Ok, fuck this, back to politics it is....

[lavender]

 

[Andra_Jenny]

The only thing I see wrong with it, being a part of the first generation in which it has been a reality for all of my adult life, is that it has not produced the desired results. Even when it does, the successful person then becomes an Uncle Tom while the slimiest of leaders are put upon a pedestal.

3 or 4 years ago two very well-dressed, well-spoken african american men came to my place of business in our lily white community. I was very impressed with them and as a result switched phone companys as a reward, so to speak.

But again, affirmitive action caused me to see them as blacks and not sales people whom I always tell to FO. So did I not then behave as a rascist rewarding them for being black only and for not walking in and saying, "Hey, I don't see any non-whites here and you phone carrier is a white company..."

So which is worse?

The Hammer or The Velvet Glove?

Isn't it still a type of extortion?

 

[TN_Vixen]

whoa!

I was very impressed with them and as a result switched phone companys as a reward, so to speak.

A reward? If you are a smart businessperson, you are going to reward yourself for choosing a very good phone company to implement in your business, not reward the salesperson for speaking and dressing well!

But again, affirmitive action caused me to see them as blacks and not sales people whom I always tell to FO.

OK, just a minute. AA "caused" you to see them as blacks? So, you're basically saying that if AA was never around you'd be oblivious to their skin color?

That may sound ludicrious to you - but frankly your statement is equally ludicrious.

So did I not then behave as a rascist rewarding them for being black only

Sure, that is exactly what you did - but your behavior has nothing at all to do with AA. At least you recognize it though.

 

[WriterDom]

I'm all for it.

I think all NBA teams should represent the general public. Out of 14 players half should be female. There should be 2 Blacks, 2 Hispanics and one disabled person on every team. Diversity!

 

[Cheyenne]

Quite a bit of my opinion on at least one aspect of affirmative action can be found in this golden oldie:

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28589&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

There is one hole in the positive net of affimative action - it can - not always - and more rarely than - promote less than qualified personel.

On the rare occasion that this may happen - it harms the very system that created it - a good system - far worse than, many times over - than the positives it was designed to allow to happen.

If this can be controlled - nothing is wrong and all is right - with affirmative action.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Yes AA caused me to look at skin color. If I had said no, then they may justifiably judge me by my skin color, e.g., I was turned me down due to my skin color line of reasoning.

That is why this is a very good question.

On more of an anecdotal level. In the early 80's there were a lot of jobs created locally by federal funds to promote racial hiring. I went to one such job and it was obvious that the personnel person wanted to hire me. Several broad hints were dropped and then I was asked point blank, are you an Indian or Mexican, or something like that. I got a little iffy about what was going on and indicated that yes, I did have some Indian blood.

Oh, well, you should have marked that on the application. Do you want to change that? I can hire you if you claim to be American Indian. I said that I really wasn't, but was assured that it was okay,all he needed was for me to say I was so that he would have the paperwork.

Now what if I had said I was African American. He would have had his paperwork. So AA can cut many ways I think.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by lavender
I want to talk some serious affirmative action on this board. Why are you opposed to it?

Because it violates the fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded, i. e., individual rights and freedoms.

Originally posted by lavender
Constitutionally what is unsound with this principle?

It violates the concept of all men being equal before the law, i. e., there are laws created which create a favored political class based on skin pigmentation, ethnicity, etc., which, while not a valid basis for any decision, is even more horribly egregious when the government exercises a practice which violates the rights of free men in a free society. When the government, the legitimate protector of your rights, becomes the criminal, to whom do you turn for justice?

Also, it is so thoroughly intellectually dishonest it should be egregiously offensive to anyone capable of objective analysis.

It was Martin L. King's dream that men would be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. I think I can safely say he would condemn the idea of affirmative action as severely as anyone today because it is in direct contradiction to the ideas he espoused.

As an example, let's take a hypothetical scenario in which a community has a group of people who tell businesses in their locale, you hire people on the basis of rules we give you. If you don't comply with our demands, we will burn your business, you home and attack your family. Would you applaud them as progressive, honorable people advancing the lot and lives of the people whose cause they advocate? Or would you condemn them as thugs terrorizing and extorting people in that community?

My point is, whether the above action is initiated by a group of private citizens or by a politician via the passage of a law, the principle involved is the same. No rational person can advocate one and condemn the other. Yet, the Liberal/Left mentality does exactly that with the idea of affirmative action. The Right does it with other ideas, so don't try to evade the point by telling me "they do it, too". That doesn't fly with me.

My granddaughter doesn't get by with that and neither will you. (But frankly, she's got a better chance. )

 

[crystalhunting]

Did I just see unclebill start to get annoyed?...Lavender asked the question in a nice and polite way unclebill,lets not get hot over it today.






CH

 

[TN_Vixen]

Forgive me Bill

but didn't slavery violate the fundamental principles of the Constitution?

Isn't AA just a restorative device for the injustices and subsequent social setbacks thrust upon those subjected to slavery?

 

[Pyper]

If there is one thing I am conservative about, it is affirmative action. I still think it should exist, but not in a form based on so-called "race". I have already explained in previous posts why I believe race to be a social construction with little to no basis in reality.

Some of my ancestors were slaves, but I will never receive reparations because my hair is red and my skin is pale. I don't look black.

And how about the hypothetical case of a black man from a wealthy, successful family. Will he receive a job over me because of his skin pigmentation? What if his ancestors were freemen? Wouldn't this be an injustice if he got preferential treatment over myself, because I look white?

Skin color is a poor predictor of social standing. Affirmative action can make things right, but only if it targeted toward social class instead of race.

 

[Weevil]

Weighing in as an indifferent outsider for a moment.

Is it any better that the constitution is being violated out of the personal choice of the individual?

Bill is quick to point out how AA is directly at odds with all people being treated equally under the law but isn't the institutionalized racism in the US(And, to a lesser degree, my country) simply a large scale public violation of that same principal? If minorities aren't being treated equally and fairly by everyone shouldn't there be a response that attempts to enforce that very thing?

I'm not big on AA(As a rule I'm more of a case by case "Was there discrimination at play" kind of guy) but a laissez-faire attitude towards the way minorities get the short end of the stick is simply allowing a similar, much more distasteful mindset to be grandfathered and protected.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

From reading three threads after lavender's triumphant return to the political threads one can only surmise that they still operate under the same set of tactics,

Make a statement or take a position,
Look for people who support that position, get out the vaseline,
and then proceed to trash anyone, now even uncle bill, who has a dissenting opinion and engage in the politics of personal destruction before moving on to the next thread.

Today's version is good cop bad cop.

They went personal, very quickly.

Some things never change!

toodles!

 

[troy]

AA is warm/fuzzy legislation run amok. By forcing advancment opportunities for one group of citizens, it clearly violates the constitutional rights of others. It's discrimination - plain and simple. Many minorities are understandably highly pissed off that regardless of their qualifications, others assume they were hired/promoted because of their minority status.

Ask someone who favors AA when it will end. A typical answer is "when the country no longer needs it." How are we going to determine that?

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by crystalhunting
Did I just see unclebill start to get annoyed?...Lavender asked the question in a nice and polite way unclebill,lets not get hot over it today.
CH

Huh?

Originally posted by TN_Vixen
but didn't slavery violate the fundamental principles of the Constitution?

Isn't AA just a restorative device for the injustices and subsequent social setbacks thrust upon those subjected to slavery?

Not of the Constitution which are limits on the power and authority of the Federal government. It violated the fundamental tenets upon which the United States of America was founded, i. e., life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

But the men who created this government knew that if they took on the slavery issue, they would never succeed in formulating and having accepted the government they gave us.

They were smart enough to accept reality and provide the means of correcting that injustice via posterity and that happened within two generations. Had this nation continued under the Articles of Confederation, it is likely that the nation you know today would never have come about, that this continent would be more like Europe and slavery would still exist in at least some of the states constituting that confederacy. Do you suppose that's a better alternative?

So I think their wisdom is vindicated.

As to your second question, name me an American citizen today who was subjected to slavery in this nation.

AA is a means for the Liberal ideologist to treat the "underprivileged" in a very condescending manner by the implication that they can't make it on their own in the real world where they must compete on merit. They must be granted favors in that, for them, because of their skin color, ethnicity, or some such ridiculous criterion, the standards must be lowered, because, well, the poor things just can't quite measure up. In other words, they must feel indebted to the largess of the Liberal for any success they achieve in life, for otherwise, they cannot succeed.

If I were treated with such condescension, I would be outraged. And I would have absolutely no respect for those who treated me thus.

And if this is not how you perceive it, please explain to me in reasoned, objective terms, why you must make special provisions for your select group by allowing them access via a lowered standard.

This mechanism is viciously derisive and is further detrimental because you discourage many from trying harder because they know or believe they needn't because they need only meet a lesser standard. So the doctor, nurse, lawyer, judge, financial counselor, etc., you hire who was promoted and selected by virtue of AA is potentially less capable and qualified than if he had been required to meet the same criteria as other candidates for the same position.

Thus it is more insidious because it works to the detriment of all, not only the victim (immediately called the beneficiary). In essence, it punishes achievement and rewards mediocrity.

Originally posted by EBW
Weighing in as an indifferent outsider for a moment.

Is it any better that the constitution is being violated out of the personal choice of the individual?

How is this the case?

The Constitution defines those responsibilities and powers specifically permitted the Federal government. Find for me if you will the place where the Federal government is authorized to force upon any citizen an undesired association or in any other manner to violate the rights of an American citizen.

Originally posted by EBW
Bill is quick to point out how AA is directly at odds with all people being treated equally under the law but isn't the institutionalized racism in the US(And, to a lesser degree, my country) simply a large scale public violation of that same principal? If minorities aren't being treated equally and fairly by everyone shouldn't there be a response that attempts to enforce that very thing?

How do you mean institutionalized racism? When and where I grew up, there were racially based laws, i. e., colored people were treated differently under the law, i. e., by government. To me, that is institutional racism. According to the Constitution, this is wrong and the situation was rectified.

If there are laws mandating different treatment of citizens, then they are wrong and should be abolished. But who is it today crying to create and perpetuate such laws in force? The Left/Liberal leadership. For the AA laws are precisely the thing against which they rail, racial discrimination. But, since government is the practitioner in this case, they find it an acceptable practice.

What I find curious is that they find it acceptable, even desirable, for the one entity in society (government) with the potential to exert totalitarian abusive authority to behave in a racially discriminatory manner, but the individual who has no such extent of power cannot.

And hardly anyone calls them on their hypocrisy.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Hey! Pipe down over there! Jesus... don't get so worked up over it, Bill.

 

[Cheyenne]

Re: Forgive me Bill

but didn't slavery violate the fundamental principles of the Constitution?

Isn't AA just a restorative device for the injustices and subsequent social setbacks thrust upon those subjected to slavery?

No, it isn't. Affirmative action covers women as well as minorities. I don't consider women to be a minority.

I think most people would support laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, creed, sex, etc. You shouldn't be able to use any of those factors/traits to support a decision not to hire someone. Or as a reason to fire someone.

Affirmative action is different. It's the word "affirmative" that means you don't just have to play on a level ground for everyone, you have to do something positive to recruit these groups and show progress towards hiring them and promoting them. Affirmative action is considered reverse discrimination by many people, something as bad as the original discrimination the affirmative action laws were supposed to fight.

Last comment: UncleBill feels strongly about this topic and should not have to "pipe down." There is nothing wrong with a passionate response to any thread, this one included.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Re: Forgive me Bill

Originally posted by Cheyenne
I think most people would support laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, creed, sex, etc. You shouldn't be able to use any of those factors/traits to support a decision not to hire someone. Or as a reason to fire someone.

This is a point where we differ. I do not and cannot in good conscience support any laws that allows the initiation of the use of force, the most basic definition of a criminal action. That violates the rights and freedoms of those subjected to it, be it one person or all of us. And to grant this authority to government is to endorse and invite tyranny.

It is an attempt for the government to deny your right to choose with whom you associate. If the government can deny that aspect of your freedom to make your own decisions, then it can just as legitimately extend that power to any other decision you might wish to make.

For once you accept the idea that rights and freedom are not innate, then you are tacitly accepting that they are the product of the largess of government, the same tenet that provides the basis of tyranny. This is the idea that is embodied in the concept espoused by Clinton when he commented that the government should not give a tax reduction to American citizens because they wouldn't spend their money properly.

They have already succeeded in extensive inroads in this arena to the extent that they tell you what products and services you may offer, what environment you must have in order to conduct your business, what you must pay your employees, and literally thousands of pages of laws and regulations specifying virtually every aspect of how you will conduct your business.

In short, government has become so invasive and so intrusive already that people are beginning to accept that it is proper. They are not educated anywhere that the Federal government in particular is now operating far beyond it's Constitutional authority.

And if government can legitimately do this to your business, they can just as legitimately do it in your personal life, for your business is hardly more than an extension of your personal life.

And those in power are not about to relinquish their stranglehold unless forced to do so. But the mechanism which should be protecting us from these abusive legislators, the courts, are not doing their job. These laws and regulations with the force of law created by appointed officials with no legitimate authority to legislate are enforced by the courts despite their illegitimacy.

And while I consider racism and bigotry the product of ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and feelings of inferiority, it is a situation where the creation of laws to rectify moral failings make the cure worse than the disease. History has demonstrated time and again that legislating morality does not work (Amendment 18 is a great example).

History has demonstrated many times over that collectivism in any form is a despicable form of government, i. e., tyranny. Yet there are people today who champion it. These people I regard as the epitome of arrogance because they presume that they are somehow better than everyone else and should be the ones deciding how others should live their lives, make their choices, etc. These are not people who respect the ideas of individual rights and freedoms. Had they that respect, they would not advocate laws dictating behaviors they deem proper.

I cannot understand how anyone who believes in the concepts of rights and freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence could support the idea of laws which are in direct conflict with those rights and freedoms. To me, the dichotomy is blatantly obvious.

 

[Weevil]

How is this the case?

The Constitution defines those responsibilities and powers specifically permitted the Federal government. Find for me if you will the place where the Federal government is authorized to force upon any citizen an undesired association or in any other manner to violate the rights of an American citizen.


How do you mean institutionalized racism? When and where I grew up, there were racially based laws, i. e., colored people were treated differently under the law, i. e., by government. To me, that is institutional racism. According to the Constitution, this is wrong and the situation was rectified.

If there are laws mandating different treatment of citizens, then they are wrong and should be abolished. But who is it today crying to create and perpetuate such laws in force? The Left/Liberal leadership. For the AA laws are precisely the thing against which they rail, racial discrimination. But, since government is the practitioner in this case, they find it an acceptable practice.

What I find curious is that they find it acceptable, even desirable, for the one entity in society (government) with the potential to exert totalitarian abusive authority to behave in a racially discriminatory manner, but the individual who has no such extent of power cannot.

And hardly anyone calls them on their hypocrisy.

Here's what I'm getting at Bill

1) Imagine if you will a country where there is such a long history of racism that it's still around in the minds of many. Affecting how many people see the world even today.

2) Imagine, if you will, that this long standing racism severely harms a particular minority group both in terms of education opportunities, job prospects and in the courts.

3) Now don't you suppose that the government should attempt to somehow get this minority up to equal footing? The metaphor of the playing field is often used and for good reason. Once again, I'm not big on AA programs but I see the reasoning. I honestly think that Bill believes the field is a level one and AA tries to unfairly de-level it. I think, Bill, that the other side thinks that the playing field is so bizzarely slanted already that legally enforced levelling might be the best way to go about their business.

4) If the American public lived up to the lofty ideals in the constitution then there wouldn't be a need for things like the ERA, AA or Gun legislation. The American public was high on slavery and "Seperate but Equal" and to an extent are still guilty of these many of the social ills that need rectification. I'm sure as a white male it's easy to sit back and say "The constitution says an equal chance for all so we can't intervene" but try to see how the other half lives Bill. Imagine if you never had the chance to have an equal chance.

 

[Unclebill]

Here's what I'm getting at Bill

1) Imagine if you will a country where there is such a long history of racism that it's still around in the minds of many. Affecting how many people see the world even today.

2) Imagine, if you will, that this long standing racism severely harms a particular minority group both in terms of education opportunities, job prospects and in the courts.

3) Now don't you suppose that the government should attempt to somehow get this minority up to equal footing? The metaphor of the playing field is often used and for good reason. Once again, I'm not big on AA programs but I see the reasoning. I honestly think that Bill believes the field is a level one and AA tries to unfairly de-level it. I think, Bill, that the other side thinks that the playing field is so bizzarely slanted already that legally enforced levelling might be the best way to go about their business.

4) If the American public lived up to the lofty ideals in the constitution then there wouldn't be a need for things like the ERA, AA or Gun legislation. The American public was high on slavery and "Seperate but Equal" and to an extent are still guilty of these many of the social ills that need rectification. I'm sure as a white male it's easy to sit back and say "The constitution says an equal chance for all so we can't intervene" but try to see how the other half lives Bill. Imagine if you never had the chance to have an equal chance.

First of all I suggest you review your reading of the Constitution. What are the "lofty ideals" to which you refer.

Having read the Constitution myself, it is an outline or blueprint for the American Federal government. Little in the way of ideology resides therein.

If there is potential for tyranny in a society, government is the greatest repository of that potential. This was recognized and acknowledged by the Founders.

This is the reason they went to the lengths they did to lay out the plan for a republican federal government and made the statements of explicit power assigned to it. The remainder of power was left to the states and to the individual. The idea was to minimize the likelihood that the federal government could rise to the position of tyrant. And so long as those in the federal government respect the constraints of the Constitution or are held to them by the electorate, that is pretty well assured.

They also recognized that the potential for one person or group to seek to use government against others. They based their judgment on observation and study of various governments over man's history and noted that when government was by men not laws, the potential for this was often used to advantage.

Government legitimately in a free society has a monopoly on one thing, the use of force, and that is its only legitimate function. But the use of force must be constrained to retaliatory and the retaliation must be limited to those who initiated the use of force, i. e., the criminal.

If you make the error of granting government the option of initiating the use of force, you then relegate government to the role of criminal. Once government is authorized that power, it is then empowered to become the tyrant against which the Constitution was created to protect us.

The only legitimate purpose of government in a free society is to protect the rights of its citizens. However, it cannot do that by violating their rights. If it is permitted the power to violate the rights of one among us, we are all at peril. It is along the idea of the story that goes, "When they came for the Jews, I did not object for they were not coming for me. ... And when they came for me, there was no one to object."

Government, to be given the means of "leveling the playing field", must necessarily be authorized the use of tyrannical power, i. e., it must be given authority to initiate the use of force against some citizens on the behalf of other citizens. Yet the initiation of the use of force is the most basic definition of a criminal action. Thus the idea of government leveling the field is a dichotomy.

And I disagree with your perception of the view of the "other side" to which you refer in paragraph 3). My perception is that they are infatuated with the power they have managed to seize. They like the idea of being able to use the government to coerce their political agenda on America under the attractively packaged rhetoric. But despite the nice sounding intentions, the result is they garner more government power to force their will upon the American citizen. They use government to initiate the force of arms to get acceptance of their ideology which they cannot sell on an intellectual basis. And this is the reason they resort to lies, character assassination, slander and any other means available to destroy, suppress and oppress dissent. And under the previous administration, you saw that practice elevated to an art form. And in the case of Clinton, not only was it used for political gain, it was used as the defense for his personal criminal behavior.

Government cannot eradicate racism any more than it can eradicate alcoholism or smokers' addictions. Government has, since the civil rights legislation of the 60's, made the situation worse under the guise of righting wrongs of the past.

Much of the resentment and hatred of today is the result of government discrimination in favor of one segment of the populace against another. Even when it was proposed, having far less understanding of philosophy and government than I do now, I recognized how thoroughly ludicrous the politicians sounded when they claimed the fix for discrimination was more discrimination. But very few people seemed to recognize that intellectual truth. Too many were caught up in the emotional wave to "right the wrongs of the past" by penalizing people who were not part of perpetrating those wrongs.

So even in the ignorance of my youth, I saw through this facade as the evil it was and was totally aghast that so few people stopped to actually think about the reality. And I have learned by reading the Constitution that the Federal government has no legitimate authority to do as you suggest.

If racism is to be eradicated (and I doubt it will ever be completely), it will be by education and example, not by force of arms. As a good example, look at the Middle East. The Islamic nations teach systemic hatred for the Jews generation after generation. Why? It's always been that way. And until there is some intellectual intervention, that situation will not change.

But education can reveal the ugly face of racism for the despicable thing it is and perhaps via popular opinion suppress even the most ignorant who cling to its tenets despite the best enlightenment offered them. But attempts to legislate racism away and legislation of special privileges for a certain segment of society at the expense of others only fosters more resentment and hatred and justifies in the minds of those who believe in and practice racism the validity of their beliefs.

And the Negro is not the first group to face bigotry in this country. Look back into our history at the Irish in New York and that area. The "Irish need not apply" signs are reminiscent of the "Negroes need not apply" of this century. And the Irish are not the only other ones who suffered at the foot of the bigot. The Chinese faced similar treatment when they began immigrating here. Even until the 60's, there were homes in Norfolk, VA, [a huge Navy town] where you could see signs posted on the lawns of peoples' homes, "SAILORS AND DOGS KEEP OFF THE GRASS".

In an earlier post, lavender made a remark about "hidden racism". To me, the idea that racism has achieved the status of "hidden" is a great moral victory because it is no longer given serious open public acceptance, i. e., it has been driven underground. To me that idea implies that one who acts openly racist is publicly condemned and shunned as I believe is morally proper and justified.

And regarding the ERA, AA and Gun Legislation, most of what we have now we don't need. As far as ERA, it was never about rights if you take an objective assessment of the idea as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. As far as AA, there was never any honest intellectual basis for it. And for Gun Legislation, the greatest deterrent you can have for criminals whether they use a gun or other weapon, is to punish them for the crimes they commit. Thousands of gun laws on the books don't stop a single crime. They only make it difficult for honest men to get a gun if they choose to do so. A criminal will not abide by any gun law because they don't respect them or care about them. And stupid laws denigrate the respect of the honest citizen for all laws.

As to the idea of government putting everyone on an equal footing, that's the explicit promise of collectivism in all its variants. That is not the promise of the United States Federal government nor is the power to do so within the scope of its Constitutional authority.

 

[RisiaSkye]

For the record, I'm neither for nor against AA

Let me preface this by saying: it's not directed at you personally, Bill. I just have some questions about the whole debate, and you've given the longest and most recent opinions.

Originally posted by Unclebill

They also recognized that the potential for one person or group to seek to use government against others.

For example, by declaring that "some people" aren't actually people at all, but only partial people? Animals who can't be classified as citizens, much less voters?

Government legitimately in a free society has a monopoly on one thing, the use of force, and that is its only legitimate function. But the use of force must be constrained to retaliatory and the retaliation must be limited to those who initiated the use of force, i. e., the criminal.

Kicking around words like "legitimate" and "retaliation" is nice, but doesn't actually say anything. Just because they're your views, or anyone else's, doesn't make them the only real ones, or the only possibilities.

If you make the error of granting government the option of initiating the use of force, you then relegate government to the role of criminal.

What constitutes the use of force? Is "white collar crime" forceful? Should it be unpunished because non-violent? Whose grievances are legitimate? Who gets to define these terms? The ones who get elected get to write the laws, appoint the courts that evaluate them, and hold veto power and the option of executive mandate. So, who gets elected? (And, don't forget, Who gets access to the vote? )

Isn't it interesting that as of the 21st century, a black person can't even win a leading role Oscar, much less get elected to executive office. I don't see a lot of women or minorities on the ticket. Hmm...maybe they're unqualified? But, isn't the executive office allegedly designed to be holdable by any educated person? How important is money to this process?

The US government was not designed for everybody. Women, blacks, and non-landholders are the most glaringly obvious examples of those it was not designed to include in its umbrella protection of rights. Also, it's not a holy text. It's subject to change according to the needs of the people it has come to serve. (Actually, so are holy texts--ask King James)

If it is permitted the power to violate the rights of one among us, we are all at peril.

Why was this not the case all along, then?

My perception is that they are infatuated with the power they have managed to seize....

Who, exactly, are "they?" I'm always suspicious of talk about "those people", who seem to be responsible for everything. I'm having a hard time imagining a politico who doesn't use rhetoric to sell their ideas to the (largely disinterested and distracted) populace. How is this relevant?

But very few people seemed to recognize that intellectual truth.

Ah, the old "those who disagree just aren't thinking it through" argument. Don't take it personally, Bill. It's been lobbed around by both sides.

And the Negro is not the first group to face bigotry in this country. Look back into our history at the Irish in New York and that area. The "Irish need not apply" signs are reminiscent of the "Negroes need not apply" of this century.

Interestingly, the Irish became "white" largely by actively supporting slavery. Check out Noel Ignatiev's How the Irish Became White for a nice history work on the subject, and/or Michael Roediger's The Wages of Whiteness. But, then again, why is this relevant? Are they currently facing discrimination and unequal access to the alleged "rights" of every citizen?

As far as ERA, it was never about rights if you take an objective assessment of the idea as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. As far as AA, there was never any honest intellectual basis for it.

Who is objective? I'd be curious to meet this hypothetical person with no personal stake in the politics of their own nation and the interpretation of "rights". Again, the "fuzzy thinking" argument.

I used to work for a man who used "collectivism" as a dirty word. He was remarkably pedagogical on the subject, but when I tried to engage in dialogue with him, he just thrust Ayn Rand books at me. Fascinating. I read them. They were tautological and dull. But seem to have sparked an interesting political movement--and the myth of "objectivism," the claim that there's not only is an objective truth, but that it's obviously (*insert political claim here*)

Incidentally, my mother was once a state co-chair for the Libertarian party.



This isn't a critique of the political right, though it might seem like it. The left has many just as ridiculous claims, as several right-wingers have pointed out.

This, right here, is exactly what's wrong with the current party system. Partisanship, lack of choices, and an almost total lack of actual discussion between the party ideologues. Either we get discrimation in the guise of a fix for discrimination, or we get ostrich-like refusal to see the lived realities of those who live without privilege and easy political access. What a choice!

 

[Andra_Jenny]

But what if the idea of racism has become a cultural myth

for only one segment of the population?

Again, personal anecdote,

When I was at the University, I was sitting at the bus stop on a warm Halloween evening. A group of young trick-or-treaters was making thier way up the street going from house to house with no luck. The children's moral was quickly dropping.

The adult in charge, brown bag and all, if you know what I mean, finally exhorted his young charges, "They won't come to the door because you're black!"

In fact, no one came to the door because the houses belong to the university and are only used infrequently as offices or meeting rooms.

White, or middle-class, or Indian, or whatever America is helpless to change a community that may not wish to change. That is that thier current status has achieved a romantisicm about it that suits thier self-imposed view of who and what they are.

I see a lot of the same thing from the young bucks down in Oklahoma when I go visit. Some will refuse to get on with thier lives despite any and all evidence that success is possible.

Perhaps we have no black executive-level candidates because one, it does not serve the needs of thier party, and two, the only leaders they praise are those most objectionable to the rest of American society. The Democrats had many options in famale and black american candidates for VP for example, but they chose another white male.

Now one would rather expect that from the Republicans if one holds true to absolutely stereotyping the situation.

PS, I love all this theory and debate about the virtual world of AA, but I live in and deal with a real world every day. People of all colors...

 

[p_p_man]

I'll promise not to apply for American citizenship...

...if everyone promises not to mention the Constitution for a week.

It seems to me it's become like the Bible. Certain parts of it are quoted to prove a point that can be disproved by quoting certain other parts of it...

 

[Unclebill]

Re: For the record, I'm neither for nor against AA

It seems to me it's become like the Bible. Certain parts of it are quoted to prove a point that can be disproved by quoting certain other parts of it...

Makes me wonder just how much of it, if any, you have read. The Constitution is not a philosophical document per se nor a record of history nor any such chronological record as the Bible is represented. It is the design blueprint for the American federal government.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Re: Re: For the record, I'm neither for nor against AA

You may reject that fact but rejection does not eradicate the truth.

Aye, just as calling something objective truth does not make it so.

And your solution is tyrannical government authority?

You will note I expressly disavowed that I offered any solutions. I am not so arrogant as to assume that I have the answers to complex questions about which I have less than full information.
Not today, anyway

Interesting that you use Hollywood as an example. The Hollywood crowd is one of the most vocal on the subject of racism, prejudice, righting past wrongs, and many of the other popular Left programs.

Yes. I mean to point out the hypocrisy of these claims. I have never said the left is correct, any more than I embrace the right.

However, in light of the statistics indicating the great percentage of women who voted for Clinton, that information lends some credence to the judgment of the founders that women might not be competent to be trusted with the responsibility of suffrage.

Ringing with objectivity, this is. Certainly, voting for the "wrong" candidate invalidates the "objective rights" of 51% of the populace.

Actually, it was and the design was a superb one for the flaws permitted at its outset. The Founders realized that if they attempted to cure all the ills that existed, they would never be able to convince enough people of the wisdom of their choice of a reublican federal government and get the Constitution adopted. And their rights (with the exception of slaves) were not denied, only suffrage.

Not only does this attempt to interpret the personal beliefs and utopian desires of the constitution's framers, but it raises another question: in a representative republic, isn't suffrage the most basic affirmation and realization of citizenship's "rights"? How can one be represented, their rights protected, without it?

I wonder at what you mean by …needs of the people it has come to serve…? The American government was never intended to be the provider for the American citizen. This role was not part of the power and authority stipulated to the Federal government.

The Constitution serves the people. I do not imply that the government is a paternalistic provider, but that the Constitution is itself a tool used to serve the will of the people whose government it describes, constrains, and ultimately delineates. It is a tool, no more, no less.

Embracing a dichotomy is thinking the issue through? How is violating the rights of some protecting the rights of any?

As the debate on this topic has exemplified, when faced with irresoluble contradictions, the human mind has a nearly infinite capacity to choose an ideology, and embrace it despite its contradictions. This is true of both sides, and their respective illogics. And, once again, if the constitution was framed in such a way as to violate the rights of many (especially slaves), how can it ever have protected the rights of any, under your own logic? How can it sustain as the definition of a rights-protecting republic, given this understanding of rights?

For one, I am objective. I offer that a consistent definition of the concept of rights means that everyone has the same rights.

Except, of course, for incompetent women voters.

Consistent argumentation does not simply equal objectivity. The rhetoric of "Objectivity" holds that some truths are true simply because they are, an illogical tautology that holds that the "right minded" perceiver is the one with the correct subjectivity, thus embracing the subjective assessment one finds most appealing as irreducible truth.

I can understand someone finding Ayn Rand's works dull; some are difficult and tedious. They are challenging to read and comprehend. They deal with some very complex abstractions. But they are reasoned and consistent.

Finding Rand dull is not necessarily a reflection of ignorance, or lack of understanding the abstractions. While this may be revolutionary, one canunderstand without embracing, endorsing, or enjoying them. Then again, perhaps her objectivity didn't allow for the "abstractions" of art, only architecture as structure, rather than artform.

And the chain of logic is traceable back to her fundamental presumption that reality is real and facts of reality are fact independent of the perception, wish or whim of any person or group of people which might be at variance.

Ah, so. If everyone disagrees about reality, whose definition is correct? Who gets to set the terms? That "reality is real" is an unhelpful tautology. They are abstractions which reflect human apprehension of their own surroundings. Those surroundings, as history and discussions clearly reveal, are subject to near-infinite conflicting interpretations. Different interpreters use different criteria for their acceptance of the terms of their own understanding. "Science," "religion," "objectivity (often linked to science), and many others have served as these criteria. That does not, however, mean that one or another of them holds exclusive dominion over the "reality of reality" to anyone but those who find a particular criterion compelling enough to attach their belief to it.

She did not accept faith as a legitimate means of cognition or basis for one's judgment. Her attitude toward faith is best stated through a character in one of her novels, "Faith, the alleged shortcut to knowledge is actually a short circuit destroying the mind." (paraphrased)

And this is one of the central ironies. Acceptance of one's own interpretation of the world is itself an expression of faith: faith in one's own powers of perception, faith that one has all the necessary information to see the picture in its entirety, faith that the criteria of judgement are the proper ones. While one's certainty of their "objective truth" may be based in religious faith, it can also be based in faith in science, statistics, tradition, a philosophical or rhetorical path, or any number of other things. What one calls faith, another calls science.

My objection to the Left is not so much the ridiculous claims as it is their commitment to outright lies to achieve their political ends, their embracing the collectivist idea that the end justifies the means.

Politics is rife with liars. They stem from both sides of the imaginary ideological divide.

But they are not liars and hypocrites? This is a demonstration of their bi-partisanship? This is a demonstration that they are interested in what's best for America, not what's best for their political gain?

I don't know who ever claimed this, but it certainly wasn't me. I have never claimed bi=partisanship. In fact, I claimed expressly the opposite. Both sides fail to engage in dialogue, or attempt to actually meet the diverse needs of a constituency in perpetual disagreement.


I won't jump on the personal-affront bandwagon by claiming that those who disagree with my politics don't deserve suffrage. However, I will hasten to note that those who are most certain that their own interpretations are the only objective reality are just as quick to personally attack opponents as are those that they deride for the same lack of dignity and honor.

Which brings me back to my original point: politics, as a field which expressly delineates the possibilities and consequences of human interaction, is rife with power mongering and demagoguery. Honor, dignity, and mutual respect for each other's "rights" continues in short supply.