Sigh. Yet another black Republican writes lamenting the fact that her party has no interest in appealing to black people. Even before the candidacy of Obama, the GOP has made clear for several decades that it doesn’t have any interest in attracting the votes of minorities, especially blacks. I don’t know why black conservatives keep acting the fool, fooling themselves this way. I don’t know that there’s really any place for them in the Democratic party since most of us don’t believe in cutting ourselves off at the knees, but they ought to quit pretending the GOP has an even remote interest in them.
For the near future the Republican party seems mostly interested in being a party for very conservative white males from the south. Whatever consistency of thought this maintains, it has already begun to manifest itself as a poor way to run a national party. I’m okay with that, but then I’m a Democrat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt73TC9xRz8
That was the WORST case of cherry picking I have ever seen — even for you, Oliver !
The whole first page – that you deliberately bypassed — lamented the loss of the minority vote, and advocated for a change in Republican strategy.
Any one with political acumen greater than a turnip knows — and knew — that Obama was going to get a WHOLE LOT of the black vote. There is absolutely no way he could get that sizeable a turnout and voting strength a second time. Just as with Kennedy and the Catholic vote, once you have shown the country, and the world, that you can “get ‘your man’ in” you don’t have to get your man in again and again.
You can drop the “Atwater made the Republicans racist” meme, and you can drop the “Republicans hate nonwhites” meme, and join us in the real world anytime you want, Oliver.
The battle is not drawn between whites and non-whites, much as you and other salivating Media types would like it to be. Since 1964, the battle has been drawn between liberty and equality. Equality has won A ROUND, a BATTLE, not the war. Will the next round (2009 Gubernatorials) go to liberty or equality? The round after that (Congress 2010)? That’s what matters.
The same people that put the OJT candidate into office, voted FOR every anti gay marriage resolution in the country — a message even I regretted seeing sent.
People of color are not, ipso facto liberals — wait and see what happens when Hispanics start voting “Catholic”, and middle -, and upper -, class blacks start voting “mainstream Protestant”. You’ll be hollering “stupid!” “blind” “Uncle Tom and Tomas” and “sell-out” to the rooftops.
The Republican Party is the Gordon Kahl fanclub
I agree, Oliver. I have spent my entire life (I’m 65) around white people who didn’t want my black ass around; who tolereated me; whose idea of integration were aptly described in the article.
I put up with it because I had to work. Now that I’m retired, I will have none of it. Most ESPECIALLY when the Republicans fielded such lousy candidates for the president and vice president of a country that I was born in and will have to live in.
I think that the writer must be masochistic not to see that the Party of Old Angry White folks will have to lose a generation through attrition (read death) in order to grow into a viable party.
I’m registered as an Independent. I will vote for who I think is the best candidate. But I could not be associated with the Republican party under any circumstances these days. IMHO, It’s a lot like aspiring to Klan membership. Unless of course, you got your federal job through patronage. Then, you should just shut up.
[...] Responding to Sophia A. Nelson’s lament about how the Republican Party has not sucked up Pandered to the African-America race. Oliver Willis quips, “They don’t want your black ass!” [...]
You can drop the “Atwater made the Republicans racist” meme, and you can drop the “Republicans hate nonwhites” meme, and join us in the real world anytime you want, Oliver.
Um, Frank…
“Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “N—-r, n—-r, n—-r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n—-r” —that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
Um, Parthenon … 1988 was , er, ah, um — 20 years ago…
“By 1968 you can’t say “n—-r” —that hurts you. Backfires” [thanks for the cite!]
Shall we, dare I say it, move on?
As long as, and ONLY as long as, the black community believes that being beholden to the State is in their best interests, the statist Democratic Party will be their best bet.
But as the black community’s lot improves, they will reap the benefits of autonomy, self-reliance, and government non-interference, and should quite easily discern that, with the Republicans, they can “own the bus”, instead of merely riding in “the front seats” thanks to Democratic largesse.
‘wait and see what happens when Hispanics start voting “Catholic”, and middle -, and upper -, class blacks start voting “mainstream Protestant”.’
But…that’s what happened on Nov. 4th, LOL.
But… the lot of quite a few black Americans has improved, and…the large majority of them are still voting for Democrats.
OW: I don’t know that there’s really any place for them in the Democratic party since most of us don’t believe in cutting ourselves off at the knees
But, alas, many of the Democratic leaders do actually believe in giving in at the first sign of resistance.
I’m hopeful for how things may go with Obama as President. But will have to actually see something different from impeachment being off the table and telecoms being given immunity before I’ll believe Democrats don’t believe in cutting themselves off at the knees.
Frank DiSalle: Since 1964, the battle has been drawn between liberty and equality.
Interesting. I’ve never seen those two things listed as being opposites before.
“wait and see what happens when Hispanics start voting “Catholic”, and middle -, and upper -, class blacks start voting “mainstream Protestant”.”
But…that’s what blacks and Hispanics did on Nov. 4th, LOL.
Related: Why try to rescussitate the Republican Party at all? Let it die, then watch as another major one forms to the left of the Democrats – the Kucinich/Nader/Let’sGetThereFaster Party. Parties have died before and have spawned new binary configurations, yes?
The advantage of the new party would be to push the Dems further away from the center and further from corporate domination of our political process.
LOL,
Talk about playing the race card in a deliberately provacative fashion!
I’d be interested in seeing the enumerated differences between the political parties. Differences I see center around the 14th Amendment and the size and desirability of the welfare state.
Frank, you said ‘Atwater made the Republicans racist’ was a fantasy. I provided you a quote from him extolling the usefulness of a racist strategy.
And keep reading. He goes on to admit that you have to code your racism now to appeal to certain sectors of the voting public; you can’t say n—-r now so you have to ‘talk about forced busing and state’s rights.’
Shall we, dare I say it, move on?
I know! I mean, there’s a black president now, so that means all racism everywhere has gone up in smoke, right?
As long as, and ONLY as long as, the black community believes that being beholden to the State is in their best interests, the statist Democratic Party will be their best bet.
First of all, “Gosh, why don’t those dang minorities – even the deeply religious ones – vote for our candidates? I mean, we can’t get through two sentences without insulting them en masse, but can’t they see how awesome and freedom-loving and righteous we are?”
Second of all, please provide some evidence that the Democratic Party makes people beholden to the state. Should you do so I will cheerfully provide you evidence that the party’s policy program in fact does just the opposite.
But as the black community’s lot improves, they will reap the benefits of autonomy, self-reliance, and government non-interference, and should quite easily discern that, with the Republicans, they can “own the bus”, instead of merely riding in “the front seats” thanks to Democratic largesse.
Sean has already pointed out your first false dichotomy (civil and political equality v. liberty), but there’s your second this morning. Self-reliance and government activity are not mutually exclusive.
And had the government not ‘interfered,’ African-Americans might still have their own drinking fountains. Try again.
I’d be interested in seeing the enumerated differences between the political parties. Differences I see center around the 14th Amendment and the size and desirability of the welfare state.
I’m going wit the wild assumption that Amused Observer is a white person. Ta-Nehisi Coates pointed out that black people aren’t as a group, aren’t so overwhelmingly liberal, but they do, as a rule, think that the modern Republican party (since Nixon) is an unfortunate truth. That fools like Amused Observer cannot acknowledge this (disingenuously or not) adds another layer of unfortunate facts to the situation. How sad.
Frank DiSalle: “Um, Parthenon … 1988 was , er, ah, um — 20 years ago…”
Frank, you fucking moron.
Trent Lott apologizes for using the Southern Strategy, and it caused such a shitstorm amongst Republicans that he was forced to apologize for apologizing. And that was just a few years ago. While the quote is 20 years old, the sentiment is not.
Secondly, in the battle against illegal immigration, several candidates and commentators complained about Spanish Language debate during the Republican primary. That has nothing to do with illegal immigration and has everything to do with anti-Hispanic racism.
AO: “…and the size and desirability of the welfare state.”
So you hear black and think ‘want welfare.’ Interesting.
[snark]
Sure, that’s the way all them black folks are. Look at Obama– he’s quit his job, and plans to move into public housing in January!
[/snark]
There are going to be conservatives and right wingers, among any social group.
Maybe black conservatives and black right wingers should stop asking the Republicans to please give them a place within the party: they should take their spot, without permission.
“Interesting. I’ve never seen those two things listed as being opposites before.”
They are if you are racist and want to discriminate against people you don’t like.
Parthenon: “Sean has already pointed out your first false dichotomy (civil and political equality v. liberty”
“I’ve never seen those two things listed as being opposites before,” is hardly evidence.
I am sorry to hear that Sean has never heard of a 44 year old debate*, and that, quite possibly, neither have you. “Equality versus liberty” as a title comes up with 316 hits on Google; in the NEWS, 30 hits; as separate search terms equality versus liberty shows 1,370,000 hits — hardly qualifying it as an obscure reference.
If you have never read a book by a conservative about the American political scene (I suppose that IS possible), then perhaps you know nothing about it. I suppose you don’t know that some people oppose affirmative action in education, or policies that favor minorities in the Federal government, including bank loans and mortgages (any bells ringing or red flags going up,yet?)
C.S. Strowbridge weighs in with his never ending supply of evidence that if he can use the word “racist” in a sentence, he thinks he has made a point.
It is you, CSS, who sees liberty vs equality in a racist context, because it is YOU who believes there can never be liberty and equality at the same time — after all, if blacks and whites play fairly on the same field, the blacks can’t win, right? (And, please, folks, I am merely paraphrasing CSS, not stating my opinion).
So I will reframe the statement: If you believe that whites and blacks cannot compete fairly in the free market of business, education, and ideas, it is YOU who are the racist!
* Equality versus Liberty: The Eternal Debate” dates back to August 1960
“It is you, CSS, who sees liberty vs equality in a racist context, because…”
We are talking about racism.
I know you are old and senile, but please try and keep up with the conversation.
“…after all, if blacks and whites play fairly on the same field, the blacks can’t win, right?”
Two identical resumes are sent out, one with a White sounding name, the other with a Black sounding name. The White sounding name will get a call back 50% more often. That’s real racism, it exists because all men are not treated equal. And we can’t have true freedom till all are treated equal.
The Republicans are having a hard time drawing in minorities, because the Republicans have spend the last 40 years using bigotry to get their base excited. That’s the whole point of the Southern Strategy, which was an admitted part of Republicans campaign strategy for a long time now. Granted, they are not as obvious as they once were, and they’ve moved on to target Hispanic and Gays more than Blacks (this presidential election being an exception).
Frank D. I will gladly “move on” from the RacEists in the right when they “Drop that Shit.”
It is very logical to oppose someone when they hate you for no cause.
Interesting thread, I’m sorry to be a late comer to it. But I see your concern trolls came out for this one, all right.
I read the article and it’s obvious that the author and the other black Republicans quoted don’t actually understand what’s happening.
They think the GOP actually does want them and just can’t seem to find its way to appeal to black voters. The truth is contained in the title to your post–the GOP doesn’t want African-Americans.
If it did, it would appeal to us, as the notorious Michael Steele says it should do. The question he, and the author, need to be asking is why this hasn’t happened. They’ve had a while to work it out, and it ain’t happening.
Cause they don’t want us. Take the hint. And stop begging for acceptance from those who have made it clear you are not welcome.
Two identical applications for college are handed into the admissions office. The test scores for one applicant are higher than the other applicant. The applicant with the higher test score is turned down in favor of the lower testing applicant. Both are from American citizens, the difference, one is white the other black. The opening goes to the lower scoring applicant because he is black.
That too is racial discrimination and is an example of the tension DiSalle mentions. Affirmative Action is eroding the concept of a meritocracy and is in direct contradiction of the 14th amendment. Dumbing down standards, punishing merit, and rewarding group membership over individual achievement is bad for the country.
One political party supports racial discrimination and shamelessly panders to the protected classes of people it creates to gather political power. They wish that ever larger groups of citizens become dependent on an ever larger government for thier daily bread. They wish to tax the prosperous and the successful and redistribute that tax money to those who do not pay any substantial taxes. Some so called taxpayers actually pay no tax what so ever but get “free money” given to them.
The other party stubbornly supports the Constitution, stands against legalized discrimination and supports individual merit over identity politics and group priviledge. They advocate tax policy that aids prosperity not social engineering.
The first party is that of the Democrats, the second the Republicans. Blacks overwhelmingly support the party that promises them special group privilege and scorn the party that treats them as individuals on the strength of thier own merits and achievements.
The first party is that of the Democrats, the second the Republicans.
Haven’t seen much evidence for that lately. Stubbornly supports the Constitution by whittling away at it.
Gotcha.
You need to get over it, AO.
I wonder if AO was so concerned with the concept of meritocracy back in the day. You know, like being admitted to college over someone else because your Dad was an alumnus or a big contributor. Or not having to compete with black applicants at all because their applications simply weren’t considered.
Were you all upset about the Constitutionality of discriminatory admission standards back then, AO? Or did it become an issue only when YOUR ethnic group was affected? Is that when fundamental fairness became such a huge concern to you?
Going out on a limb here, I’ll bet that, if you are old enough to have been sentient in the 1960s, you weren’t concerned or upset at all. Correct me if I’m wrong, and you have stories about marching for justice and all that.
Wow, click on the link Frank posted and read it through. It explains the nickname I’ve given him, Frank “Conservativebutnotracistmindyousince1960″ DiSalle.
Yes, Amused 0. The Republican party is a shining beacon of fairness and equality which only wants to judge people by the content of their character.
[cough]bullshit[/cough]
Look, if folks could put aside echoing the us/them partisan talking points they’d see the situation is not one that lends it self to easy solutions.
What would be “fair”? For the admission (A0’s example) to always go to the higher scoring applicant? Sure sounds fair. But consider that when evaluating a person very few things can ever be boiled down to a single number. Perhaps the applicant with the higher Grade Point Average came from a notoriously easy-scoring school, or took only basic courses? Perhaps the applicant with the lower GPA did so despite coming from a school that was severely under-equipped, or took several challenging honors-level courses? A-level student who had benefit of extensive private tutoring vs B-level who did so while working 30 hours a week. Which to choose?
When you have two runners at the starting line and a “level playing field” in front of them, should one take into consideration what each has had to do to get to that starting line? Or does nothing prior to a certain point matter? And if a line must be drawn (we consider only things after this point, and nothing that happened before it at all) where do you draw it?
Fact is that for much of the history of the USA blacks have been discriminated against. You have two runners and a level track in front of them. Is nothing to be made of the fact that one runner is starting from 10 yards behind? And if we do make allowances for that, how much before the scales tip past balanced and now the runner in front is being unfairly punished?
When opportunity for one class of people has been limited for centuries is it really “fair” for the haves to just declare to the have nots that past discrimination is now irrelevant?
Past discrimination affects the discriminated-against group for generations, even if the worst excesses of that discrimination have now been corrected. This has occurred all over the world – in almost every instance of discrimination of one group against another – and is completely irrefutable.
I am sorry to hear that Sean has never heard of a 44 year old debate*, and that, quite possibly, neither have you. “Equality versus liberty” as a title comes up with 316 hits on Google; in the NEWS, 30 hits; as separate search terms equality versus liberty shows 1,370,000 hits — hardly qualifying it as an obscure reference.
Who cares? I can probably get more hits googling “furniature pron”.
And I STILL find it funny that good old (and I mean OLD) Frankie can claim with a straight face that he’s not a racist after calling black people “feral”.
If you have never read a book by a conservative about the American political scene
Of course, in those same books, the authors tend to go on about how gay marriage will cause Mexican terrorists to eat our young, so I tend to take what they say with a grain of salt.
Poor Frankie, why do you hate America?
I can probably get more hits googling “furniature pron”
Yup! Without the quotes, 21.7 million.
(Surprisingly, “furniture porn” only gets 326,000. Have we stumbled onto some hitherto unknown but apparently wildly popular fetish?)
To AO and Frank “CBNRMYS1960″ D.:
I would love to see your replies to Sean D. Martin’s post just above. Really.
Test scores trump racial discrimination. Test scores follow inherent ability and hard work. Hard work makes a difference. There are far too many examples of immigrants whose kids have to learn english succeeding to put much credence into the idea of an unlevel playing field. If there is the will hard work will create a way.
Predictably enough, AO’s reply is that “poor people are poor because they are lazy”.
How ’bout you, Frank?
Amused 0: Test scores follow inherent ability and hard work.
Got any evidence to back that up? Any at all beyond your deep desire that that be the way it works because it supports the conclusion you’ve already drawn?
If my test score is higher than yours, it must be because I’ve worked hard or an just innately better? The fact that you’ve been working 30 hours a week, that all your hard work is directed toward putting food on the table instead of studying is irrelevant. The fact that my “inherent ability” is assisted by private tutors who explain things to me while you have only your self-taught self to figure things out should not be taken into consideration at all.
I got an 88 and you got an 87 therefore you lose and clearly it’s because you just aren’t as good as I am.
This also all presumes, of course, that everything, everything that needs to be considered about a person can be boiled down to a single number. When deciding who to admit to a school, for example, a candidate’s ability to communicate, their level of participation in extra-curricular activities, whether they took only basic courses or took a challenging honors course-laden curriculum. All irrelevant or can be completely summed up by a single test score.
Yeah. Right.
Sean,
You’re just being arguementative. The more objective and the less subjective the process the less likely discrimination can play a role and the more fair it is.
Amused 0: Test scores follow inherent ability and hard work.
No, they don’t. They exhibit the ability to memorize and retain information.
The more objective and the less subjective the process the less likely discrimination can play a role and the more fair it is.
Bullshit. You’re only saying taht because you believe white people are smarter in general.
My point about Google was obviously too simple for you over educated , ultra sophisticated liberals : If something can be found in 90 seconds on the Internet, it hardly qualifies as unknown. Also, the fact that some person has never heard of something is hardly a convincing argument against it.
Zython thinks that my age is some sort of liability, which speaks volumes about his own maturity and judgment. He compounds the felony by pulling one adjective out of a multipaged term paper, to paint me as a racist. He doesn’t even have the intellectual integrity or honesty to either direct others to the source, or the mastery of the English language to explain that it was not a statement of fact, but part of a conditional clause. [Not to mention the FACT that the word "feral" was used in relation to minority children, not "black people", making a complete falsehood out of his stupid (sorry, but the right word is the right word) pseudo - argument.]
I don’t tailor my remarks to please other commenters, or perform on command. I will let Walter Williams explain how one can avoid poverty:
I happen to favor affirmative education in secondary education, where the legacy of left-wing racism in our public schools has left thousands, if not millions,of minority and poor white children, woefully ill – educated and unprepared to compete in today’s working world. It is nearly axiomatic among people in the lower SES (go look it up) that even an Associates’ Degree won’t get you a good job.
If you wish to continue this discussion, I strongly suggest that those of you who are casually flinging around charges of racism against people who simply disagree with you is non-productive. I will gladly cease to even use the word, if you will stop wasting your time trying to convince yourselves that only a racist could oppose perpetuating the disgraceful American “social services” system that pretends to be helpful, when it is, in fact, no such thing.
Zython thinks that my age is some sort of liability
It will be when you break your hip.
He compounds the felony by pulling one adjective out of a multipaged term paper, to paint me as a racist. He doesn’t even have the intellectual integrity or honesty to either direct others to the source, or the mastery of the English language to explain that it was not a statement of fact, but part of a conditional clause. [Not to mention the FACT that the word "feral" was used in relation to minority children, not "black people", making a complete falsehood out of his stupid (sorry, but the right word is the right word) pseudo - argument.]
Translation: “I’m going to use the fact that the thread in which I called African-Americans ‘feral’ has been since gone after one of Oliver’s 12 server transfers to try to pretend I didn’t say anything charged.”
I will gladly cease to even use the word, if you will stop wasting your time trying to convince yourselves that only a racist could oppose perpetuating the disgraceful American “social services” system that pretends to be helpful, when it is, in fact, no such thing.
The only reason that you hate Social Service is that they took your grandkids away after you beat them with a switch.
Amused 0: You’re just being arguementative.
No, I’m looking at the situation as it actually exists and asking how that reality might be dealt with. But you don’t want to actually try to suggest an answer. Much easier to just dismiss me as “argumentative”. Nice dodge.
The more objective and the less subjective the process the less likely discrimination can play a role and the more fair it is.
Only if the entire array of factors is considered. If you are going to consider only one test score then the process is not objective. It is highly subjective in that you’re choosing to look at only one thing, and choosing what that one thing is going to be.
Amused 0: You’re just being arguementative.
No, I’m just looking at the situation as it actually exists and asking how that reality might be dealt with. But you don’t want to actually try to suggest an answer. Much easier to just dismiss me as “argumentative”. Nice dodge.
The more objective and the less subjective the process the less likely discrimination can play a role and the more fair it is.
Only if the entire array of factors is considered. If you are going to consider only one test score then the process is not objective. It is highly subjective in that you’re choosing to look at only one thing, and choosing what that one thing is going to be.
Frank DiSalle: If something can be found in 90 seconds on the Internet, it hardly qualifies as unknown.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! Your kidding, right? Being able to find something on the net quickly does not mean it is well known.
Hell, I found over 21 million hits for “furniature pron” in a fraction of a second. But I defy you to find anyone who would legitimately claim they know about “furniature pron”.
But, rather than admit your example was bad an coming up with something better to support your point, far easier to claim we’re idiots.
Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school.
Yup, it’s just that easy. Just stay in school and graduate. Nothing to it. What’s that? You say the teachers are very good, the available textbooks are 10 years out of date, gangs operate freely in and around the school and the district’s standard for moving someone to the next grade is just “Have they aged a year?” and has nothing to do with whether thay can read or write? Aw, quit yer whining and just graduate. It isn’t rocket science.
I will gladly cease to even use the word, if you will stop wasting your time trying to convince yourselves that only a racist could oppose perpetuating the disgraceful American “social services” system that pretends to be helpful, when it is, in fact, no such thing.
I haven’t called anyone a racist. And I don’t think you have to be racist to object to aspects of affirmative action.
But until someone acknowledges the realities that it is a complex area, that there are still inequalities and that there is no easy answer as to what is “fair”, then one has to wonder one simple explanation there might be for someone insisting that a simple solution exists. That everything is fair if we just simply eliminate all preferences because “whites and blacks can compete fairly in the free market of business, education, and ideas”
Amused 0: You’re just being arguementative.
Amused 0: The first sign of a weak arguement is to attack the messenger instead of the message.
Nuff said.
Sean,
“The more objective and the less subjective the process the less likely discrimination can play a role and the more fair it is.”
That’s what you call attacking the messenger? Your circular logic seems flawed.
There are inequalities in the world, not everyone has the same skills and abilities. Perhaps Obama can provide a positive role model and teach a new generation of kids that education is cool.
It certainly appears that you are unwilling to put racial discrimination aside and let individual applicants be judged on thier ability alone without reliance upon group identity or membership.
And I repeat: about what year did AO and Frank notice that there were inequities in the college admissions process? Was it 1960, the year Frank Became A Conservative, or was it around the time of the Bakke case?
Sean, I first saw “furniture porn” about four years ago, if not longer. Most likely, there are so many hits because it has been displayed again and again.
If you were to look more closely at the “hits” referring to “equality versus liberty” you would see that they refer to books, articles, columns and blog entries in the hundreds, if not thousands, without repeats. The idea that conservatives lean toward liberty, while liberals tend towards equity of outcome, is so well known that it defies imagination to believe that anyone with even the slightest interest in politics has never heard of it.
Acknowledging that inequalities exist is not the same as admitting that only affirmative action can resolve those inequities. It is certainly a far cry from calling someone a racist for assuming that blacks and whites have the same potential for success in our society.
As for the difficulty in graduating from high school, surely you can not be saying that kids in the United States receive a poor education? Let’s see a tiny bit of evidence that textbooks are 10 years out of date, some evidence that gangs wandering the halls of our high schools have prevented other kids from getting educated, or that, suddenly, “social promotions” are a bad idea, shall we? While you’re at it, you can explain why non – minority children can graduate in greater numbers than minority children in any schools at all… You can’t make stuff up, like Zython saying I have said something that can’t ever, ever be found*, or that I have beaten imaginary grandchildren with an imaginary switch.
Every one is entitled to their opinion, and I am not a stickler for demanding that people provide some source of some kind for their comments, but let’s not wander into the fields of fiction, and claim we are making an argument.
The important thing being discussed here, as far as I am concerned, is whether or not Republican policies of any or all types are good for the general population, regardless of race, creed, color, etc.
Secondly, are policies aimed at purportedly “correcting historical inequities” a) efficacious, or b) actually deleterious to the well – being of the people they are aimed at helping.
Obviously, asserting that such legislative and executive policies may be ineffective, if not harmful, hardly constitutes racism, and to keep insisting it is so, is a waste of time and type.
* Since we are blaming Oliver’s failure to archive for Zython’s inability to document his accusation, I will recall what I said, as best I can: Back around 1993 or 1994, I predicted that if we didn’t do something about homeless single parents, and fathers failing to support their children and their children’s mothers, we would be turning loose a generation of feral children on an unsuspecting society. (Please note the use of the words “if” and “would be”). That is what I said a few years ago, in this blog, referring to a paper I wrote in 1993 or 1994, which simply reported the parenting problems encountered by homeless single mothers. The report contained exactly one prediction, which was supported by peer – reviewed journal articles which discussed many studies of those behaviors by respected professionals. It was a simple “if this goes on” speculation, and not a characterization of any group or members of that group. Reaching for such straws to charge someone with being a racist is merely more evidence that liberals not only evade any mention of personal responsibility (an attribute which most intelligent people perceive as varying from person to person, not race to race), they will not even admit the possibility that unintended consequences have played a great role in the failure of so many minorities to make headway in today’s society.
will gladly cease to even use the word, if you will stop wasting your time trying to convince yourselves that only a racist could oppose perpetuating the disgraceful American “social services” system that pretends to be helpful, when it is, in fact, no such thing.
Are you still on Medicare, Frank? VA benefits? Social Security? Have you forgone all of that because it doesn’t help?
Did you really call minority children “feral”? Really? That just ain’t right.
It certainly appears that you are unwilling to put racial discrimination aside and let individual applicants be judged on their ability alone without reliance upon group identity or membership.
If test scores were the only deciding factor, that might have merit. But there are always other mitigating circumstances.
Amused 0: “The more objective and the less subjective the process the less likely discrimination can play a role and the more fair it is.”
That’s what you call attacking the messenger? Your circular logic seems flawed.
No, I call attacking the messenger the quote of yours that I provided. But don’t let that stop you from selecting a completely different quote and trying to claim that’s what I was pointing to.
Not really expecting you to debate honestly.
Amused 0: It certainly appears that you are unwilling to put racial discrimination aside and let individual applicants be judged on thier ability alone without reliance upon group identity or membership.
And thanks for providing yet another clear example of your dishonesty.
I never said that, never suggested anyone be judged as a member of any group to which they belong. On the contrary, I’ve been arguing for exactly the opposite. That someone’s particular individual circumstances should be taken into account.
Show me one place where I’ve said person B should be advantaged over person C just because they belong to a particular group. I’ll wait.
Frank DiSalle: As for the difficulty in graduating from high school, surely you can not be saying that kids in the United States receive a poor education? Let’s see a tiny bit of evidence that textbooks are 10 years out of date, some evidence that gangs wandering the halls of our high schools have prevented other kids from getting educated, or that, suddenly, “social promotions” are a bad idea, shall we? While you’re at it, you can explain why non – minority children can graduate in greater numbers than minority children in any schools at all…
I would have thoght the first part of that would have suggested the answer to you final sentence. But unravelling your brand of logic is, I will admit, beyond me. So let’s just stick with the first part and provide the “tiny bit of evidence” you asked for.
Ancient textbooks
http://www.aboutmyjob.com/main.php3?action=displayarticle&artid=1438
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3617/is_/ai_n8905336
Gangs in schools and effect on education
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09072007/news/regionalnews/gangs_rule_schools.htm
http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/facts/gangs.asp#gangs_schools
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2000_8_2/page3.html
Gangs are clearly present in some schools. As to whether they “have prevented other kids from getting educated”, are you really going to claim “frequent fights” and “the presence of… drugs” are conducive to learning?
“social promotions” are a bad idea
http://www.4children.org/news/999socpr.htm
That article is from 1999, BTW. So much for your claim social promotions are “suddenly” a bad idea.
http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/policy.htm
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/socialpromotion/intro.html
Frank DiSalle:Every one is entitled to their opinion, and I am not a stickler for demanding that people provide some source of some kind for their comments
Which is fine. But you would admit, I’d hope, that those who can provide support for their views have a greater credibility than those who consistently refuse to do so.
I saw an episode of The West Wing just last night in which the Democrat President invoked the 25th Amendment and passed power to the Republican Speaker of the House (there was no VP at the time). When it was pointed out to the Speaker that he had to resign (one can’t serve in two branches at once, apparently) the Speaker immediately agreed that was the case and asked for paper and pen. When it was pointed out his resigning as Speaker means he can’t just go back to the House when the President resumes power but would have to run for office in 2 years the Speaker simply noted that he’d have to run for office again in 2 years anyway.
I would probably disagree with that particular Speaker on the majority of political issues. But I had a great deal of respect for the way he did not for an instant hesitate, or hem and haw, or try to come up with a way around the rules. I would probably disagree with him on the majority of issues but I don’t doubt that his views would be the result of thought and that he’d be able to provide support for them, and not simply echoes of things he’d been told.
Frank DiSalle: As for the difficulty in graduating from high school, surely you can not be saying that kids in the United States receive a poor education? Let’s see a tiny bit of evidence that textbooks are 10 years out of date, some evidence that gangs wandering the halls of our high schools have prevented other kids from getting educated, or that, suddenly, “social promotions” are a bad idea, shall we? While you’re at it, you can explain why non – minority children can graduate in greater numbers than minority children in any schools at all…
Sure. No problem. There’s a lengthy reply caught in the approval queue in which I provide a couple of sources for each of those things. Took all of 5 minutes to find half a dozen places each for ancient textbooks, gangs in schools and why social promotion doesn’t do any good.
I tried to avoid having the links recognized as such so that it wouldn’t get held up but, alas, that didn’t work. Hopefully Oliver will clear it soon. If it doesn’t show up after a while, I’ll try to repost.
In the meantime, perhaps you could provide “a tiny bit of evidence” that kids in the US are all getting a good education. Or even elaborate on how “non – minority children can graduate in greater numbers than minority children in any schools at all” doesn’t suggest something isn’t being done right where minorities are involved.
Just so you know, Sean, that was fiction. You’d be hard pressed to find a Rep Speaker today who wouldn’t try to amend the 25th as soon as he got the keys.
Duros62: Just so you know, Sean, that was fiction. You’d be hard pressed to find a Rep Speaker today who wouldn’t try to amend the 25th as soon as he got the keys.
You mean there wasn’t really a President Bartlet followed by Hispanic President Santos? Gee, I never realized.
But, yeah. I’m sure once Obama is in office we’ll be hearing a lot about how the unary executive isn’t really how it is supposed to work.
Sean,
Perhaps I misunderstood your position. I thought you said that test scores were not objective enough. That to make admissions objective one must look past scores and look at the “narrative” of someone’s life. In other words, to put aside an objective ranking based on performance and let a subjective interpretation of someone’s life trump merit.
This idea is often used as a code for set asides. Some colleges are even doing away with testing since raw test scores make it difficult to get the P.C. diversity that acadamia craves, equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. The country suffers when meritocracy is eroded in the name of diversity and socially engineered outcomes.
So If I misunderstood your position then is a color blind system without recourse to group identity what you favor?
You mean there wasn’t really a President Bartlet followed by Hispanic President Santos? Gee, I never realized.
Har.
No, I just meant that Aaron Sorkinland, politicians put country before party. That ain’t how the GOP roll.
Amused 0: Perhaps I misunderstood your position. I thought you said that test scores were not objective enough. That to make admissions objective one must look past scores and look at the “narrative” of someone’s life. In other words, to put aside an objective ranking based on performance and let a subjective interpretation of someone’s life trump merit.
I believe you have. And consequently you haven’t stated my position correctly. But I do actually appreciate your making what you thought I said clear as it may make it easier to clarify what you seem to be misunderstanding.
The point I’m trying to make: A single test score is insufficient to represent someone or to adequately compare two people. Relying on a single test score would not guarantee that you either get the most deserving or the most suitable person.
Some colleges are even doing away with testing since raw test scores make it difficult to get the P.C. diversity that acadamia craves, equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity.
If (if) that is actually what academia craves then not going by test scores does make some sense. If you want a diverse student body, for example, you can’t just say you’ll take only those who scored in the top 2% on the SAT. Yeah, there would be some diversity in that group, but not nearly as much as you could get by considering other factors. And since as diverse a student body as possible is what you want…
The country suffers when meritocracy is eroded in the name of diversity and socially engineered outcomes.
Again, depends on what you want to achieve and what, in your subjective opinion, achieves that. You want the “best” country possible? Ok, that’s fine. So do I. Now tell me what makes “best”.
In the global economy that we live in, a nations most valuable resources are well educated smart people. Dumbing down educational standards is not a good way to do that.
Diversity is often used as a code word for back door quotas. As legistlation outlawing blatent racial discrimination in awarding admissions, employment, and contracts becomes more widespread the idea of diversity gains more currency amongst those who prefer a system that values group identity over individual merit.
If this was not a zero sum game it wouldn’t matter. But it is not a simple case of letting a marginally qualified person in. With the limited space or opportunity available letting in one person means denying another. Rigorous testing winnows out the less qualified and rewards the more qualified. To use subjective analysis of a persons history to deny a higher testing applicant is discriminatory.
Different people have different strengths and weaknesses. It is naive to think that outcomes will mirror demographics.
We are served best by merit not socially engineered outcomes.
To use the sports analogy, a level playing field does not insure equal results. Ultimately it is up to the individual to prepare himself to compete on that field. Giving weaker candidates more coaching is fine and should be commended. But once upon the field all should be judged equally and ranked accordingly. To do otherwise is to court political patronage and the erosion of meritocracy.
SDM: Now tell me what makes “best”.
Amused Observer: In the global economy that we live in, a nations most valuable resources are well educated smart people.
Even if one were to agree with the (again, subjective) view that what is “best” for the country is succeeding in the global economy, the most valuable resource may not be the smartest people. Who is the most successful person in the global economy? A business man who made the most money? A movie star who is not quite as wealthy but is far more widely known? The lesser known politician who has had significant influence on events affecting large numbers of people?
And whichever of those, or some other, that you choose the most successful may very well not have had a higher SAT, GPA (or whatever) score than someone less successful. The race doesn’t always go to the swift (or the smartest). Many less-smart people have succeeded because they have been creative, or personable, or some other combinations of qualities which are impossible to measure with a single score.
Note: None of this is looking at any of these people as belonging to a particular class. But you cannot, simply cannot, determine who is “best” for whatever definition you give to what is “best” for the country, based on a single score.
To use the sports analogy, a level playing field does not insure equal results. Ultimately it is up to the individual to prepare himself to compete on that field. Giving weaker candidates more coaching is fine and should be commended. But once upon the field all should be judged equally and ranked accordingly. To do otherwise is to court political patronage and the erosion of meritocracy.
Eventually all apologies fall apart if pushed to far, but lets nudge the sports one just a bit further.
On the playing field for most sports individual performance counts only to the extent is aids the team. An the most effective teams include a diverse group of folks with various talents. Get all the smartest guys on one football team, for example, and they may have the best quarterbacks ever, but nobody to block or kick for them. Perhaps they would have been better served by getting a less smart but bulkier center.
Points well made Sean. To me the merits of succeeding in the global economy are obvious. I can see the benefits of more than just one test score. However at the end of the day one still ends up with a number, a score. A system that denies a higher ranking candidate in favor of a lower ranking one is unlikely to raise standards and is susceptable to manipulation.
The Democrats pander to minorities by supporting the concept of racial discrimination in admissions, employment, etc.
Amused O: I can see the benefits of more than just one test score.
Great. You’re getting there.
However at the end of the day one still ends up with a number, a score.
Ohhh! Backsliding.
I agree that somehow a choice must be made between two candidates. But except in very rare occasions where you’re really looking for the best at a very specific thing who is “better” doesn’t come down to a number, a score. A variety of criteria have to be used, some of which will be subjective, some less so, some (yes) outright objective. But outside those rare occasions, subjective will be in there.
Is this used by political parties to pander? Sure. In different ways to varying degrees but every party uses it in some way. But just because someone mis-uses a thing in a way you don’t like doesn’t mean it should be eliminated.
One may also point out the obvious, that in a global economy diversity is an asset (multinational corporations and institutions of higher learning realize this). There is no longer any room for those like AO and Frank who espouse such a narrow worldview. Don’t you realize that with each passing day (and as Obama puts together the most diverse cabinet in history) you grow more and more irrelevant, harping as you do on so called “discrimination”? Diversity and excellence are not antithetical, in fact in the twenty first century (join us please) they are the modus operandi.