Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Holy Shit! This Professor Has Balls

p0ink

New member
My New Affirmative Action Grading Policy
Agape Press | 4/8/03 | Mike S. Adams, Professor UNC-Wilmington

Dear UNC-Wilmington Students:

For years, my well-known opposition to affirmative action has been a source of great controversy across our campus, particularly among UNCW faculty. Many have assumed that my position on this topic has been a function of personal prejudice or "insensitivity" to the needs of various "disenfranchised" groups on campus and in society in general. In reality, my opposition to affirmative action has been based on personal experience.

When I first applied for a job as a university professor, a well-meaning department chair at Memphis State University (now the University of Memphis) told me that I had no chance of getting a job in his department because the only other finalist for the position was a black male. When I took a job at UNCW a month later, I hoped that I had found an environment devoid of such blatant racial discrimination. Unfortunately, my experiences here have proved otherwise. It is my constitutionally protected opinion that I have experienced direct pressure from the administration to engage in both racial and gender discrimination as a member of various university search committees.

Furthermore, I have seen examples of salary discrimination based on affirmative action. For example, one department at UNCW hired a black female as an assistant professor in 1999 before she had finalized her dissertation. Despite her inexperience, she was paid more than two tenured white male associate professors in her department who had, of course, finished their dissertations. One had been teaching at UNCW for five years, the other for seven years.

Despite all of this, I have decided to abandon my long-standing opposition to affirmative action after listening to the oral arguments in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case challenging admissions policies at the University of Michigan. While listening to these recorded arguments, I learned that public universities have a "compelling interest in diversity" which supersedes simplistic notions of reverse discrimination. Now, because my views have changed, I am forced to alter my classroom grading policies.

Students in my classes will continue to have their final grades based principally on test performance. Students will also continue to have a portion of their grade determined by class participation and/or a final paper depending on the class in which they are enrolled (please consult your course syllabus if you are one of my students).

After I compute final averages, I will then implement the new aspect of the grading process which is modeled after existing affirmative action policies at the university. Specifically, I will be computing a class average which I will then compare to the individual performance of all white males enrolled in my classes. All white males who exceed the class average will have points deducted and added to the final averages of women and minorities. A student need not have ever engaged in discrimination in order to have points deducted. Nor must a student have ever been a victim of discrimination in order to receive additional points.

I expect that my new policy will be well received by some, and poorly received by others. For those in the latter category, please contact Human Resources for further elaboration on the concept of affirmative action. You may also contact the Office of Campus Diversity for additional guidance.

I understand that many of you may consider my new position to be unprincipled. Please understand, however, that the university has long abandoned antiquated principles of "fairness" in favor of identity politics. Also understand that my job as a university professor is to prepare you for the real world.

After all, no one promised that life would always be fair.

Dr. Mike S. Adams
 
I like, except he's being cowardly about making his point. No one will give a shit if he takes points away from the white male students.

He should reverse-"affirmative action-ate" the students. Take the average of all black males+females and give the extra points to the white males. The university will be angry and eventually we will have politicians involved.

Anybody remember the affirmative action bake sale story? Hilarious.

-Warik
 
beastboy said:
Order of actions:

1. Fired for another reason.

2. Lawsuit

good luck. this guy is tenured.

a tenured professor could rape and sodomize 100 students, infect them all with aids, steal all of their cars, and burn their parents home to the ground all without getting fired.
 
If this is true, it won't take long for a few of the white boys to get together and plot to make this professors life miserable. Something similiar to this happened to me in high school, a certain teacher tried to be a hero, turns out he was fired cause he stirred the pot too much and was made a mockery of by me and many others!!!
 
yup....he;s not gonna be too popular round campus. i would also hope this doesnt affect any of the white boy degree's, just so he can make his point

it also poo poo's any of the minority achiever grades who got there without this kind of help. if he wanted to make a fuss, he couold have achieved it far more rapidly with Warik's idea, then stoppd it

and why dont white females get any minus points?
 
The professor is right about the reverse discrimination. I have experienced it myself. Women are considered a minority so they only gain points.

Affirmitive action, eoe and all that other bullshit has done more harm than good for the so-called minorities. It only keeps them down by allowing them to attain jobs and positions of power based on their color or sex regardless of their skills and experiences.

This teaches one that they do not have to perform as expected, just be a certain type of human.

This also then hurts others by the fact that now are kids and us in college are taught by those that are not qualified to teach. We are protected by those who are not capable of providing that service.

And just think, ever wonder if your doctor (if minority grade) really learned their skills or just got by based on their race/gender. Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Why is it that we cannot ignore sex/race in this and just hire/fire based on merits of the individual. Because minorities more often chose not to go to college, bust their ass, etc to achieve positions of prominence.

This whole process is akin to communism, take from the haves and give to the have nots, redistribute knowledge, power, wealth, etc. Take from whitie male and give to all others.

Sad day in our country.
 
not akin, chesty...

it is communism...

liberalism is just a "polite" expression so that
people dont look at you like you farted at the
dinner table...
 
Dial_tone said:

Bullshit if bullshit ever existed. My parents raised me to believe I had to be better than the white guy to get the job. In the South where I'm from they were right.

right on.

how do you feel about affirmative action as a whole?

which way do you vote?
 
You know what, I don't give a fucking shit what your fucking color is dick head.

I am part indian you fuck nut. I am not a bigot, and if any race on this fucking planet has a better chance to get college paid for it is every minority on this planet in the US right now.

I was born in NJ, lived in Georgia, Tennessee, the west and the south west as well as overseas, the north west, and more.

Your parents taught you to be better than the "white" man? who's the biggot? Who is throwing color around? I simply stated minorities.

WHERE DID I MENTION BLACK? I DON'T THINK I DID YOU FRUIT LOOP.

HOP OFF YOUR RACIST HIGH HORSE FOR A MINUTE AND LOOK AT THE ARGUMENT.

Yes the Army paid for her college cool, they do that for anyone who meets the criteria. They did that for me while I was in the Marines.

I did not say all minorities, I said most, I did not mention a race at all you did. I think you are the one that needs to step back and take a breath and enter this conversation without any emotional bullshit.
 
One more thing, why didn't your parents teach you to just be best that you could be instead of being better than the white guy?

What about the Jew or the German or the Irish or the Indian, or the Mexican or the female or the Chinese?

Why was it just the white guy?
 
danielson said:

and why dont white females get any minus points?

Probably because the redoubtable Dr. Adams, a criminal justice professor, has already made quite a career of also attacking feminists, abortion rights activists and gays. He is a laughing stock in the academy. Subsuming all efforts to maintain diversity in the academy under the terrifying rubric of "identity politics," he presents a highly simplistic argument against affirmative action and diversity protections that just so happens to oppose the pariahs of American society: women, queers and black people.

It is most amusing that he uses his position of tenure -- a TRULY antiquated system by which time and time only confers privileges -- to oppose the encouragement of diversity, privilege of a sort, through a different set of rules.

I assume people realize this is pure satire. It's Professor Adams recent column for the American Family Association website, where he is a regular contributor. You know the AFA. They're the lovely promoters of family values who organized the boycott of Disney for its promotion of the homosexual agenda. They are also the folks who generally want to DIVERSIFY the public schools by introducing god back into the classroom, to say nothing of government generally. The latter is through lawsuits filed by their Center for Law and Policy, whose mission statement is, basically, an advocacy of Biblical law.

Like most loony right wingers, Adams and his AFA cronies, in short, don't merely oppose legislated diversity and affirmative action out of some phony defense of the individual's autonomy. Their actual agenda is to install Jesus as the primary authority in U.S. government and to control the bodies of those they consider sinful.
 
Affirmative action... sigh....

It's reverse discrimination... using a band-aid to fix the problem instead of addressing it at its source... etc.
 
Dial_tone said:
My sister, who despite my avatar is also black, received a Minority scholarship to medical school from the US Army. That doesn't make her any less deserving. She was FULLY qualified to get in. The army just offered to foot the $15K per quarter bill which my father, being a retired Army Lt. Col, could have never afforded. In return she served four years. Today, SHE'S A DAMN GOOD OB-GYN serving people regardless of race, creed, color national origin. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
[/B]
\

Minority scholarships are one thing... letting less qualified minority students in over more qualified non-minorities is quite another.
 
All this is such a shame.

If you can do something well, I pray you get the chance to use that ability to its fullest. Hopefully, you can make a living at it.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can do something well, you should get the appropriate rewards for such..............even if you belong to the Gay-Black-Palastinian-Nazi-Asians for Christ.

......But..... If your a screw up.....you get yours too.
Everyone should earn what they have....even if its nothing.
--------------

(Oh.....good V-taper by the way Dial ) :D

--2Z--
 
chesty said:
One more thing, why didn't your parents teach you to just be best that you could be instead of being better than the white guy?

What about the Jew or the German or the Irish or the Indian, or the Mexican or the female or the Chinese?

Why was it just the white guy?

i suspect its got something to do with institutional racism in certain organisations, and that if he was identical to a white candidate in every single way, the white candidate would get the job, therefore he had to be better

given that MANY organisations are still institutionally racist and NOTHING is being done to remedy the situation, its probably something worth instilling in children
 
musclebrains said:


Probably because the redoubtable Dr. Adams, a criminal justice professor, has already made quite a career of also attacking feminists, abortion rights activists and gays. He is a laughing stock in the academy. Subsuming all efforts to maintain diversity in the academy under the terrifying rubric of "identity politics," he presents a highly simplistic argument against affirmative action and diversity protections that just so happens to oppose the pariahs of American society: women, queers and black people.

It is most amusing that he uses his position of tenure -- a TRULY antiquated system by which time and time only confers privileges -- to oppose the encouragement of diversity, privilege of a sort, through a different set of rules.

I assume people realize this is pure satire. It's Professor Adams recent column for the American Family Association website, where he is a regular contributor. You know the AFA. They're the lovely promoters of family values who organized the boycott of Disney for its promotion of the homosexual agenda. They are also the folks who generally want to DIVERSIFY the public schools by introducing god back into the classroom, to say nothing of government generally. The latter is through lawsuits filed by their Center for Law and Policy, whose mission statement is, basically, an advocacy of Biblical law.

Like most loony right wingers, Adams and his AFA cronies, in short, don't merely oppose legislated diversity and affirmative action out of some phony defense of the individual's autonomy. Their actual agenda is to install Jesus as the primary authority in U.S. government and to control the bodies of those they consider sinful.


jesus loves you anyway, you godless communist...
 
musclebrains said:

You know the AFA. They're the lovely promoters of family values who organized the boycott of Disney for its promotion of the homosexual agenda.

:confused: say what now? i;ve not seen any disney for a while now but has mickey gone dutch?
 
That has got to be one of the stupidest ideas that I have ever seen.

I'd transfer the hell out of there.

Fonz
 
Last edited:
Whether or not it is a satire or not doesn't change the basic argument. Promoting and granting to those just because of their race/color/sex is wrong.

What is diversity? Especially in an academic environment? Is it that I have 80% minority and 20% majority? Is it 50% minority brains and 50% majority brains while maintaining the 80/20 ratio of minority to majority bodies?

Why is it that if someone who is a white male goes for a job where a minority has applied but is less qaulified the whitey does not get the job even if it means the company will suffer because of this choice?

If you want to impress me do it with your personality, brains, sense of humor and your humanity, not your skin color or sex.

If live in an area that is predominately white and a minority moves in there does it suddenly mean that I am racist, and biggoted? No, it just means that a particular group chose to live there and someone from a different race decided to move in. Does it mean I have to start firing whities and hiring minorities? Does it mean I have to stop selling property to whities and sell exclusively to minorities until I have balance?

What if whitie is only 10% of the population mix and 60% is minority A and 30% is minority B as defined by the US Gov't? Does this mean then that I have to bring up the 30% to 45% and drop the 60% to 45%? Or can I legitimately claim that the 10% whitie group is now the minority and needs to be artificially enhanced up to 33% while dropping the one group to 33% and bringing up the other to 33%?

Nope, because that would be seen as racism of the whities to the other groups. But you can best bet that ol Jessie Jackson would be pitching a fit if that was actually the case and someone did something like that.

Isn't it funny how it is okay for eoe, etc to work in one direction but not the other!

If everyone could just get color/religion/etc out of their mindset this would not be a problem. But since groups like the Rainbow Coalition, US Gov't, and countless others continually bring a persons race to the front we will never get past the fact that when you strip off the skin we all look the same, bleed the same, etc.
 
Just remember, that when you say that this prof. has balls for standing up for what he believes, the same should apply to liberal professors who stand up for their's.:D
 
I wish that were the case, but where I work now, we exist on gov't contracts and they very adamently dictate the ratio's of one group to the next. It really sucks, cause sometimes we get in trouble for some of the people we are forced to hire in order to not lose our contracts or get fined.
 
big4life said:
Just remember, that when you say that this prof. has balls for standing up for what he believes, the same should apply to liberal professors who stand up for their's.:D

I don't think it takes very big balls to take a stand that effectively reinforces discrimination against people already marginalized -- women, gay people and black people -- using a religious argument to justify it. It doesn't take very big balls to gang up with your fellow right-wing Christians and try to dissolve the traditional separation of church and state.

The essay is SATIRE. Even Adams knows he can't get away with such a ridiculous grading system. As satire it simplifies the affirmative action process to make a political point. Professor Goofy forgets that affirmative action pertains to admission. Once you are in, you have to perform. Same thing on the job.

And as I said the ultimate irony is that Adams is only able to take his ridiculous stands because he is PROTECTED by an antiquated system of privilege that disregards performance. Thus, his satirical grading system is more motivated by the privilege of his own position than the reality of affirmative action. With tenure, he doesn't even have to be "tested."
 
musclebrains said:
Probably because the redoubtable Dr. Adams, a criminal justice professor, has already made quite a career of also attacking feminists, abortion rights activists and gays. He is a laughing stock in the academy. Subsuming all efforts to maintain diversity in the academy under the terrifying rubric of "identity politics," he presents a highly simplistic argument against affirmative action and diversity protections that just so happens to oppose the pariahs of American society: women, queers and black people.

It is most amusing that he uses his position of tenure -- a TRULY antiquated system by which time and time only confers privileges -- to oppose the encouragement of diversity, privilege of a sort, through a different set of rules.

I assume people realize this is pure satire. It's Professor Adams recent column for the American Family Association website, where he is a regular contributor. You know the AFA. They're the lovely promoters of family values who organized the boycott of Disney for its promotion of the homosexual agenda. They are also the folks who generally want to DIVERSIFY the public schools by introducing god back into the classroom, to say nothing of government generally. The latter is through lawsuits filed by their Center for Law and Policy, whose mission statement is, basically, an advocacy of Biblical law.

Like most loony right wingers, Adams and his AFA cronies, in short, don't merely oppose legislated diversity and affirmative action out of some phony defense of the individual's autonomy. Their actual agenda is to install Jesus as the primary authority in U.S. government and to control the bodies of those they consider sinful.

Everything you said makes me like the guy even more.

Hates feminists and abortionists? Boycotts Disney World for gay day? Give the man a medal.

-Warik
 
Warik said:


Everything you said makes me like the guy even more.

Hates feminists and abortionists? Boycotts Disney World for gay day? Give the man a medal.

-Warik


LOL...Such people are probably necessary antidotes to their extreme opposite. But I can't take either pole very seriously. You go ahead, though.
 
musclebrains said:



LOL...Such people are probably necessary antidotes to their extreme opposite. But I can't take either pole very seriously. You go ahead, though.

haha, you said pole.

<and don't say anything about tribal tatoos>
 
musclebrains said:
And as I said the ultimate irony is that Adams is only able to take his ridiculous stands because he is PROTECTED by an antiquated system of privilege that disregards performance.

A liberal who supports academic accountability? Now I've seen everything.

You do realize that if we imposed academic accountability, our public schools would have a student to faculty ratio of 1,000:1, right?
 
Warik said:


A liberal who supports academic accountability? Now I've seen everything.

You do realize that if we imposed academic accountability, our public schools would have a student to faculty ratio of 1,000:1, right?

Oh, no, I'd love a tenured job and I deserve one, because I have the CORRECT viewpoint. :D

Federal jobs are basically tenured too and, believe me, that system causes far more problems than affirmative action. There are armies of useless employees who are "shelved" and drawing paychecks.
 
musclebrains said:
Oh, no, I'd love a tenured job and I deserve one, because I have the CORRECT viewpoint. :D

Federal jobs are basically tenured too and, believe me, that system causes far more problems than affirmative action. There are armies of useless employees who are "shelved" and drawing paychecks.

The sad part is that we have pseudo-tenure in place in many US companies. For every company my friend and I have worked for, it seems as though the people who screw around the most and produce the least seem to be immune to termination.

-Warik
 
Yes, I recognized the white vs black thing all too well in the south. I was in Georgia when the race riots were about to start back in 84.

But, what have never understood, was teaching someone to be better than another race. Why not teach someone to just be the best human being possible.

That is what I love about America, we have our own identity, and culture, we are not black, nor white, or any other race, we are Americans.

And as long as we distinguish with hyphenated titles we will never achieve a true status of the greatest country in the world, but instead will fall by the way side.
 
Warik said:


The sad part is that we have pseudo-tenure in place in many US companies. For every company my friend and I have worked for, it seems as though the people who screw around the most and produce the least seem to be immune to termination.

-Warik

yep. the inconspicuous, those who don't take risks, get rewarded for their "loyalty."
 
Dial_tone said:
Let me throw a curveball at you just for shits and grins. In a manner of speaking, rich white people have had their own form of affirmative action for years. Do you believe that all the people that attended Ivy League schools were admitted based on their grades, interview, etc? Think Bush here. Alot of them probably got in because they have rich parents who donated money to the school. Maybe the parents were somebody of high social/business status or perhaps attended school there themselves. In any case the child gets something they haven't truly earned, perhaps taking away a spot from someone else more deserving, which is what Affirmative Action essentially is.
Losing any sleep over that?

Yep. I saw that bigtime at Yale. It was funny to watch the children of alumni kvetch about the three black guys admitted under affirmative action.
 
Risks nothing... I'm talking productivity in general. My favorite is when our travel agents blame the lack of sales on the economy and the war even though one of the resorts we represent is completely booked for half of May and our worst-seller is completely booked for all of next week.

Give me a fucking break!
 
Dial_tone said:
Let me throw a curveball at you just for shits and grins. In a manner of speaking, rich white people have had their own form of affirmative action for years. Do you believe that all the people that attended Ivy League schools were admitted based on their grades, interview, etc? Think Bush here. Alot of them probably got in because they have rich parents who donated money to the school. Maybe the parents were somebody of high social/business status or perhaps attended school there themselves. In any case the child gets something they haven't truly earned, perhaps taking away a spot from someone else more deserving, which is what Affirmative Action essentially is.
Losing any sleep over that?

Aren't Ivy League schools private universities?

Doesn't being private mean that they can do whatever the hell they want?

Who cares if rich boy with rich daddy got into school even though he was a dumb shit. That's a private school - they can discriminate as they wish, just like Augusta National can keep women out if they feel like it. Now when you talk about public universities and shit, there's no place for affirmative action... and to even SUGGEST that a private business should be FORCED to "diversify" itself should be considered a crime against humanity.
 
big4life said:
Just remember, that when you say that this prof. has balls for standing up for what he believes, the same should apply to liberal professors who stand up for their's.:D

No way. A right wing professor is a minority on campus and will suffer a backlash. Being an admitted right winger takes balls in almost every field, but especially academics and hollywood.
 
Warik said:


Aren't Ivy League schools private universities?

Doesn't being private mean that they can do whatever the hell they want?

Who cares if rich boy with rich daddy got into school even though he was a dumb shit. That's a private school - they can discriminate as they wish, just like Augusta National can keep women out if they feel like it. Now when you talk about public universities and shit, there's no place for affirmative action... and to even SUGGEST that a private business should be FORCED to "diversify" itself should be considered a crime against humanity.

I don't really know but I think that any school that took federal money of any sort back then became subject to fed-mandated affirmative action regulations. I don't know if that remains true or not.

Generally, though, the law doesn't authorize exclusion on the basis of private ownership. Movie theaters can't ban Af-Ams, for example. A lot of people during the Civil Rights days tried to use this same argument, that as entrepreneurs it was their "right" to deny service to anyone they chose. Of course, this was only in service to continuing racial discrimination, as lawsuit after lawsuit proved. The hubub over affirmative action, as it's practiced today, is often the same thing: a way of legitimating racial discrimination.
 
Public instutions should have even less right to discriminate racially because its money is coming from public dollars, i.e. taxes. Taking my money and giving somebody less qualified a better opportunity than I have? Come on... clearly Robin Hood politics.

I think the only socialist deal in which minorities are the ones that get screwed is Social Security. The average black male won't collect a penny of Social Security because the average black male dies before he's eligible to collect.

lol
 
musclebrains said:
Probably because the redoubtable Dr. Adams, a criminal justice professor, has already made quite a career of also attacking feminists, abortion rights activists and gays. He is a laughing stock in the academy. Subsuming all efforts to maintain diversity in the academy under the terrifying rubric of "identity politics," he presents a highly simplistic argument against affirmative action and diversity protections that just so happens to oppose the pariahs of American society: women, queers and black people.

It is most amusing that he uses his position of tenure -- a TRULY antiquated system by which time and time only confers privileges -- to oppose the encouragement of diversity, privilege of a sort, through a different set of rules.

I assume people realize this is pure satire. It's Professor Adams recent column for the American Family Association website, where he is a regular contributor. You know the AFA. They're the lovely promoters of family values who organized the boycott of Disney for its promotion of the homosexual agenda. They are also the folks who generally want to DIVERSIFY the public schools by introducing god back into the classroom, to say nothing of government generally. The latter is through lawsuits filed by their Center for Law and Policy, whose mission statement is, basically, an advocacy of Biblical law.
You actually do understand the concept of tenure, right? Your post doesn't reflect that understanding. PM me if you'd like me to explain the concept to you.

In comparing affirmative action to tenure you do, however, make a valid point. In some cases, for example in the deep South as Dial Tone explained, it becomes almost "necessary." in order to maintain some measure of equality and level the playing field or prevent outside pressures from exerting undue influence.

Unfortunately, as universities and the other 90% of the country has shown, this has become a VERY, VERY steep and slippery slope. You can't legislate "fairness" because everyone's idea of what is fair is different. Since when did the government become the expert on ANYTHING let alone what is fair.

Everyone in this country has, either personally or through their ancestors endured, suffered and survived repression of some type. Call it a right of passage. Maybe that's one of the things that has made American Asians or Jews or Europeans (Irish, Italian, etc...) the tough bastards that they are today (forgive the stereotypes). It is most likely the single most important thing responsible for making America the economic and military juggernaut that it is today. It is a prime example of evolution, which by now we all should agree is a fact in nature. Darwin never had a better example. As Dial Tone said, make yourself better, be BETTER than the white man (or anyone else) that is called selective evolution. I don't see many white running backs or power forwards any more, do you? Business rewards success. Since this is a CAPITALIST society, we can expect business to act in a way which will make the most money for it. Businesses which act in a secular/racist/discriminatory way in their hiring (and selling) practices will be hiring from/selling to a smaller pool and will inevitably be less successful than their non-bigoted counterparts. This is business form of natural selection. Problem is, for impatient Americans, EVOLUTION TAKES TIME. It has been less than 50 years since the changes brough about by MLK. A human generation is like 30+ years. Evolution does not occur over a single generation, it needs many generations, and tinkering with natural processes negates the effects of nature, which has its own (usually better) plan.

So, (as many before me have argued), although on the surface A.A. may seem like a good idea, in the long run it is a VERY, VERY bad idea.

I'm not talking about scholarships and money to "even" the playing field, that doesn't fall into the realm of the evils of A.A, I'm talking about any situation where a person of lesser caliber gets a position/job/etc... over a better qualified candidate under the guise of "fairness." No matter how you slice it, that is discrimination.

Apparently some people still believe that discrimination is only defined by the repression of any non-white male group. That is the very essence of the propblem with affirmative action.
 
Tenured professors can be removed.

In 1993, a newly hired President at a University in NY fired 18 tenured professors his first month on the job. I think the litigation finally settled this year. :)
 
Dial_tone said:


So this should true even for large privately-held companies? Let's take my cable company Cox Enterprises, a family business. I actually know the CEO personally but that's beside the point. In addition to their cable tv operations they also own The Auto Trader, Mannheim Auctions, The Atlanta Journal newspaper, the local NBC affiliate, several radio stations and a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting. In any case a national company with thousands of employees. Do they have free reign to discriminate?
How about a private company doing business with the government? A private restaurant turning away blacks? Anyone remember Denny's a few years ago? A private restaurant not hiring gays? Anyone remember Cracker Barrel a few years ago?
Since the 1619 arrival of Africans in Jamestown, blacks have endured 344 years under chattel slavery, another century under Jim Crow segregation, and three and one-half decades of the post-Civil Rights era. A couple years of affirmative action isn't going to kill you.
:)

A classic but flawed argument. YOU have never been a slave. I have never been a master. If slavery is cause for payment to those decendent from slaves then all of us would make money at some point. I'll support affirmative action when England gets the fuck out of Ireland, Rome pays everyone, Japs pay the chinese and American POW's, etc.... It could go on forever. Dial Tone, you may have experienced racism, but so fucking what. I've experienced it too and I don't want a handout.
 
Dial_tone said:


You clearly have neither read nor comprehended my earlier comments in this thread. Run along now.


I've read the entire thread guy. I've clearly owned you and you know it. OOPs did I say "owned" to a black man. I guess you should get 100 karma points for that totally racist remark. You're a fucking racist pig who gives black people a bad name. Take some lessons from ttlpkg. He's a stand up dude.
 
I know you came out being a normal human, but then you start comparing legacy admissions at yale to the travesty of affirmative action?

Then you say:

"Bullshit if bullshit ever existed. My parents raised me to believe I had to be better than the white guy to get the job. In the South where I'm from they were right."

"It's a black vs white thing in the South. Since you lived there you of all people should be aware of it."

Talk about a "black vs white thing" how about when a white man puts his life in peril by entering black neighborhoods in Atlanta, New Orleans, Richmond, and Durham. You can go wherever you want and nobody is gonna kill you for being black. Anyway dude, I hope nobody ever shits on you because of you color, just like I hope it doesn't happen to me again. Peace..
 
Dial_tone said:
Cool, since you white people are spending my people's money (money you aren't entitled to) perhaps we should get ours starting at age 50. LOL

I have a better idea.

I think you should not have to pay Social Security AT ALL and you should be able to put the money in the bank, invest it, or spend it on booze if you want. We should have all the freeloading white folk have to do the same as well. No more leeching.

-Warik
 
Dial_tone said:
Let me throw a curveball at you just for shits and grins. In a manner of speaking, rich white people have had their own form of affirmative action for years. Do you believe that all the people that attended Ivy League schools were admitted based on their grades, interview, etc? Think Bush here. Alot of them probably got in because they have rich parents who donated money to the school. Maybe the parents were somebody of high social/business status or perhaps attended school there themselves. In any case the child gets something they haven't truly earned, perhaps taking away a spot from someone else more deserving, which is what Affirmative Action essentially is.
Losing any sleep over that?

That's just as unfair as affirmative action is. I see kids getting in to my school all the time because of daddy's money and that makes me mad too... because they're probably taking spots away from students that are more qualified. I don't like the legacy thing either. Anything that gives one group an unfair advantage over another should be stopped- although obviously it isn't going to happen.
 
musclebrains said:


I don't think it takes very big balls to take a stand that effectively reinforces discrimination against people already marginalized -- women, gay people and black people -- using a religious argument to justify it. It doesn't take very big balls to gang up with your fellow right-wing Christians and try to dissolve the traditional separation of church and state.

The essay is SATIRE. Even Adams knows he can't get away with such a ridiculous grading system. As satire it simplifies the affirmative action process to make a political point. Professor Goofy forgets that affirmative action pertains to admission. Once you are in, you have to perform. Same thing on the job.

And as I said the ultimate irony is that Adams is only able to take his ridiculous stands because he is PROTECTED by an antiquated system of privilege that disregards performance. Thus, his satirical grading system is more motivated by the privilege of his own position than the reality of affirmative action. With tenure, he doesn't even have to be "tested."

His tenure was earned based on merit though- he didn't get it because of his race/sexual orientation... therefore i wouldn't say it is particularly ironic.
 
Dial_tone said:
So this should true even for large privately-held companies?

Yes.

Dial_tone said:
Let's take my cable company Cox Enterprises, a family business. I actually know the CEO personally but that's beside the point. In addition to their cable tv operations they also own The Auto Trader, Mannheim Auctions, The Atlanta Journal newspaper, the local NBC affiliate, several radio stations and a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting. In any case a national company with thousands of employees. Do they have free reign to discriminate?

Yes sir. They should all have free reign to discriminate.

The point that you're missing, however, is that such a company would never exist. Can you name any post-civil rights era successful large (define large as you wish) company that has practice routine unjust discrimination? Nope.

Would Coca-Cola be so big if they sold their drink only to women? Would Wendy's be so big if they had a sign on the door that said "Go Home Cracker!" Would Bally Total Fitness be one of the largest gym chains if they had "White Only" water fountains?

Private companies should be able to do as they wish because their existence relies heavily on the people they choose to discriminate. Public institutions (government, for example) are different because their existence does NOT depend so heavily on public opinion.

Take public schools, for example. It's already been shown that private school students do much better on standardized exams than do public school students, yet nothing significant is done to change public schools. Why? Their paychecks come from tax dollars, not happy customers. Don't like the service? Fine. Go to a private school, but don't forget to keep paying your taxes.

Dial_tone said:
A private restaurant turning away blacks? Anyone remember Denny's a few years ago?

So now let me ask you this: what caused Denny's to change its policy?

Dial_tone said:
Since the 1619 arrival of Africans in Jamestown, blacks have endured 344 years under chattel slavery, another century under Jim Crow segregation, and three and one-half decades of the post-Civil Rights era.

That sounds awful. How long were you a slave? I understand that my point may be less valid since I currently own 3 slaves. Might be 2 soon if this fucker doesn't hurry up with my drink.

Funny how people always blame the whitey of yesterday for slavery and never point the finger at the Africans who sold their own people into slavery in the first place. What's the worse crime? Using slaves when you were too ignorant to realize that they were people too, or selling your own people as slaves when you knew they were?

Dial_tone said:
A couple years of affirmative action isn't going to kill you.:)

Neither is a gunshot to the leg or castration. Does that make it right? Does that make it "OK?" Would you like to volunteer?

-Warik
 
Dial_tone said:
Denny's made the mistake of denying service to some black FBI agents or something and it blew up in their face.

Well, the answer I was looking for was something along the lines of: "the newspapers got wind of it and their profits took a shit," which would validate my point that in a free market, the market will eliminate these types of private businesses with unethical practices. Either that, or they won't grow very large.

Dial_tone said:
For the record I don't really disagree with anything you've said. I just have a problem with "blanket statements" and I felt like playing Devil's advocate for a while.

I find blanket statements to be very efficient. They are usually very true for the average person that falls under the blanket, and the exceptional blanketed person is usually intelligent enough to realize that it doesn't apply to him.

i.e. "EF moderators are post-locking nazis"

Warik (thinking to self): "Well... I don't lock posts unjustly... so that must not apply to me. yay!"
 
I don't agree with affirmative action.

I got into the school I did (female in an engineering discipline) because I was clever enough and worked hard enough. I got my first class honours (equivalent of cum laude) degree for the same reason. Ditto phd.

I don't need any condescending fucker telling me I need special treatment.

The REAL challenge is getting folks to finish HS, to study, to take the "harder" subjects. But that would involve WORK on the govt's part. So quotas is an easy way of putting the cart before the horse.


Very few women are engineers because to get into engineering here you have to take advanced math in HS. Th ladies, for some reason, don't want to take it. So work on changing the social attitudes that math is hard (no it fucking isn't. writing bloody essays and learning all that damn poetry is a LOT harder!).

My mom taught math so she never gave me that "don't bother with that it's too hard" shit. I bet loads of the folks in my class (male and female) had parents who said, aw, that's hard work, come watch this ball game.
 
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help
the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and
should do for themselves." Abraham Lincoln
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Tenured professors can be removed.

In 1993, a newly hired President at a University in NY fired 18 tenured professors his first month on the job. I think the litigation finally settled this year. :)

The point is that it's very difficult; otherwise there wouldn't be litigation 10 years in the works.

An employee or student who benefits from affirmative action can certainly be fired or flunked out of school if he doesn't perform. And it doesn't take 10 years. It takes an act of god to move a lousy professor out.
 
thebabydoc said:
You actually do understand the concept of tenure, right? Your post doesn't reflect that understanding. PM me if you'd like me to explain the concept to you.

In comparing affirmative action to tenure you do, however, make a valid point. In some cases, for example in the deep South as Dial Tone explained, it becomes almost "necessary." in order to maintain some measure of equality and level the playing field or prevent outside pressures from exerting undue influence.

Unfortunately, as universities and the other 90% of the country has shown, this has become a VERY, VERY steep and slippery slope. You can't legislate "fairness" because everyone's idea of what is fair is different. Since when did the government become the expert on ANYTHING let alone what is fair.

Everyone in this country has, either personally or through their ancestors endured, suffered and survived repression of some type. Call it a right of passage. Maybe that's one of the things that has made American Asians or Jews or Europeans (Irish, Italian, etc...) the tough bastards that they are today (forgive the stereotypes). It is most likely the single most important thing responsible for making America the economic and military juggernaut that it is today. It is a prime example of evolution, which by now we all should agree is a fact in nature. Darwin never had a better example. As Dial Tone said, make yourself better, be BETTER than the white man (or anyone else) that is called selective evolution. I don't see many white running backs or power forwards any more, do you? Business rewards success. Since this is a CAPITALIST society, we can expect business to act in a way which will make the most money for it. Businesses which act in a secular/racist/discriminatory way in their hiring (and selling) practices will be hiring from/selling to a smaller pool and will inevitably be less successful than their non-bigoted counterparts. This is business form of natural selection. Problem is, for impatient Americans, EVOLUTION TAKES TIME. It has been less than 50 years since the changes brough about by MLK. A human generation is like 30+ years. Evolution does not occur over a single generation, it needs many generations, and tinkering with natural processes negates the effects of nature, which has its own (usually better) plan.

So, (as many before me have argued), although on the surface A.A. may seem like a good idea, in the long run it is a VERY, VERY bad idea.

I'm not talking about scholarships and money to "even" the playing field, that doesn't fall into the realm of the evils of A.A, I'm talking about any situation where a person of lesser caliber gets a position/job/etc... over a better qualified candidate under the guise of "fairness." No matter how you slice it, that is discrimination.

Apparently some people still believe that discrimination is only defined by the repression of any non-white male group. That is the very essence of the propblem with affirmative action.

Oh, okay, I'll ask my dept. chair to re-explain tenure to me. Then I'll check in with you.

And, geez, the whole business about natural selection in evolutionary theory has been quite revised by many (see Gould's "punctuated" theory.). Even if you still buy Darwin's original idea, it doesn't legitmate a capitalist ethic any more than it does Marxism, although there are definite parallels between the work of Marx and Darwin. Indeed, Marx thought Darwin's theories echoed his own "developmental model" to the extent he offered to dedicate part of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined because he didn't want to upset his family by endorsing an attack on religion.

The point is that attempting to apply a model that explains the origin of species to social and economic process is quite dangerous since it can be used equally well to legitimate capitalism or socialism depending on your BELIEF about the outcome of "natural selection." Revolutions, like the American one, demonstrate the wisdom of Gould's revision of Darwin if you apply it to political/economic theory. One doesn't HAVE to wait around for a mysterious process to produce a gradual change.
 
Hmmm, I would like to say that my people have endured 2,000 plus years of slavery, plus more of persecution, almost complete extinction at the hands of the Nazi's, constant persecution by the entire world all the way to the present.

Yet, I don't see us as asking for payment from the modern Egyptian, Syrian, etc. I don't see us asking for AA or EOE or hand outs etc. We bust our ass to get ahead and because we succeed we are persecuted for it.

I no more owe a black man a single fucking penny than he owes me.

It is funny that the posts that never once mentioned blacks etc, was stated as being racist and targeting blacks, by a black. Why is that?

Private universities should have that right to do whatever they want.

Look at Annapolis or West Point for example. If anyone in you family earned the Medal of Honor you are automatically accepted into the college. Does that mean you will succeed? Of course not, but somone more qualified perhaps lost their seat for that class.

And I to want to know why the blacks are not screaming for retribution from their own kind that sold them into slavery in the first place. I find it odd that this has not been taken on by Sharpton or Jackson. Wonder why?

As for females in engineering, they have a tough job, but I find sometimes that they develop the attitude of I am always right and your wrong and push the limits of ethical behavior just because they are a woman and those in charge of the company are afraid to fire them for shit behavior and performance because they don't want to get into trouble.

I have also worked with many that could out think me, out wit me out smart me on any given day of the week, yet they are friendly and base their success on their skills as an engineer not on the rack and gash criteria.

Oh, how about Sambo's? Anyone remember what happened to them?
 
musclebrains said:
Oh, okay, I'll ask my dept. chair to re-explain tenure to me. Then I'll check in with you.
I was referring to the social/academic implications of tenure, not the actual concept of it, which I'm sure even an English teacher could understand.
musclebrains said:
And, geez, the whole business about natural selection in evolutionary theory has been quite revised by many (see Gould's "punctuated" theory.). Even if you still buy Darwin's original idea, it doesn't legitmate a capitalist ethic any more than it does Marxism, although there are definite parallels between the work of Marx and Darwin. Indeed, Marx thought Darwin's theories echoed his own "developmental model" to the extent he offered to dedicate part of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined because he didn't want to upset his family by endorsing an attack on religion.

The point is that attempting to apply a model that explains the origin of species to social and economic process is quite dangerous since it can be used equally well to legitimate capitalism or socialism depending on your BELIEF about the outcome of "natural selection." Revolutions, like the American one, demonstrate the wisdom of Gould's revision of Darwin if you apply it to political/economic theory. One doesn't HAVE to wait around for a mysterious process to produce a gradual change.
Agreed (sort of), but with the caveats I mentioned earlier.

However, I referenced Darwin not to make the point that socialism or capitalism IS a Darwinian evolutionary process but to use it as an analogy- social policies, norms, ideals are capable of evolving and economics is one of the most significant selective pressures exerted upon this evolution in a capitalist society. Nevertheless, we still don't have any real way of knowing how our interference with the natural economic and social processes will affect the outcome. You need look no further than US monetary policy a la Greenspan to see that even the most astute and knowledgeable of us has little if any clue how our actions affect long-term variables.

Furthermore, we are a capitalist society here, so I don't have to "legitim[ize] a capitalist ethic;" it is by definition legitimized in the USA. To take it one step further, go ahead and look at Marxist/communist/socialist models; they have pretty much "evolved" themselves into extinction. The economies of those that still survive practicing socialism are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.

And the American revolution is a poor example, because it is, in and of itself part of the evolutionary process. Ask yourself "why did it occur?" Answer- in response to "evolutionary pressures" e.g. unfair taxation, repression, etc... It was neither mandated nor government sponsored, it was a response by the economic and social model to the "selective" pressures being exerted upon it.

What I am saying is simply that if you let it alone, the natural selective forces of economics (otherwise known as good business) and social correctness (morals) will EVENTUALLY get to the "right" place. Try to force it, and you cause undesired as well as unforseen consequences (Ever hear of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?)

As for Gould, I'm surprised a Yalie would need to stoop so low as to reference a Harvard man.:)
 
Yeah, but Heissenber refers to quantum mechanics or those things that happen on a quantum scale and will not manifest themselves at larger scales such as the macroscopic world.

The American revolution was brought about by unfair taxation without representation, no freedom of religion and the fucking British came for the guns,

These are the most notable reasons for the war, but there are many others that contributed to the war as well. For example the French didn't exactly like the British and used us to help kick their asses.
 
Actually it has been well-argued and documented that the Heisenberg Principle can be extrapolated to macroscopic events. Example: news media in war.

I can't even begin to get what your point about the American revolution is. What I was saying is that as an example (as posted by musclebrains) it is very poor because it proves my point and not his. The American revolution was part of the evolutionary process and it was caused by the selective pressures of "evolution".
 
thebabydoc said:
Actually it has been well-argued and documented that the Heisenberg Principle can be extrapolated to macroscopic events. Example: news media in war.


Absolutely not. You have some seriously weird ideas.

The Uncertainty principle of Quantum Mechanics cannot be extrapolated into the macroscopic world.

I'd love to know how you apply Plancks constant to the news media...?

Exactly. You can't.

Fonz
 
Right. Whatever you say. Like I didn't just give an example just in the event that some post-stalking loser with nothing better to do than come around and start talking smack would show up.
you sure have some seriously weird ideas
Surprise, surprise, surprise! lookie what Gomer just poped his ignorant head up just to try to stroke his ego by putting someone else down?

For once, and only once I will violate my personal rules and respond to the poop-spewing, photo-stealing fairy that has just magically appeard to contribute negative energy to an otherwise decent topic.

In physics, or should I be more EXACTING, quantum physics, Heisenberg argued/explained that you cannot simultaneously know both the position and the momentum of a given object to arbitrary precision. His theory furthermore precisely quantified the imprecision. The uncertainty principle is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the actual measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. This was Heisenberg's initial explanation for the phenomena. In fact, disturbance plays no part since the principle even applies if position is measured in one copy of the system and momentum is measured in another, identical one (Bohr and Einstein's arguments).

In real life, (the "macroscopic" world if you will), the reference to Heisenberg's principle (using the analogy of his original theory wherein he erroneously thought it was the actual measurement which disturbed the outcome) implies that one's observation and reporting of an event in and of itself affects and changes the event in some way.

You may think you have a grasp on things scientific, but on things pertaining to the nuances of the reality that is life you're about as lost as an Arab in Idaho.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the topic, (which for your reference was affirmative action) why not shut up and stay out.
cupof%20stfu1.jpg
 
I simply point out the obvious flaws in your logic.

They always manage to keep me busy.

As a physicist and engineer, I will not have you pollute the meaning of a theory.

You're more than welcome to use a medical term. :)

Fonz
 
thebabydoc said:
I was referring to the social/academic implications of tenure, not the actual concept of it, which I'm sure even an English teacher could understand.
Agreed (sort of), but with the caveats I mentioned earlier.

However, I referenced Darwin not to make the point that socialism or capitalism IS a Darwinian evolutionary process but to use it as an analogy- social policies, norms, ideals are capable of evolving and economics is one of the most significant selective pressures exerted upon this evolution in a capitalist society. Nevertheless, we still don't have any real way of knowing how our interference with the natural economic and social processes will affect the outcome. You need look no further than US monetary policy a la Greenspan to see that even the most astute and knowledgeable of us has little if any clue how our actions affect long-term variables.

Furthermore, we are a capitalist society here, so I don't have to "legitim[ize] a capitalist ethic;" it is by definition legitimized in the USA. To take it one step further, go ahead and look at Marxist/communist/socialist models; they have pretty much "evolved" themselves into extinction. The economies of those that still survive practicing socialism are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.

And the American revolution is a poor example, because it is, in and of itself part of the evolutionary process. Ask yourself "why did it occur?" Answer- in response to "evolutionary pressures" e.g. unfair taxation, repression, etc... It was neither mandated nor government sponsored, it was a response by the economic and social model to the "selective" pressures being exerted upon it.

What I am saying is simply that if you let it alone, the natural selective forces of economics (otherwise known as good business) and social correctness (morals) will EVENTUALLY get to the "right" place. Try to force it, and you cause undesired as well as unforseen consequences (Ever hear of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?)

As for Gould, I'm surprised a Yalie would need to stoop so low as to reference a Harvard man.:) [/B]

As I understand you, you seem to be saying any change that moves a society towards capitalism (or whatever) is the outcome of forces that have developed over time. (Very Marxian.) You could probably say the same thing about the fall of the Berlin wall, yet the fact is that it was totally unexpected, represented the kind of change at the social level that Gould talks about at the biological level. I mean, really, the sudden development of a new species requires the pre-existence of another but, as Gould demonstrated, it is not necessarily the result of natural selection. A sudden defect in a species can, by the same principle, cause its extinction quite apart from competition. Similarly, the idea that humanity naturally evolves is unsupported by historical fact.

The fact that we are a capitalist society does not make economic predation the outcome of "natural selection." Marx's whole point was that the outcome of dialectical materialism is socialism. Yes, I agree that it was in practice misguided and pure socialism is a utopic pipedream. However, those societies that have grafted socialism and capitalism together are in no danger of extinction.

We will very soon arrive in this country at the point where people will no longer tolerate the way health care increasingly becomes a privilege of the well-to-do. (As if HMOs aren't a kind of socialism themselves.) Perhaps when the $75 billion folly of Iraq is realized, people will begin to wonder how we can afford to "grant democracy" to a tribal nation but not have the money to fund health care. America is the last holdout among the industrial nations and it's delusional to say our economy is the world's strongest. Have you checked out the euro lately?

My partner did Harvard, so I've learned to cope.
 
chesty said:
Yeah, but Heissenber refers to quantum mechanics or those things that happen on a quantum scale and will not manifest themselves at larger scales such as the macroscopic world.

The American revolution was brought about by unfair taxation without representation, no freedom of religion and the fucking British came for the guns,

These are the most notable reasons for the war, but there are many others that contributed to the war as well. For example the French didn't exactly like the British and used us to help kick their asses.

Yep. It's totally specious to apply quantum mechanics to macro-phenomena.
 
thebabydoc said:
Actually it has been well-argued and documented that the Heisenberg Principle can be extrapolated to macroscopic events. Example: news media in war.


This is news to me. Can you site some of the documentation? I'm very curious about this.
 
musclebrains said:
As I understand you, you seem to be saying any change that moves a society towards capitalism (or whatever) is the outcome of forces that have developed over time. (Very Marxian.) You could probably say the same thing about the fall of the Berlin wall, yet the fact is that it was totally unexpected, represented the kind of change at the social level that Gould talks about at the biological level. I mean, really, the sudden development of a new species requires the pre-existence of another but, as Gould demonstrated, it is not necessarily the result of natural selection. A sudden defect in a species can, by the same principle, cause its extinction quite apart from competition.
Totally agree except that you are proposing that Marxism, socialism, and communism may have collapsed due to a "sudden defect" while facts and reality suggest more that they collapsed because they finally reached a critical mass where those systems could no longer support themselves. Or would you rather classify it as a mass extinction event? World economics (you need look no further than France for an example) simply does not support pure socialism because economically it is an upside-down pyramid- the few at the bottom earning income support the entire pyramid. It's basically a variation on the pyramid scheme. Furthermore, it economically removes incentives to succeed, evolve, improve efficiency, invent new technologies, etc.. because there are no rewards to the individuals responsible for those advances.

As for your health care puzzle, we still have the best health care system on the planet bar none. Essentially everybody gets the highest levels of acute care, and the managed care model is truly an example of socialism in action and proves the failure of socialism in medicine. "Less is more" does not work and you cannot ration medical care. For that you need look no further than Canada. Why do their people come here when they need treatment? Because their system guarantees a low level (maintenance) heath care to everyone, but high-level, advanced, acute health care is severely rationed. And let's not even start on the tax system that supports that rapidly failing system. The only failure of our medical system is the American mentality that everyone expects the best for nothing which also allows for the existance of the preposterous tort system that exists in medicine. If you want to stop having to ration health care or sell it to those who can pay for it, stop wasting 25% of the dollars on something that has nothing to do with taking care of the health of our people.

The fact that we are a capitalist society does not make economic predation the outcome of "natural selection." Marx's whole point was that the outcome of dialectical materialism is socialism.
Clearly (or do you not watch Fox news?) Marx was WRONG. The fact that we are the most successful nation on the face of the planet in every single variable you might chose to examine shows that capitalism is (at present) top of the food chain, the pinnacle of economic evolution. (By the way, "economic predation" has to be one of the most bogus and slanted terms I have ever heard used to describe capitalism. Sort of like "HMO" describing good medicine.)

I agree that it was in practice misguided and pure socialism is a utopic pipedream.
That's the first thing you've said that I think everyone will agree on.
However, those societies that have grafted socialism and capitalism together are in no danger of extinction.
If it makes you feel better to preserve socialism by "grafting" it with capitalism, ok. But no matter what you call it, it is still capitalism. Socialism cannot exist without capitalism because nothing would exist to pay for it. It could be argued that many aspects of our system embrace "socialist" principles- medicaid, social security, welfare to name a few.
When you overburden the capitalist part of any "socialist economy", it collapses (Germany, USSR). The only things keeping "pure" socialist/communist regiemes in power are essentialy dictatorial governments or such severe poverty and mind control that capitalism doesn't even have a seed with which to grow (North Korea). Let's see where China and Russia go in the next decade, my bet is that you'll be the one with egg on your face if you haven't abandoned your failed socialist ideals by then. But what do I know? Tenure, like affirmative action allows people to continue holding on to antiquated and obsolete beliefs without consequences long after reality has passed them by.

We will very soon arrive in this country at the point where people will no longer tolerate the way health care increasingly becomes a privilege of the well-to-do. (As if HMOs aren't a kind of socialism themselves.)
Yep, and then we will shoot all the lawyers, pass tort reform legislation, and remove HMO's which systematically siphon off 25% of the money in the system.
Perhaps when the $75 billion folly of Iraq is realized, people will begin to wonder how we can afford to "grant democracy" to a tribal nation but not have the money to fund health care. America is the last holdout among the industrial nations and it's delusional to say our economy is the world's strongest. Have you checked out the euro lately?
You can't be serious. Name one economy that is as sound as ours, despite the fact that we support half of the world's economies with negative trade balances and handouts? The key word is "lately". Give it a chance to collapse, especially with the drain of $20 billion Iraqi dollars and $120 Billion in Iraqi debt previously going to France and Germany now null and void. Last time I checked, the Euro has been around for like 2 years, the dollar for more than 200. And its value against the dollar has been steadily declining since its inception. Evolution doesn't take place overnight, you know.
 
I am a physicist and an engineer as well. You cannot apply the quantum laws to the macroscopic world.

Cite me a well documented proven instance where the Heissenberg uncertainty principal has been successfully applied to the macroscopic world.

As for the revolutionary war I simply pointed out that there was more going on than what you stated.

If you really want to apply quantum physics to the real world try Schroedinger's Cat Gedunken about the collapse of the wave function and how it applies to the state of existance something.
 
chesty said:
I am a physicist and an engineer as well. You cannot apply the quantum laws to the macroscopic world.

Cite me a well documented proven instance where the Heissenberg uncertainty principal has been successfully applied to the macroscopic world.

As for the revolutionary war I simply pointed out that there was more going on than what you stated.

If you really want to apply quantum physics to the real world try Schroedinger's Cat Gedunken about the collapse of the wave function and how it applies to the state of existance something.

You're preaching to the choir.

The probability of babydoc admittting he was wrong ranks right up there with me winning the lottery.

Fonz
 
thebabydoc said:
. Last time I checked, the Euro has been around for like 2 years, the dollar for more than 200. And its value against the dollar has been steadily declining since its inception. Evolution doesn't take place overnight, you know. [/B]

Um, check again.
 
OK, it seems that the official final conversion to the Eurodollar took place Jan 1, 2002 so I'm correct on that account. Although the idea has been around since the 1970's when Nixon decided enough of the European community linking their currency to the US dollar which was backed by our gold reserves (unlike their currencies), the official euro conversion took place less than 18 months ago. If we consider the transition period, here are some rates:

Jan 1, 1999: $1 US would get you 0.85 Euros
Jan 1, 2000: $1 US would get you 0.99 Euros
Jan 1, 2001: $1 US would get you 1.11 Euros
Jan 1, 2002: $1 US would get you 1.17 Euros
Jan 1, 2003: $1 US would get you 0.96 Euros
today: $1 US gets you 0.92 Euros

So although I might not be quite correct over the past 4-6 months, (while we've been waging a $75 billion-dollar war) during which time the dollar has dropped some 10%, the overall trend prior to this was 10% per year in favor of the dollar.

I stand by my statement. Evolution doesn't occur overnight, and you'll find that one of the weaknesses in the Euro model is that individual countries cannot control monetary policy to make up for economic conditions, especially recessions and unemployment. They cannot individually adjust exchange rates, interest rates, or significantly change government spending, the primary tools for controlling any economy. Let's just wait and see what France and Germany do for the Euro and Euroland over the next couple of years...

As for Heisenberg. I guess "extrapolation" was the wrong word; "analogous" is more like what I was looking for. The "analogy" I gave is of the news media in this war- their reporting of the events and being part of the events (including the death of reporters) affected the way the world saw the war and in turn the support for the war as well as possibly the Iraqi people's acceptance or rejection of coalition forces. But if it will make you happy, it looks like literally I overstated that point from way back in my memory and looks like I was wrong on that one. :bawling:

Will that help all of you get back to the original topic or is it just that you cannot find any viable, defensible support for Affirmative Action?

originally posted by fonz
The probability of babydoc admittting he was wrong ranks right up there with me winning the lottery.
or of you ever graduating and getting a job in the real world.
 
babydod will never cease to amaze me. :chesty:

I guess fonz just won the lottery! :)
 
thebabydoc said:
OK, it seems that the official final conversion to the Eurodollar took place Jan 1, 2002 so I'm correct on that account. Although the idea has been around since the 1970's when Nixon decided enough of the European community linking their currency to the US dollar which was backed by our gold reserves (unlike their currencies), the official euro conversion took place less than 18 months ago. If we consider the transition period, here are some rates:

Jan 1, 1999: $1 US would get you 0.85 Euros
Jan 1, 2000: $1 US would get you 0.99 Euros
Jan 1, 2001: $1 US would get you 1.11 Euros
Jan 1, 2002: $1 US would get you 1.17 Euros
Jan 1, 2003: $1 US would get you 0.96 Euros
today: $1 US gets you 0.92 Euros

So although I might not be quite correct over the past 4-6 months, (while we've been waging a $75 billion-dollar war) during which time the dollar has dropped some 10%, the overall trend prior to this was 10% per year in favor of the dollar.

I stand by my statement. Evolution doesn't occur overnight, and you'll find that one of the weaknesses in the Euro model is that individual countries cannot control monetary policy to make up for economic conditions, especially recessions and unemployment. They cannot individually adjust exchange rates, interest rates, or significantly change government spending, the primary tools for controlling any economy. Let's just wait and see what France and Germany do for the Euro and Euroland over the next couple of years...

As for Heisenberg. I guess "extrapolation" was the wrong word; "analogous" is more like what I was looking for. The "analogy" I gave is of the news media in this war- their reporting of the events and being part of the events (including the death of reporters) affected the way the world saw the war and in turn the support for the war as well as possibly the Iraqi people's acceptance or rejection of coalition forces. But if it will make you happy, it looks like literally I overstated that point from way back in my memory and looks like I was wrong on that one. :bawling:

Will that help all of you get back to the original topic or is it just that you cannot find any viable, defensible support for Affirmative Action?

or of you ever graduating and getting a job in the real world. [/B]

I can only repeat myself. Evolution is slow but it is not inevitable. The sudden shifts, whether the falling of the Berlin wall or the apperarance of a new species, certainly FOLLOW years but they are not necessarily the result of a process of natural selection. Man is as capable of falling back as moving forward at any given moment. He has will.

There is no meta-process driving us forward. That's proven to be true with Marxism and capitalism, both of which take "evolutionary" stances and both of which exhibit powerful failures operating alone. It is only belief based on the virtue of accumulating wealth that allows you to call capitalism superior to marxism in any EVENTUAL sense. Please notice, I said EVENTUAL. We are talking about the likely outcomes over time. In any case, you can't propose an evolutionary argument and then say that the conclusion of this process is capitalism, since evolution by nature is open-ended.

From the standpoint of belief, the European economies are more successful because they value the community as much as the individual. IT would certainly be correct that they don't cultivate individual wealth. But the virtue of that is purely founded on belief.

YOu mentioned China disparagingly in another post. You might want to do some reading about that claim too. Many economists and scholars are looking at it as emerging as the next great world power as America begins its decline.

You would be better off to cite Kuhn's work than Heisenberg's.

The performance of the Euro speaks for itself. It's a reflection of the performance of the dollar, whose value is in decline, as our economy weakens.

The defense of affirmative action will be unacceptable to you because of my basic premises about what we owe one another as human beings. In a sense, affirmative action, like the civil rights bill, represents the exercise of the will, a revolution of sorts, that moves us more quickly than any slow meta-process you call evolutionary, which I presume is a process of consensus. I certainly don't dispute that AA is problematic. The question for me, as -- brrrrrr -- a liberal, is whether it has caused more harm or good. I think it would be VERY hard to demonstrate that it has caused more harm. And I would be very interested to hear of a plan that would have been as effectively reparative and caused fewer poor pitiful qualified white men to be overlooked.
 
Last edited:
As for China, my reference was not disparaging of present-day China, I was using it as a positive example of the fact that its evolution is leading it to be
1. Capitalistic and
2. A superpower.
I am totally in agreement with this. China is another example of the FAILURE/extinction of that dinosaur of communism/socialism, now being replaced, (albeit slowly) by capitalism.

So you're rooting for America's decline? Don't hold your breath. One of the things I mentioned as a risk/failure of the Euro is the inability of individual countries to control their economies through fiscal policies. America, on the other hand, will always have this ability. The Europeans are truly too insular to ever be able to meld into one great country with one economy (which is what is necessary for the concept of the Euro to fully function). Thus it is destined to fail long before America begins the "inevitable" decline of which you speak.
originally posted by msb
There is no meta-process driving us forward. That's proven to be true with Marxism and capitalism, both of which take "evolutionary" stances and both of which exhibit powerful failures operating alone. It is only belief based on the virtue of accumulating wealth that allows you to call capitalism superior to marxism in any EVENTUAL sense. Please notice, I said EVENTUAL. We are talking about the likely outcomes over time. In any case, you can't propose an evolutionary argument and then say that the conclusion of this process is capitalism, since evolution by nature is open-ended.
I don't know how to argue this other than to say that this is your (mistaken) interpretation of the facts. Where has capitalism failed? Of course you'd like to say "alone" because one of the concepts of capitalism requires a certain degree of social responsibility. The world needs ditch-diggers too, you know. If you ignore the required social good of capitalism, it makes it easy for you to expound on its pure "evil and greed".

I would use your same facts to prove that there is a "meta-process driving us forward," and this process is what has caused Marxism/socialism/communism to fail in virtually every attempt and capitalism to flourish. As for my belief "based on accumulating wealth," that is bogus. The wealthier the economy as a whole is, the better off the entire country/society is. In our capitalist system, even the poorest of the poor are better off than the average Joe in all the Marxist systems to date. And of course every evolutionary process has a conclusion- the conclusion is at the PRESENT point in time. Of course it will continue to evolve, and if we knew where it was going to end up wouldn't we just start off there? The whole point is that at present, evolution has taken us to a world where capitalist societies are "top dog" and, consistently and unequivocally, Marxist/socialist/communist regimes continue to fail. Just like the conspiracy theorists on this board, you continue to look for an explanation OTHER than the one directly in front of you (see Occam's [Ockham's] razor- thank you, Fonz).

The only danger we have of the decline of which you speak is if we continue to tax our economy with ever-increasing socialistic programs. If you haven't noticed, that is the primary rise in expenditures in this country over the past 50+ years. (and don't start bitching about the increase in military expenditures or I'll open up a can of trickle-down economics and employment numbers on your ass :) )

And yes, I completely disagree with your view of AA, because all we "owe" one another as human beings is the right to live in peace. My success does not entitle you or anyone else to tell me how to share it by saying that I earned it for some "unfair" reason. Remember, "fairness" is a moral concept and it is arrogant to think that your morals are any more correct than mine because mine do not espouse socialists beliefs.
 
thebabydoc said:
As for China, my reference was not disparaging of present-day China, I was using it as a positive example of the fact that its evolution is leading it to be
1. Capitalistic and
2. A superpower.
I am totally in agreement with this. China is another example of the FAILURE/extinction of that dinosaur of communism/socialism, now being replaced, (albeit slowly) by capitalism.

So you're rooting for America's decline? Don't hold your breath. One of the things I mentioned as a risk/failure of the Euro is the inability of individual countries to control their economies through fiscal policies. America, on the other hand, will always have this ability. The Europeans are truly too insular to ever be able to meld into one great country with one economy (which is what is necessary for the concept of the Euro to fully function). Thus it is destined to fail long before America begins the "inevitable" decline of which you speak.
I don't know how to argue this other than to say that this is your (mistaken) interpretation of the facts. Where has capitalism failed? Of course you'd like to say "alone" because one of the concepts of capitalism requires a certain degree of social responsibility. The world needs ditch-diggers too, you know. If you ignore the required social good of capitalism, it makes it easy for you to expound on its pure "evil and greed".

I would use your same facts to prove that there is a "meta-process driving us forward," and this process is what has caused Marxism/socialism/communism to fail in virtually every attempt and capitalism to flourish. As for my belief "based on accumulating wealth," that is bogus. The wealthier the economy as a whole is, the better off the entire country/society is. In our capitalist system, even the poorest of the poor are better off than the average Joe in all the Marxist systems to date. And of course every evolutionary process has a conclusion- the conclusion is at the PRESENT point in time. Of course it will continue to evolve, and if we knew where it was going to end up wouldn't we just start off there? The whole point is that at present, evolution has taken us to a world where capitalist societies are "top dog" and, consistently and unequivocally, Marxist/socialist/communist regimes continue to fail. Just like the conspiracy theorists on this board, you continue to look for an explanation OTHER than the one directly in front of you (see Occam's [Ockham's] razor- thank you, Fonz).

The only danger we have of the decline of which you speak is if we continue to tax our economy with ever-increasing socialistic programs. If you haven't noticed, that is the primary rise in expenditures in this country over the past 50+ years. (and don't start bitching about the increase in military expenditures or I'll open up a can of trickle-down economics and employment numbers on your ass :) )

And yes, I completely disagree with your view of AA, because all we "owe" one another as human beings is the right to live in peace. My success does not entitle you or anyone else to tell me how to share it by saying that I earned it for some "unfair" reason. Remember, "fairness" is a moral concept and it is arrogant to think that your morals are any more correct than mine because mine do not espouse socialists beliefs. [/B]

Putting aside the transparency of your repeated allusions to my "socialism" and "rooting for decline" (the usual stereotyping to which people who question certain American values are subjected -- you are with us or agin us), what you express in the last graf is pure belief which many people just don't share. I don't remember saying you earned your wealth "unfairly." If I did,you might call me a socialist. What I'm differing about is the extent to which anyone gets to cultivate and retain wealth in particular contexts. This is not "un-American." For exampole, we have an inheritance tax on the super-rich to control the centralization of wealth.

And a growing number of Americans do not think it's fair, no, for a tiny minority of a society to control the great majority of the wealth and at the same time tell millions of their fellow citizens that it's just too bad about their not being able to afford insurance and thus not have access to decent health care. This is belief on my part. I share that belief with many Europeans. And I might add that I've been in that situation before. I was in a medical emergency and a hospital, after stabilizing me, refused to treat me because I was uninsured. I was a pauper at the time, a student living off next to nothing. My parents had to show up and write them a $10,000 check before they'd admit me. A few years ago I was in Europe and had another medical emergency. IT involved a visit to an emergency room, an overnight stay, and a visit to a specialist the following day. My total bill? $35. Of course my insurance company refused to pay that.

You made the point earlier that Canadians come to this country for health care. I'm willing to bet those are well-to-do Canadians, not the average person. I've known many, many foreign residents here who have gone home for medical care because they could not afford it here. The medical establishment engages in a lot of chest-beating about the quality of American medical care but the fact is that millions of AMericans would rather have mediocre health care than none. I seriously question if the average doctor has any idea of how many people have to forego medical care in this country. (And it's no different in clinical psychology.)

This whole business about the superior American standard of living is incredibly inflated. The last Mercer survey of quality of life placed Zurich at the top, followed by Vienna and Vancouver. Nine American cities are in the list of 50, and they are near the bottom. And they use NYC as the base with a score of 100. Further, Mercer's evaulations are by BUSINESS people. You are comparing American quality of life to the third-world's.

The immigrants who come to this country are mainly refugees from third-world economies. They -- who have become the ditch diggers you are correct to say we require -- want our money, yes, and they typically work two jobs to realize the American dream but that doesn't mean they want to live here. The hubris of assuming the entire world wants to live like Americans will be our downfall. We are seeing that in Iraq now. I suggest you start asking immigrants who are here to work and send money back home if they are here because they like the quality of life or the money.

I can't seem to make myself understood about this evolution thing. Evolution is open ended. You don't get to use an argument about evolution and then assert that the present system is necessarily the best. The most you can say is that at this moment it exercises the most power. In my view, which considers something more than accumulation of wealth and power, those systems that graft socialism and capitalism together are most successful and, while you like to call them capitalist anyway, you call my advocacy socialist out the other side of your mouth. They are neither capitalist nor socialist. They are something different and they may well represent America's future.
 
musclebrains said:


You made the point earlier that Canadians come to this country for health care. I'm willing to bet those are well-to-do Canadians, not the average person. I've known many, many foreign residents here who have gone home for medical care because they could not afford it here. The medical establishment engages in a lot of chest-beating about the quality of American medical care but the fact is that millions of AMericans would rather have mediocre health care than none. I seriously question if the average doctor has any idea of how many people have to forego medical care in this country. (And it's no different in clinical psychology.)

This whole business about the superior American standard of living is incredibly inflated. The last Mercer survey of quality of life placed Zurich at the top, followed by Vienna and Vancouver. Nine American cities are in the list of 50, and they are near the bottom. And they use NYC as the base with a score of 100. Further, Mercer's evaulations are by BUSINESS people. You are comparing American quality of life to the third-world's.

Have to agree with this.

Having lived in Canada, the US, and a great many european countries..........the one country that truly stood out in as far as standard of living was concerned was Canada.

The US has some very good medical specialists, but for the most part the medical field in the US is grossly over-adulated in regards to care. I have received a lot better care in Canada and the UK, then I have in the US. It was really surprising to me how expensive medical care really is in the US.

The only real advantage the US offers is that its at the forefront of scientific research and academia. Most likely due to the fact it has ample funding.

Fonz
 
Canada's medical care is not all that good. I lived there and saw doctors give women breast implants at the expense of the tax payer, knowingly give her the wrong size and have to redo the surgery 3 times.

Taxation in that country is so bad that you have to incorporate to hide/shelter your income from the gov't or else end up paying over 50% in taxes. That is just bullshit. It is my money, I earned it and the fucking gov't doesn't have a right to it. They didn't earn it. They just want to steal it. If medical care was so freakin great in Canada, then the wealthy wouldn't come here. In fact, they do come here and in a lot of instances it is to save their life because if they waited their turn for a triple by-pass or a tumor surgery, etc. They would die before their turn, unless of course they were part of the elite of Canada.
 
chesty said:
If medical care was so freakin great in Canada, then the wealthy wouldn't come here. In fact, they do come here and in a lot of instances it is to save their life because if they waited their turn for a triple by-pass or a tumor surgery, etc. They would die before their turn, unless of course they were part of the elite of Canada.

Then that would put them in exactly the same position millions of Americans are in.

You won't get an argument from me that money buys health care.
 
That is my point. While I don't like paying 10k for an emergency to save my kids life, the free market does force the doctors to be more skilled than those receiving gov't wages.

Also, it is the sue happy nature of this country that forces things like medical mal practice insurance to cost a doctor upwards of 1 million a year in premiums thus causing him to raise the price he charges for services to the point where it costs 100 dollars for a 10 minutes office visit.
 
I am a physician. I have one of the top 3 malpractice rates (because of my specialty), I have never been sued.

I have trained at or worked at University Hospitals in New York, Miami, Texas, and Phoenix. Everyone gets medical care. Everyone gets "the best" medical care available. The law is that they have to treat you and stabilize you. If they threatened to send you (musclebrains) home without a prepayment, it's because you were ok (stable).

The ironic part is that the poor and indigent (those that you care so much about) get better medical care for free than the working class. Now that is the problem with healthcare in this country. But that is a direct result of government "social" programs aimed to redistribute wealth. If you could keep your tax dollars to pay for your health care rather than that of some 2 pack-a-day, forty-year smoker with emphysema and lung cancer, wouldn't you?

Please, now go ahead and tell me how we should be taking it from the 1% of the poulation that make 90% of the income. I believe that's what Klinton referred to as a "fair share." As I noted previously, everyone has their different idea of what "fair" is.

While I agree with what you say in that most would claim to prefer mediocre care to none, the facts are that everyone in this country expects "the best" whether or not they're paying for it. Believe me. I care for these patients.

Here is where the liberal catch-22 comes in: it is doubtful that those with the ability to pay for better-than-mediocre care would settle for mediocre care. And of course, if better-than-mediocre care existed then everyone would be entitled to it according to the liberal mantra. A concept not unlike the theory behind affirmative action.

As for calling you a socialist. I believe you are one. If it quacks like a duck... Your questioning "the extent to which anyone gets to cultivate and retain wealth in particular contexts" implies that YOU believe it is somehow the wealthy's DUTY to support others. What do you think jobs are? Whose right is it to decide what amount of wealth I get to "cultivate and retain???" It seems that no matter what the wealthy or even the plain employed Joe does, it is never enough for the whining liberal masses in this country.
And a growing number of Americans do not think it's fair, no, for a tiny minority of a society to control the great majority of the wealth and at the same time tell millions of their fellow citizens that it's just too bad about their not being able to afford insurance and thus not have access to decent health care. This is belief on my part. I share that belief with many Europeans.
Like a "growing number" of heterosexuals have AIDS. This is nothing but propaganda from the liberal media who doesn't deem it necessary to show what they do not consider to be the mainstream view. News flash, buddy- the MAJORITY of hardworking Americans DO NOT believe that it is "unfair." In fact, they work and strive to reach that level of wealth. And they are sick and tired of taxes and social programs which don't benefit them and keep them down. This is the Democrats' legacy to every American: taxation and increased government spending in the form of bigger and better social programs. Programs which produce no jobs, produce no advances in science, medicine, industry, produce no increased spending or tax revenues but merely serve to redistribute wealth in a manner that some liberal f%ck has determined is "fair" in the interest of buying the vote of the unemployed.

And you wanna talk about irony? I pay the taxes and then am asked to provide the free medical care. Talk about double taxation! Anyone want to be a doctor?

As for Europe, who gives a shit what Europeans think? The MAJORITY of Americans hate Europeans, especially the Germans and the French, as much as they purport to hate us. Only we don't seek to emulate them or the socialist principles on which their failing economies are based.

BTW, look for the inheritance tax to be a thing of the past, the amount which is passable without taxation has been steadily increasing and it is CLEARLY another example of double taxation. I don't even want to begin to explain the sheer stupidity of this tax and the damage which it causes for government greed.
 
Last edited:
thebabydoc said:
I am a physician. I have one of the top 3 malpractice rates (because of my specialty), I have never been sued.

I have trained at or worked at University Hospitals in New York, Miami, Texas, and Phoenix. Everyone gets medical care. Everyone gets "the best" medical care available. The law is that they have to treat you and stabilize you. If they threatened to send you (musclebrains) home without a prepayment, it's because you were ok (stable).

The ironic part is that the poor and indigent (those that you care so much about) get better medical care for free than the working class. Now that is the problem with healthcare in this country. But that is a direct result of government "social" programs aimed to redistribute wealth. If you could keep your tax dollars to pay for your health care rather than that of some 2 pack-a-day, forty-year smoker with emphysema and lung cancer, wouldn't you?

Please, now go ahead and tell me how we should be taking it from the 1% of the poulation that make 90% of the income. I believe that's what Klinton referred to as a "fair share." As I noted previously, everyone has their different idea of what "fair" is.

While I agree with what you say in that most would claim to prefer mediocre care to none, the facts are that everyone in this country expects "the best" whether or not they're paying for it. Believe me. I care for these patients.

Here is where the liberal catch-22 comes in: it is doubtful that those with the ability to pay for better-than-mediocre care would settle for mediocre care. And of course, if better-than-mediocre care existed then everyone would be entitled to it according to the liberal mantra. A concept not unlike the theory behind affirmative action.

As for calling you a socialist. I believe you are one. If it quacks like a duck... Your questioning "the extent to which anyone gets to cultivate and retain wealth in particular contexts" implies that YOU believe it is somehow the wealthy's DUTY to support others. What do you think jobs are? Whose right is it to decide what amount of wealth I get to "cultivate and retain???" It seems that no matter what the wealthy or even the plain employed Joe does, it is never enough for the whining liberal masses in this country.
Like a "growing number" of heterosexuals have AIDS. This is nothing but propaganda from the liberal media who doesn't deem it necessary to show what they do not consider to be the mainstream view. News flash, buddy- the MAJORITY of hardworking Americans DO NOT believe that it is "unfair." In fact, they work and strive to reach that level of wealth. And they are sick and tired of taxes and social programs which don't benefit them and keep them down. This is the Democrats' legacy to every American: taxation and increased government spending in the form of bigger and better social programs. Programs which produce no jobs, produce no advances in science, medicine, industry, produce no increased spending or tax revenues but merely serve to redistribute wealth in a manner that some liberal f%ck has determined is "fair" in the interest of buying the vote of the unemployed.

And you wanna talk about irony? I pay the taxes and then am asked to provide the free medical care. Talk about double taxation! Anyone want to be a doctor?

As for Europe, who gives a shit what Europeans think? The MAJORITY of Americans hate Europeans, especially the Germans and the French, as much as they purport to hate us. Only we don't seek to emulate them or the socialist principles on which their failing economies are based.

BTW, look for the inheritance tax to be a thing of the past, the amount which is passable without taxation has been steadily increasing and it is CLEARLY another example of double taxation. I don't even want to begin to explain the sheer stupidity of this tax and the damage which it causes for government greed. [/B]

No, I wasn't okay. I said that they stabilized me. But I was far from well. They just wanted me to go...to another hospital....somewhere else....please. They couldn't even diagnose me. Turned out I had scarlet fever. Perhaps this happens more often than you realize?

I agree that the indigent have access to more low-cost care than the middle class does. But that's the outcome of making health care dependent upon wealth. I like the way you separate the poor from the working class, by the way. I suspect you know the great majority of men and women in this country receiving pulbic assistance work as hard as you do.

Saying people should keep their tax dollars to pay for their health care is one of those things conservatives propose because it makes paper sense but I suspect you know that it would never fly in lived experience. Consider the ridiculous inflation of health care costs. How MUCH of one's former tax dollars does one put aside for health care this year and next year? And what happens to actuarial science? Our insurance rates aren't based just on our own condition but on the community's health and this certainly benefits the health care delivery system. (Insurance companies already grant nonsmokers a benefit. In fact, my insurance rate already pays for the care of someone else.) You are saying it would be more practical and benefit more people to let them keep their tax dollars to pay for health care than to guarantee health care? Well, yes, invoke Hillary's name: it's pretty easy to see who will benefit most from that plan, isn't it? Who cares if Clinton made the same observation? A regressive medical non-tax. I suspect you already know how well medical escrow accounts work, so please don't go there.

I agree that people who could afford better than usual medical care would insist upon it, because of the nature of American society at this point. That's why I would not advocate full nationalization of the health care industry. The fact that many Americans believe it is appropriate to make health care a privilege dependent on one's personal economy isn't a reason to continue the system wholesale -- not any more than it was appropriate to continue Jim Crow when the majority of Americans favored it.

Actually, you are wrong about your assessment of the average American's attitude toward taxation and public benefits. In recent polls Americans overwhelmingly opposed Bush's tax cut plan and said they prefer maintaining the present level of taxation if cutting it means sacrificing domestic programs. Most Americans DO believe they have an obligation to other citizens. Our quality of life should not be something limited to the quality of home we live in.

Calling a person who favors the use of public taxation to benefit the community a "socialist" is just plain silly. By your def, anyone who supports the current method of taxation is a socialist. If you are going to practice taxation, obviously the rich are going to pay more because they suffer less from being taxed. Well, it's obvious unless you're Dubya and want to make dividend income nontaxable -- a proposal that nearly every American polled opposes and that makes absolutely no sense in the middle of a recession. The idea that the further concentration of wealth in the hands of the one percent will stimulate the economy and create jobs is ludicrous, as we already know from our experience with Reagan. Not a single serious economic authority has supported that idea.

I don't like paying taxes either and I pay as little as I can, but I hardly think my acknowledgement of their necessity makes me a socialist. Well, if I'm a socialist, you're a xenophobic oligarch living in the era of the Monroe Doctrine. Oh, well, it's an other label to add to my CV.
:rolleyes:

Oh, my partner is head of a branch of HIV study at CDC. AIDS is most certainly increasing among heterosexuals. However, the media did overblow this fact in the past -- as they are overblowing SARS now. I don't see much of that with AIDS these days though. And I guess the fact that he works for an agency involved in world health makes him a socialist too.
 
Last edited:
All valid points but we will continue to share dichotomous views of the very same facts.

And please don't point to "polls;" we all know that they are completely bised by the wording and who's conducting them. Otherwise you'd still have us believing that Gore should be in the White House and Hussein should still be torturing his people and building chemical and biological weapons.

And a homosexual working for any agency involved in the study of HIV doesn't make one a socialist; it makes one a self-preservationist. NOW THAT's just plain silly.:rolleyes:
 
thebabydoc said:
All valid points but we will continue to share dichotomous views of the very same facts.

And please don't point to "polls;" we all know that they are completely bised by the wording and who's conducting them. Otherwise you'd still have us believing that Gore should be in the White House and Hussein should still be torturing his people and building chemical and biological weapons.

And a homosexual working for any agency involved in the study of HIV doesn't make one a socialist; it makes one a self-preservationist. NOW THAT's just plain silly.:rolleyes:

I used the polls because you yourself claim to speak for the majority of "working class" Americans. Yes, I trust polls more than yours or my anecdotal experience and personal opinions. However, I agreed they are corrupted by, um, Heisenberg.

Actually, no studies of HIV among gay men were permitted by the CDC under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Those were not authorized until Clinton and thus many of the outcomes are just being published. This is part of the reason AIDS became represented as significantly threatening straight people. Our beloved Republican presidents would not authorize study -- REagan wouldn't even mention the disease -- until it seemed to imperil more than a despised minority. Even then, when funds were authorized for study, studies of the community suffering the disease most, gay men, were prohibited, and the CDC had to create a new language with terms like "men who have sex with men."

My partner designed the first study of HIV among gay men. Of course -- talk about your quota systems -- the higher-ups converted it into a study of young gay minority men.
 
musclebrains said:


Probably because the redoubtable Dr. Adams, a criminal justice professor, has already made quite a career of also attacking feminists, abortion rights activists and gays. He is a laughing stock in the academy. Subsuming all efforts to maintain diversity in the academy under the terrifying rubric of "identity politics," he presents a highly simplistic argument against affirmative action and diversity protections that just so happens to oppose the pariahs of American society: women, queers and black people.

He is the laughing stock because he disagrees with the above special interest irrationalists? Sounds reasonable to me.

"Maintain diversity"...this is a good one.

Can you show us examples where he states "women, queers and black people" or is this just the way you wish to present it to attempt to discredit his opinion?

It is most amusing that he uses his position of tenure -- a TRULY antiquated system by which time and time only confers privileges -- to oppose the encouragement of diversity, privilege of a sort, through a different set of rules.

I assume people realize this is pure satire. It's Professor Adams recent column for the American Family Association website, where he is a regular contributor. You know the AFA. They're the lovely promoters of family values who organized the boycott of Disney for its promotion of the homosexual agenda. They are also the folks who generally want to DIVERSIFY the public schools by introducing god back into the classroom, to say nothing of government generally. The latter is through lawsuits filed by their Center for Law and Policy, whose mission statement is, basically, an advocacy of Biblical law.

Do these groups not have the right to boycott? Is this only the right of groups such as the NAACP, CORE, or the Rainbow Coalition? I have never heard you bitch about them. I may disagree with both sides on their issues, but it is their right.

Like most loony right wingers, Adams and his AFA cronies, in short, don't merely oppose legislated diversity and affirmative action out of some phony defense of the individual's autonomy. Their actual agenda is to install Jesus as the primary authority in U.S. government and to control the bodies of those they consider sinful.

This sounds very much like the looney left, who wish to control the bodies of people through "healthy" food regulations, smoking laws, UV protection regulations that have occured in other countries, SUV hatred, etc. They simply substituted "Jesus" with "the State".
 
Dial_tone said:


Assuming word gets out, that's true from a customer standpoint. Employees tend to keep quiet about those types of things for fear of losing their jobs. Example, my gf (who's white) used to work at Wyle Laboratories. Once someone put a black doll with a noose around it's neck on her desk. Someone's idea of a joke. She endured that type of treatment for months if not years (FROM THE HR DEPT. NO LESS). Other people knew about it. Everybody, including her, kept quiet as to not end up on the street.

She chose not to utilize her freedom. Being free carries consequences, which she felt were not worth upholding her rights. Only she has the responsibility to fight for her convictions, not the other members of her business.

Too many think that employees are "controlled" or "owned" by their employers, a classic Marxian concept, and thus think that they have no recourse but to accept the standards of their job. You are in a contract with your employer and when you feel that the contract has been breached, you have to take necessary actions, and accept the consequences of your actions.

There are other jobs in this world, she simply did not want to lose the security of her paycheck.
 
musclebrains said:
And, geez, the whole business about natural selection in evolutionary theory has been quite revised by many (see Gould's "punctuated" theory.). Even if you still buy Darwin's original idea, it doesn't legitmate a capitalist ethic any more than it does Marxism, although there are definite parallels between the work of Marx and Darwin. Indeed, Marx thought Darwin's theories echoed his own "developmental model" to the extent he offered to dedicate part of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined because he didn't want to upset his family by endorsing an attack on religion.

Marx favored Darwin's idea of evolution, because it fit with his concept of "structuralism", which stated that nature and not man controls the outcome of his life. His writtings show the idea that he believed that the "bourgousie" were somehow naturally born as business owners, which in Marxism connotes "theif", "oppressor", "exploiter", while the "proletariat" is by nature a worker, nothing more than a drone. He denied the reality that businesses are not constructs of nature, but of men, and that man is the ultimate arbiter of his life.

The point is that attempting to apply a model that explains the origin of species to social and economic process is quite dangerous since it can be used equally well to legitimate capitalism or socialism depending on your BELIEF about the outcome of "natural selection." Revolutions, like the American one, demonstrate the wisdom of Gould's revision of Darwin if you apply it to political/economic theory. One doesn't HAVE to wait around for a mysterious process to produce a gradual change.

Agreed.
 
Top Bottom