the boat here. On CNN this morning, there was a clip of Colin Powell saying that he respectfully disagreed with the President on this issue, which included the Michigan system.

Skin tone has a lot to do with the classroom. A homogeneous group of white kids in a classroom does not allow the viewpoint of different backgrounds. Same can be said for a homogeneous group of black kids. Diversity is a goal that universities must obtain in order to broaden students' horizons and their thought processes.

Explain to me, Dems, why you think people will have different "backgrounds" based on their skin color. A group of black kids may have VERY different backgrounds, as would a group of white kids.

Why do liberals persist in lumping people together based on skin color? :burning:

I haven't missed the boat, the fact is that the court will decide whether or not Michigan's system is Constitutional or not, and that is what Powell has said he will defer to.

Now go get Tim to log on and tell me I'm wrong.

Well it looks to me like the conservatives here what just lilly-white kids to occupy our schools and keep the blacks at Howard and Grambling and the such. We need diversity at our schools, even President Bush states believes that. The Michigan plan effectively accomplishes that goal of diversity, thus I do not see the problem with that.

President Bush opposes this plan because he sees that his ultraconservative base from the racist South is questioning his tactics after he would not defend Trent Lott. To make up for that, President Bush has decided to renominate Judge Pickering, a defender of cross-burners, to the federal bench, and has decided to oppose efforts to ensure that blacks in this country have a level playing field. This is nothing more than a wink and a nod to those racists that the Republican Party has catered to ever since the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Originally posted by vicos
[BIf students are taught responsibility and discipline and given a proper education, we would never ever have to worry about quota systems in this country. Telling people that their problems are someone else's fault and that they are entitled to financial relief to every little injustice in their lives is not the answer. [/B] You've nailed it!! The reverse doctrine of this is what the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons, and the rest of that ilk are trying to force down our throats. Moreover, Bill O'reilly advocates that this belief is actually an insult to minorities, in that they desperately "need" a leg up on everyone else simply because they are a minority. You can't make it without gummint help. Yeah, keep feeding them that, keep the race ticket alive!
:mad: penn

Dems, that is such bullsh*t. My son's best friend is a black kid and he got into UVA just fine and is doing quite well. Yes, he got an athletic scholarship (track) but he worked his butt off for it. And he is doing just fine academically.

There are TONS of black kids that get into college every year on their own merit, not because of some patronizing liberal program. And I suspect that that's what you can't stand - people achieving on their own, without the help of some liberal massa.

Yeah, Bush hates blacks - that's why he got Rice and Powell. Oh, I forgot - they're just tokens to make people think Bush isn't a bigot. :duh:

And look at our last two Democratic Presidents - not one, but BOTH of them came out of that there racist South you were talking about. And, PS, neither of them had a black person in a cabinet position. I think the evidence is pretty clear on just who is the racist party.

There is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on racial appointees. The Republicans have to appoint blacks while Democrats elect them. Of the over 1,000 black elected officials in the nation, only 57 are black according to the University of Maryland Political Science department. The Democrats do it the democratic way because we see merit in blacks as lawmakers, the Republicans do it in order to show inclusion because god-fearing white Republicans won't vote for a black.

VRA, your reference to Rice and Powell as reasons that Bush does not hate blacks is proof that the only reason that they were selected was to provide the image of inclusion. They are used as leverage against the race issue. I love Colin Powell, I think that he is a great man with a great intellect. And he is more liberal than conservative (aka he really should be an independent or a Democrat).

Carter and Clinton were both from the racist South. And they won due to their incredible black support and by winning a minority of the white vote. They formed biracial coalitions to win reelection. Arkansas in fact is known for its racial inclusion, can't say that for Georgia though. As for the past three Republican presidents, two were from the racist south and Reagan started his campaign from Philadelphia, Mississippi where he stated "I believe in state's rights." Twenty years before that speech two black people were killed by the KKK. Doesn't that sound racially charged? Clinton and Carter wanted the black vote, Reagan and the Bushes didn't.

Tim, could it be possible that Republicans don't elect blacks to office simply because very few blacks are Republicans, therefore they wouldn't run on a Republican ticket? Republicans will indeed elect blacks - I give you J. C. Watts as an example.

Are you trying to say that Powell and Rice aren't qualified to hold their positions? I'll grant you that their skin color probably had something to do with them getting the position. Let's call it modified "affirmative action". :neener: BUT they are still qualified for their jobs.

I don't think it's a bad thing that Bush selected a Secretary of Statethat doesn't agree with his on every issue. It speaks of Bush's effectiveness as a leader that he would choose someone who looks at things from a different perspective.

Originally posted by Tim Mcneil
Reagan started his campaign from Philadelphia, Mississippi where he stated "I believe in state's rights." Twenty years before that speech two black people were killed by the KKK. Doesn't that sound racially charged? No, it doesn't. State's Rights means more than just slavery. It means pornography laws, abortion laws and many other issues. What does a 20 year old murder have to do with Reagan's speech, anyway? Or are you trying to say that Reagan advocated going back to slavery? I highly doubt that's true simply because slavery was what the Democrats did - the Republicans were the ones who made them cut it out. Remember?

Yes I do know that the GOP ended slavery and I along with many other liberals will concede to you that the GOP was a much better party up until the 1920s. The Republican Party was once the party of progressives while the Democratic Party was once the party of conservatives and bigotry. But after Theodore Roosevelt was not renominated for the Republican Party in 1912, your party took a hard right turn. The GOP is not the party of Lincoln anymore. It is the party of Goldwater, Lott, and Robertson. The Republican Party is responsible for many of the great government bureaucracies that you all speak so harshly of like the civil service, the department of the interior, and conservation dictates. The GOP was once the party of big-government and civil rights. Not anymore though, they are the party of bigotry and former confederates. When Barry Goldwater campaigned against civil rights in 1964, the GOP's credibility on race just ended. To further prove my point that the GOP is now the party of bigotry, look at southern voting patterns. They were once solidly behind conservative Democrats but are now almost completely Republican. Large amounts of southern Democrats have switched parties starting with Strom Thurmond in 1964 up until Richard Shelby in 1994. Racists are now your party's problem. We showed that they had no place in the Democratic Party, will you do so as well?

So are you telling me that Ronnie meant all the things that you stated in 1980? Seeing as he was talking to a bunch of southern whites, I don't think that that was his intended purpose. State's rights is another word for racism and keeping the black race down. After all didn't Strom Thurmond run as a "state's rights" candidate. Wasn't his party the "State's Rights Party?"

When Barry Goldwater campaigned against civil rights in 1964, the GOP's credibility on race just ended. If memory serves me, there were plenty of Democrats that were quite outspoken on being against black equality - why didn't it ruin their credibility?

Not anymore though, they are the party of bigotry and former confederates. And you're aware, of course, that there isn't a single Confederate alive today, right? Nor has there been for quite some years.

We showed that they had no place in the Democratic Party, will you do so as well? Umm...yeah - that's why Trent Lott is no longer majority leader. And David Duke hasn't been elected to anything on a national level. See, our party doesn't elect KKK members - that's the Democrats you're thinking of.

State's rights is another word for racism and keeping the black race down. That is simply not true. It's the right of the States to individually decide certain things for themselves, based on the wants and needs of the citizens of that state.

Originally posted by bluto
What color are the rest of the black elected officials?
:cheers: Well done bluto, I missed that quote on the 1,000 black elected officials, only 57% percent being black......looks as though
liberalists can only get their quotes half-right; like many other beliefs they embrace.
:cheers: penn

I have in my possession a web address:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/12/blackselected.ap/

"The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies on Tuesday released its 1999 count of black elected officials. The report showed a gain of 68 positions to a total 8,936 nationwide between January 1998 and January 1999. "

And just so we can clear up the "racist South" myth:

"The report said the states with the most black elected officials were Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Illinois and Georgia. "

Now here's something else that's interesting:

"The modest increase did not elevate the percentage of black elected officials among all elected officials. That figure remains at 1.7 percent. "

As most of you know, this is not in proportion to the black population. Why not? Well, here's what occurs to me:

The blacks that DO run for elected office typically run as Democrats. Which means they're cutting their chances of election in half, simply because they're leaving out a whole other option. If they ran as Republicans, I'll bet we'd see a big rise in that percentage simply because the field would be more open for them.

Ask Rick Fritz how this works. Not that he's black, but he ran as a Democrat against an incumbent Democrat and lost. He switched over to Republican and has been getting elected ever since - 2 terms now.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
If memory serves me, there were plenty of Democrats that were quite outspoken on being against black equality - why didn't it ruin their credibility?

These Democrats did not run for President did they? Too often we see senators and congressmen as the leaders of a party. No, the presidential candidate of the party is the leader. Since FDR, every Democratic candidate for president has supported civil rights.

Umm...yeah - that's why Trent Lott is no longer majority leader. And David Duke hasn't been elected to anything on a national level. See, our party doesn't elect KKK members - that's the Democrats you're thinking of.

Are we gonna bring Bobby Byrd up again here? I agree I hate that he is in my party but guess what he is one of millions of Democrats in this nation. He is also one of the most conservative. But at least he votes for leadership that supports civil rights. Republicans for years voted for a leader that opposed civil rights.

That is simply not true. It's the right of the States to individually decide certain things for themselves, based on the wants and needs of the citizens of that state.

Whenever a candidate mentions state's rights, they are hinting at racist tendencies and anti-civil rights sentiment. vrai, you are a very knowledgable person and I wouldn't take you to be a naive person. Yet saying such a thing shows that you may be. What you think of states' rights is very different from what white southeners think about states' rights. They hear that and they think, "oh, good we got another Jefferson Davis here." That is the feeling that politicians want to arose when they refer to that issue.

Three quick points since it's late...

1) Vicos summed everything up nicely, so this doesn't need to be long.

2) The playing field is already level, but liberals either can't see that or don't want to admit it. That's what a disparity in SAT scores shows you (which is why their value is bemoaned nowadays), but it's not PC to admit that all people have overall cultural backgrounds that play a role in how they value education. You don't hear anyone pining for the inclusion of Asians, who are the country's least represented minority; they simply outperform everyone else. I guess they figured out how to get around the "cultural bias" of standardized tests.

3) Who said diversity "must" be a factor in classrooms? What does a black kid who lives in the same neighborhood as a white kid necessarily bring to the table that is so different from everyone else? If we encouraged true academic achievement over and above attitudes of entitlement, we'd begin to raise the bar for everyone, including minorities. If you want "diversity," go to the grocery store and talk to everyone in the aisles.

See, Trevor, that's where my curiousity gets piqued - WHY do blacks have such dismal SAT scores? I was reading some big feature on affirmative action (in Newsweek, I think) and they had the average SAT scores for the various racial groups. Blacks were right at the bottom. Why?

I know that the black kids my daughter goes to school with are getting SAT scores that are on par with everyone else's. Most are college-bound, easy. But these kids come from middle-class and up homes - we have no ghetto in Middletown. Extracurriculars play a big part in our schools - almost every kid is involved in something, be it sports, drama, student government, etc.

When you have parents who achieve, it stands to reason that the kids will have that same desire, and vice versa. So how do you get kids to achieve, despite their parents' shortcomings?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
When you have parents who achieve, it stands to reason that the kids will have that same desire, and vice versa. So how do you get kids to achieve, despite their parents' shortcomings?
:frown: I am not going to say that it covers the entire sector as a whole, but you may have answered your own question. When a kid comes home to an environment where no pat on the back is given, or a "well done", it's hard, I imagine to even want to try.
As far as how do you get them to achieve in spite of their home environment, the nearest example I could give is - sports.
However, not every kid has atheletic skills enough for it to take them out of the "hood", as it's called. Another is what I'd term
"percieved self-esteem", meaning I can excel in academics! If they can realize that and get by the jibes and hoots from their "friends", what is to stop them from attaining higher goals?
JMHO
:smile: penn

This tinkering with the SAT, absurd as it is, is the perfect indication that our educational system is shot. Liberals want us to believe that standardized tests are causing minority students (read: black students) to fail; in actuality, failing black students cause the tinkering with the SAT.

As for why black students perform most poorly, I believe we need to look first and foremost into inner city areas where black children are failed constantly by being stuck in non-academically-focused environments, where teachers' unions fight tooth and nail to evaporate the use of vouchers to help get these kids out of terrible schools. We also need to realize that many of these educators who claim to care so much about "the children" account for their failure by directing attention away from failing students' lack of individual responsibility, discipline and hard work, and toward "society" and "white racism." Finally, perpetuating this failure by employing methods of affirmative action, where politicians and educators exhibit their soft bigotry by assuming blacks are incapable of competing with everyone else from the get-go, eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Parents who lived through this mess twenty years ago were either not served at all by the system and thus are now raising children improperly, or are by this time so used to hearing they need to rely on everyone else to get anywhere that they truly are being inhibited -- but it's hardly being done by those "white racists" white liberals keep yelling about. And this isn't even taking into account the fact that our government has grown into such a behemoth welfare state over the past 30 years that we enable, even encourage, single parenthood by eliminating the requirement of having two parents around to provide for a family.

For a great new article on this exact topic (and a better viewpoint than I can likely give), see La Shawn Barber's latest piece on The Right Report here:
http://www.therightreport.com/articles/LBarber/barber012103.htm

Originally posted by trevor
Finally, perpetuating this failure by employing methods of affirmative action, where politicians and educators exhibit their soft bigotry by assuming blacks are incapable of competing with everyone else from the get-go, eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Parents who lived through this mess twenty years ago were either not served at all by the system and thus are now raising children improperly, or are by this time so used to hearing they need to rely on everyone else to get anywhere that they truly are being inhibited -- but it's hardly being done by those "white racists" white liberals keep yelling about
http://www.therightreport.com/articles/LBarber/barber012103.htm
:frown: Trevor, sorry to hack up your reply, but this point(s), are as far as I read in your post, go right to the heart of the problem. We keep hearing various reasons why black kids aren't getting anywhere, but I believe this is the inherent problem.
It's a self-perpetualizing like cycle. It is, I believe the same evil that haunts the welfare system: people are born into it, and continue on in the same vein. What else is there to look forward to? The environment they live, eat and sleep in sustains the cycle of familiarity. Until they learn to break that cycle, many are doomed to repeat it.

penn

David Nicholson had a great piece in the Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19639-2003Jan20.html

Did all those who suffered and died for freedom, all the martyrs of the civil rights movement such as Medgar Evers, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, James E. Cheney and Martin Luther King Jr., really give their lives so that a generation of young blacks could act out in public as if they were characters in a "gangsta" movie or rap song?

All the partisan Republicans here, look at your posts. No wonder the blacks and hispanics do not vote for you much.

Originally posted by kelley
All the partisan Republicans here, look at your posts. No wonder the blacks and hispanics do not vote for you much.
While I am not a Republican (though many believe I am), I take it you endorse giving blacks and Hispanics a leg up instead of actually leveling the field where a person is judged "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" and their desire to do better.

Originally posted by Ken King
While I am not a Republican (though many believe I am), I take it you endorse giving blacks and Hispanics a leg up instead of actually leveling the field where a person is judged "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" and their desire to do better.

Going by what I have seen from the dems, it just seems they want to make sure the blacks and hispanics are given a chance to be judged not by the color of their skin. Sure, minorities want this. Sure, whites say it is a great thing. But all too often people say one thing, act another.

I am just saying that blacks and hispanics do not vote for the Republicans because they do not endorse efforts to make it easier for them in society. I am indiffernet on affirmative action but I love to see it from a political scientist's viewpoint.

I agree with Kelley. If it weren't for white men and Republicans, blacks would be living free in Africa RIGHT NOW, enjoying the culture and heritage of their own without being crammed into the white man's idea of "society". Since blacks were slaves only a few days ago, they should cut every white person's income in HALF and give it to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton so they can dole it out to the African-Americans. Only Jesse and Al know what's right for the African American community - anyone else's opinion is just disguised racism.

And don't get me started on Hispanics! They had it good in Mexico, only to be lured by lies about what great opportunities there are in the US. Opportunities - please. They don't even teach Hispanic kids in Spanish here, for crying out loud! How are the kids supposed to get an education if they don't understand what the teacher is saying?

dang vrai, I see a certain tone in your posts recently.. Hubby busting your chops again about smoking?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kelley
[B]I am just saying that blacks and hispanics do not vote for the Republicans because they do not endorse efforts to make it easier for them in society
:rolleyes: That is the whole crux of the matter, Kelley. Why should society be concerned about "making it easier" for anybody? That is what's been ingrained into minorities by the Jesse Jacksons of our society: that we OWE THEM! And what they keep going back to is the racist slavery issue. Good Lord, that was two hundred years ago! Do you know of anybody still alive that is responsible for that?

:frown: penn

If you hang around the forums enough you might notice the cyclic swings of Vraiblonde. Can anyone say PMS.

Originally posted by SmallTown
dang vrai, I see a certain tone in your posts recently.. Hubby busting your chops again about smoking? Nope - I've just seen the light. The Democrats are the only ones who truly want to preserve democracy for everyone. Republicans, and especially that non-English speaking fake President of ours, just want to oppress everyone who isn't white, rich or Christian.

Originally posted by Ken King
If you hang around the forums enough you might notice the cyclic swings of Vraiblonde. Can anyone say PMS. I rest my case - now we've got some rich white guy who wants to oppress women! Need I say more?

Originally posted by penncam
Do you know of anybody still alive that is responsible for that? YES! George Bush! And Ronald Reagan! And David Duke! They are responsible for keeping slavery alive. You know as well as I do that if they had their way, blacks would be back on the plantation picking cotton. They even tricked Robert Byrd into thinking the KKK was a benevolent organization! Thank goodness he was too smart for them!

Originally posted by Ken King
If you hang around the forums enough you might notice the cyclic swings of Vraiblonde. Can anyone say PMS.

:biggrin: If it isn't PMS, not a mid-life Identity Crisis, and as she admits - she has little if any humor - cyclic mood swings! HMMM!
Maybe she's been reprogrammed. Could it be that our website is being mommied by a HAL 9000 computer? They say AI has come a long way these days! Oh, Dave?

:biggrin: penn

Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do....

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do....

:roflmao: :roflmao: :lmao: :lmao: :roflmao:

penn

Originally posted by penncam
:roflmao: :roflmao: :lmao: :lmao: :roflmao:

penn

:biggrin: Vrai, would there be any Truth in Denial that you are artificially intelligent? It's a blonde thing, I know!

:rolleyes: penn :biggrin:

Originally posted by penncam
Vrai, would there be any Truth in Denial that you are artificially intelligent? It's a blonde thing, I know!
I know you and Ken King were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

I think Vrai either needs a group hug, or one of those big jamaican joints...

And anyway, there you go again, Penn - oppressing womyn when we're supposed to be talking about how you and all other Republicans want to re-enslave black people.
:duh:

Man, you guys are going nuts. I am indifferent on AA and I did not say that I endorsed the idea that the GOP is contrary to blacks. After the GOP was the party that freed the slaves. I merely was providing some political history insight into the matter that since the 1960s, minoritites generally reject the ideas of the GOP due to the reasons that you guys provided. Without the Democrats, they would not get free money and that scares them. Thus from a self-interest view that is bad for them. The same is true for many low-income voters.

To bluto, I oppose a sales tax increase because that affects ALL members of society poorly. It is a regressive tax and I support repealing it if we could. But if we were to raise income taxes on the richest, it would not hurt Middle or lower America. That is my logic on that matter.

Originally posted by SmallTown
I think Vrai either needs a group hug, or one of those big jamaican joints... And just what have you got against Jamaicans? If it wasn't for the US, Jamaicans would be living happily in their island utopia. But NO! White devils like you have to come in and build your hotels and resorts and rape the land. And why do you insist on perpetuting the stereotype that all Jamaicans are spliff-smoking higglers?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
And just what have you got against Jamaicans? If it wasn't for the US, Jamaicans would be living happily in their island utopia. But NO! White devils like you have to come in and build your hotels and resorts and rape the land. And why do you insist on perpetuting the stereotype that all Jamaicans are spliff-smoking higglers?

Oh my.

Originally posted by kelley
After the GOP was the party that freed the slaves. They only did that so they could get more voters. They fooled the former slaves into voting Republican so they (the Republicans) could take over the country. Blacks didn't realize they were being exploited until the 60's when JFK came along.

And I also agree with you that rich people, like maybe those making over $40K a year or so, should have to give back ALL the money they made on tax cuts. Then the government could dole it out to poor people like they SHOULD! If only those rich white people would share their money with the poor, then we could have a perfect society where everyone is equal. Why should one person be able to drive a Mercedes when another doesn't even have a car at all? People wouldn't have to resort to crime if only the rich white people would share their money.

I'm taking up a collection to buy Vrai some Midol. Anyone want to chip in?

Originally posted by SmallTown
I'm taking up a collection to buy Vrai some Midol. Anyone want to chip in? That's it! I'm calling Kim Grandy!

Originally posted by SmallTown
I'm taking up a collection to buy Vrai some Midol. Anyone want to chip in?

I don't think Midol is gonna help. It's time to break out the methadone.

Originally posted by pixiegirl
I don't think Midol is gonna help. It's time to break out the methadone. Brainwashed by the patriarchy, no doubt.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
And just what have you got against Jamaicans? If it wasn't for the US, Jamaicans would be living happily in their island utopia. But NO! White devils like you have to come in and build your hotels and resorts and rape the land. And why do you insist on perpetuting the stereotype that all Jamaicans are spliff-smoking higglers?
:cool: But you also forgot to mention the rich white mans' rape of all that Jamaican Rum, mon! Stealin' their finest, and takin' those island drink recipes back to the states, so all those college-type little tramps can get crazy, and making all those rich white boys to do unspeakable acts! That's what I'm takin' about, mon!

:rolleyes: penn

As I scrolled down through each post, I was poised to leap in, and just when I was about to click the reply button, someone covered my point......guess you need to get here early.

All I know is that I grew up in what would be classed a lower income family...the difference was values. Although we no doubt qualified for free lunch programs, my parents would NEVER think of it. When the forms came home they were immediately trashed with the junk mail. I sat in the same public school classroom in that hotbed of racial injustice Georgia in a class that was predominantly black, listened to the same teachers, did the same homework and got the same non-adjusted grades. Despite all that I made it out. I took my values learned from my parents, and ran with them. Now when I go back home to visit, I see the same person who was sitting next to me in English class in high school, hanging out in front of the Piggly-Wiggly. I contend it is a function of ambition. If you have even a little you will enjoy success, absent ambition you are destined to remain and live in squalor

While not nearly as intelligent or eloquent as most of you, I believe that the Democratic Party has been on a course to solidify a perpetually regenerating base. If you convince a group that they are being held down, and they need help, and that you are the only party to provide that help, and you feed the addiction they have to the welfare state, you in effect create your own constituency. Since it has been suggested that we learn our values and morals form our surroundings, this target group will procreate and bring forth a new generation of addicts, who quickly learn where to get their fix from and how to vote to keep the supply open.

Of course Republicans are not popular among minority groups. Republicans want everyone to have a job, be successful, and contribute to society, not merely hitch a ride.

As for AA, why do we need it? Equality is here, there is anti-discrimination legislation to use should it appear. Equal Opportunity to me means just that, Equal OPPORTUNITY, not Equal SUCCESS. I have a solution to the Michigan problem. Why doesn’t the University of Michigan only accept mailed in applications that have absolutely no demographic information? Then they can surely choose who is admitted for studies in an unbiased manner.

Diversity, now I am sure to wrinkle a few feathers on this one. I believe that Diversity is the new battle cry for liberals. Because of the great strides made in civil rights legislation and equal rights in this country there has never been a time when there were greater Equal OPPORTUNITIES. With the opportunities becoming so available, the Democratic Party is faced with a dilemma. There self groomed constituency had no excuse to need so much aide, no aide - no addiction, no addiction - no regenerating constituency, no regenerating constituency - no power. They needed a new mantra…….DIVERSITY. It’s not enough that you have an equal opportunity; you now need to be represented in everything, even if you are not the most qualified. Because a classroom, company, or organization can not be complete unless they have your input.

I am not a racist, I am not wealthy, I don’t contribute to PAC’s, I don’t wear a suit, or belong to any exclusive clubs and I like many of you am embarrassed by the actions of some Republicans, just as I am some Democrats. I don’t vote straight ticket, and I have opinions on topics that differ from the Republicans, and I subscribe to some causes championed by the Democrats, but I don’t feel the need to put a free chicken in every pot, there are quite frankly some out there who don’t deserve to suckle on the generous teat of America ( wonder if that will post). I am just an average guy, who has a humble opinion.

Originally posted by dpete2q
While not nearly as intelligent or eloquent as most of you Ummm....I DISAGREE!
:lmao:

Great post, Pete! I know I told you I wasn't going to applaud you in public but I couldn't help myself.

Originally posted by dpete2q
As I scrolled down through each post, I was poised to leap in, and just when I was about to click the reply button, someone covered my point......guess you need to get here early.

All I know is that I grew up in what would be classed a lower income family...the difference was values. Although we no doubt qualified for free lunch programs, my parents would NEVER think of it. When the forms came home they were immediately trashed with the junk mail. I sat in the same public school classroom in that hotbed of racial injustice Georgia in a class that was predominantly black, listened to the same teachers, did the same homework and got the same non-adjusted grades. Despite all that I made it out. I took my values learned from my parents, and ran with them. Now when I go back home to visit, I see the same person who was sitting next to me in English class in high school, hanging out in front of the Piggly-Wiggly. I contend it is a function of ambition. If you have even a little you will enjoy success, absent ambition you are destined to remain and live in squalor

While not nearly as intelligent or eloquent as most of you, I believe that the Democratic Party has been on a course to solidify a perpetually regenerating base. If you convince a group that they are being held down, and they need help, and that you are the only party to provide that help, and you feed the addiction they have to the welfare state, you in effect create your own constituency. Since it has been suggested that we learn our values and morals form our surroundings, this target group will procreate and bring forth a new generation of addicts, who quickly learn where to get their fix from and how to vote to keep the supply open.

Of course Republicans are not popular among minority groups. Republicans want everyone to have a job, be successful, and contribute to society, not merely hitch a ride.

As for AA, why do we need it? Equality is here, there is anti-discrimination legislation to use should it appear. Equal Opportunity to me means just that, Equal OPPORTUNITY, not Equal SUCCESS. I have a solution to the Michigan problem. Why doesn’t the University of Michigan only accept mailed in applications that have absolutely no demographic information? Then they can surely choose who is admitted for studies in an unbiased manner.

Diversity, now I am sure to wrinkle a few feathers on this one. I believe that Diversity is the new battle cry for liberals. Because of the great strides made in civil rights legislation and equal rights in this country there has never been a time when there were greater Equal OPPORTUNITIES. With the opportunities becoming so available, the Democratic Party is faced with a dilemma. There self groomed constituency had no excuse to need so much aide, no aide - no addiction, no addiction - no regenerating constituency, no regenerating constituency - no power. They needed a new mantra…….DIVERSITY. It’s not enough that you have an equal opportunity; you now need to be represented in everything, even if you are not the most qualified. Because a classroom, company, or organization can not be complete unless they have your input.

I am not a racist, I am not wealthy, I don’t contribute to PAC’s, I don’t wear a suit, or belong to any exclusive clubs and I like many of you am embarrassed by the actions of some Republicans, just as I am some Democrats. I don’t vote straight ticket, and I have opinions on topics that differ from the Republicans, and I subscribe to some causes championed by the Democrats, but I don’t feel the need to put a free chicken in every pot, there are quite frankly some out there who don’t deserve to suckle on the generous teat of America ( wonder if that will post). I am just an average guy, who has a humble opinion.

Wow, this is an amazing post. How could you say that you are not articulate? This is a wonderful post and I applaud the civility of it. I disagree with a lot of what you posted here but I truly can respect the opinion of a man who presents it in the manner that you did. Absolutely amazing.

Originally posted by dpete2q
As I scrolled down through each post, I was poised to leap in, and just when I was about to click the reply button, someone covered my point......

While not nearly as intelligent or eloquent as most of you, I believe that the Democratic Party has been on a course to solidify a perpetually regenerating base. If you convince a group that they are being held down, and they need help, and that you are the only party to provide that help, and you feed the addiction they have to the welfare state, you in effect create your own constituency. Since it has been suggested that we learn our values and morals form our surroundings, this target group will procreate and bring forth a new generation of addicts, who quickly learn where to get their fix from and how to vote to keep the supply open.

Of course Republicans are not popular among minority groups. Republicans want everyone to have a job, be successful, and contribute to society, not merely hitch a ride.

I have a solution to the Michigan problem. Why doesn’t the University of Michigan only accept mailed in applications that have absolutely no demographic information? Then they can surely choose who is admitted for studies in an unbiased manner.

Diversity, now I am sure to wrinkle a few feathers on this one. I believe that Diversity is the new battle cry for liberals. Because of the great strides made in civil rights legislation and equal rights in this country there has never been a time when there were greater Equal OPPORTUNITIES. With the opportunities becoming so available, the Democratic Party is faced with a dilemma. There self groomed constituency had no excuse to need so much aide, no aide - no addiction, no addiction - no regenerating constituency, no regenerating constituency - no power. They needed a new mantra…….DIVERSITY. It’s not enough that you have an equal opportunity; you now need to be represented in everything, even if you are not the most qualified. Because a classroom, company, or organization can not be complete unless they have your input.

I don’t vote straight ticket, and I have opinions on topics that differ from the Republicans, and I subscribe to some causes championed by the Democrats, but I don’t feel the need to put a free chicken in every pot, there are quite frankly some out there who don’t deserve to suckle on the generous teat of America ( wonder if that will post). I am just an average guy, who has a humble opinion.
:cheers: I'll second vrai's assessment of your articulence. I see where you had some ideas that were stated previously, and you even picked up on my thoughts on the left's prediliction to solidify a perpetually regenerative base. Only you stated it better than I did, and my hat is off to you.
I'm interested in hearing where vrai disagrees with your thinking. I didn't see much that rankled my beliefs. As a matter of fact, the thinking you postulate is a breath of fresh air, compared to some who've posted on this thread earlier. Vrai? Your turn.

:cheers: penn

I disagreed when he said he's not as intelligent or eloquent as some of us.

And hey, Pete! Penn and Dems both thought your post was SO good, they both did a COMPLETE reprint of it!

Thanks for the kind words

Dpete2q,

Excellent post, can't wait until you become a member of our community.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I disagreed when he said he's not as intelligent or eloquent as some of us.

And hey, Pete! Penn and Dems both thought your post was SO good, they both did a COMPLETE reprint of it!
:razz2: I knocked out about thirty or so lines, trying to focus on what his strongest arguements were. So there! You might want to do a little better job of comparing posts, dear.
:neener: :neener: :neener:
penn