Rachel Maddow is my new favorite person.
Offline I know she's not an unbiased reporter (The media doesn't really appreciate people like that anymore), but I think she's amazing, eloquent, and poignant.
Here's a video of her and Buchanan.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
- Login to post comments
Offline Let's put Affirmative Action in a different context. The group which by far receives the greatest discrimination today are atheists. And suppose there is an Affirmative Action policy towards their betterment. Do you think an atheist like Bill Gates or his children should get preference for a job over someone who is poor? There are some neo-Nazi skinheads who are atheist. Should they get preference for a job over say an African American?
I know you're having fun playing devil's advocate, but aren't the examples here stretching just a bit? We all know the simple idea of affermative action, and that's to give people who are ordinarily discriminated against a chance at jobs they wouldn't otherwise have access to.
Obviously, that's going to create a problem with the un-marginalized 70% of the population identifying as white. To suggest that people in a position of being a minority in the states aren't marginalized means you haven't been to Youngstown, Ohio, or Nashville, Tennessee, or the entire state of Florida, or ... and I could go on. Marginalization is a hard and inescapable fact in lots of places in the US, and just like the National Guard had to be called in so that people with even a decent tan could be allowed in southern schools, affirmative action has to be used to attempt to end the obvious segregation in the job market.
Anywyay, she's qualified, and those appointments are always political, so I'm not sure why anyone would say she's not qualified, and expect the appointments to be anything but political. It strikes me as a little whiny -- especially coming from Buchanan, who bravely defends the affluent and unoppressed.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Have you ever considered that she might have been hired because she is an extremely intelligent, well-spoken person who is a Harvard/Oxford grad and a Rhodes Scholar?
I'm sure you know, deep in your heart of hearts, that the reason people end up on television is that they make for good television. Entertainment trumps qualifications, that's for sure.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Atheists are a discriminated group and measures should be taken to ensure their representation in all aspects of society. Legislation should be enacted such that the quota of atheists in the workforce, universities, professional schools, etc.. are met.
Along comes an atheist neo-Nazi skinhead who believes that blacks are inferior. Based on this legislation, he gets into say medical school at Harvard. His idol is Josef Mengele and he hopes one day to work in an infirmary at a major prison.
As facetious and infinitely improbable as this above scenerio may be, I wrote it not as an anti-thesis to Affirmative Action. I support diversity and pluralism. But there is also a libertarian streak in me that raise questions about laws that enforce diversity and pluralism which in certain circumstances can be oppressive.
Prejudice comes from within and can only end from within. In the long run, having faceless bean counters who only look at the words of the law and not the spirit behind it will not help African Americans, Latinos, women, etc..The question is, since the inception of Affirmative Action has there been a shift in the moral zeitgeist in regards to bigotry. IMO, the answer is yes. Prejudice begins in the home and among peers and that's where it should end. And it is in this realm where meaningful change has occurred in the hearts and minds of people. Bean counters have no power over that. In that milieu as we have greater and greater social progress, should we anticipate the end of Affirmative Action? I'm East Indian and I just don't think that in this day and age the vast majority of white people are bad and who wish to consciously exclude non-whites. Keep a form of Affirmative Action at a grassroots level instead of in the hands of a faceless (and yes, mindless) bureaucrat.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Zymotic wrote:Have you ever considered that she might have been hired because she is an extremely intelligent, well-spoken person who is a Harvard/Oxford grad and a Rhodes Scholar?
I'm sure you know, deep in your heart of hearts, that the reason people end up on television is that they make for good television. Entertainment trumps qualifications, that's for sure.
OK, I find myself agreeing with Willness, which itself is rare enough to be worth noting.
Anyway, Maddow's resume would be of relevance to the personnel department at MSNBC. Past that, the actual relevance of her academic standing has essentially nothing to do with the clip in the first post. Realistically, MSNBC has at least a couple dozen talking heads who could have done the interview. However, the producer chose Maddow over all of the others for a specific reason.
I will not claim to know what was in that person's head but I would be quite surprised if it turned out that something other than creating a notable video segment was not first and foremost of the priorities.
Here, the producer could have picked Keith Olbermann just as easily but chose not to. One can only guess here but if you want to get Buchannen to act like a raving lunatic (which ought not to be too hard) you could do worse than to pick a woman who doesn't even try to hide her sexual preferences. Too bad that Michael Moore does not work for them as Buchannen would probably have had a stroke if he had to be interviewed by that jack ass.
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."
=
- Login to post comments
Offline Atheists are a discriminated group and measures should be taken to ensure their representation in all aspects of society. Legislation should be enacted such that the quota of atheists in the workforce, universities, professional schools, etc.. are met.
Along comes an atheist neo-Nazi skinhead who believes that blacks are inferior. Based on this legislation, he gets into say medical school at Harvard. His idol is Josef Mengele and he hopes one day to work in an infirmary at a major prison.
Harvard was discriminating against atheists to not have any in their medical school then. Seriously. I have no problems with this.
Personal beliefs of a person being locked out are irrelevant to discrimination against a person for existing. You can be a group discriminated against, and discriminate against others too. No one said you couldn't. If that person then hires people, they have to follow the same rules.
Legislation just helps prevent people from being cock-blocked by stupidity.
I could care less if you enroll a black Hitler into a school, if that school is trying to deny teaching blacks, and they really have no other candidates..that is their own fault.
The amount required for diversity is seriously so low compared to the actual demographic size. I don't see why you are throwing a bitchfit over it. Most employers that were racist, kept their racist hiring policies and hire token workers that don't do anything important. That "glass ceiling" thing.
At least most of my generation doesn't care, so it will shape up in 20 years here in the states. But the legislation is still a GOOD THING.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline I could care less if you enroll a black Hitler into a school, if that school is trying to deny teaching blacks, and they really have no other candidates..that is their own fault.
Holy shit!! I can't believe you just stated that. I'm so glad you weren't part of the admissions committee at my med school. You would break the "glass ceiling" even if the "falling shards" kill everyone. I bet judge Sotomayor, every member of the NAACP, the ACLU and Barack Obama are all rolling their eyes. And I bet WEB Dubois is rolling over in his grave.
- Login to post comments
Offline Atheists are a discriminated group
Are they really, in the job market? Or even in terms of school applications? I mean, you don't have to come out and say "I'm an atheist", right? We're talking about employment, here.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline ragdish wrote:Atheists are a discriminated group
Are they really, in the job market? Or even in terms of school applications? I mean, you don't have to come out and say "I'm an atheist", right? We're talking about employment, here.
If you read between the lines, I was being completely facetious with my far fetched argument. But an argument can be made that if you are open atheist, you probably can't hold the highest office in this land or that an atheist kid can't join the boy scouts or girl scouts. And I'm sure there are numerous other examples. Atheists are indeed disliked and polls have shown that on the whole the public would rather select a homosexual, a muslim, etc.. over an atheist for president. Yet atheists like Bill Gates are not seeking refugee status in atheist nations like Sweden. I was merely pointing out the utter silliness if there was an Affirmative Action program for atheists.
As an atheist, even if I was excluded from X (where X is a job, school, dwelling, gathering, etc..) because I'm an atheist I would not support government sponsored quotas to ensure atheists belong to X.
- Login to post comments
Offline If you read between the lines, I was being completely facetious with my far fetched argument.
Well, yeah. But you've already used the word "libertarian" without irony -- who knows what manner of craziness you could be up to!
But an argument can be made that if you are open atheist, you probably can't hold the highest office in this land or that an atheist kid can't join the boy scouts or girl scouts.
I'm certain the same argument was made for black Americans before Obama. Turns out it was being a woman that held someone from office. Go figure.
Yet atheists like Bill Gates are not seeking refugee status in atheist nations like Sweden. I was merely pointing out the utter silliness if there was an Affirmative Action program for atheists.
Your examples are definitely silly, yes. For one thing, Bill Gates isn't looking for a job or trying to get into a school. For the examples to be pertinent, they'd at least have to deal with the question at hand.
Seriously -- have you been to Nashville? If you haven't been, it will blow your mind.
As an atheist, even if I was excluded from X (where X is a job, school, dwelling, gathering, etc..) because I'm an atheist I would not support government sponsored quotas to ensure atheists belong to X.
Okay, THAT I can understand. Obviously, affirmative action has some holes.
Do you support the action in the 60s by the National Guard to de-segregate schools in the south? That was, after all, a national government forcing the issue of allowing black students into schools where white people learned. Or is it just the quota part that's problematic?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline I can be crazy but that does not pertain to being somewhat libertarian. I'd say I'm somewhere between being a liberal and libertarian.
In regards to Nashville, could you cite examples of overt bigotry towards atheists? The bus campaigns, the removal of God from the Pledge of Allegiance, etc...are the exemplars I have seen in the media to which certain atheists feel that their rights have been squashed. And honestly, these examples don't bring about any outcry of injustice from this atheist. So please do give me widespread pertinent examples that deal with the question at hand.
In regards to the National Guard desegregating the South in the 50s and 60s, I would equate that to the United States' government sanctioned liberation of Europe from Nazi Germany. Back then the South was IMO on the whole fascist with state governments sanctioning racist segregation. There was no choice but for the federal government to step in. And therefore, yes in this regard my liberal streak wholeheartedly supports the government defending the rights and freedoms of a group from persecution. But I do distinguish that piece of history from the current state of affairs. Is Harvard medical school a racist institution similar to the South in the 60s? Obviously not and I contend that in their admissions criteria, Affirmative Action policies should be restricted to subgroups who are the most deserving (eg. those who are poor) and not for example American born children of Hutus, the offspring of Oprah Winfrey or as Clockcat mentioned, the "black Hitler".
- Login to post comments
Offline I like Rachel Maddow as well. I listened to her for the last few years while driving home from work. I like to think she got her present job because she did a great job on the radio and worked well when they had her as a guest on the Keith Olbermann show. Rachel is carrying the Democratic Party's flag on this Affirmative Action issue, trumpeting the party line. She is also supporting Sonia Sotomayer for the same reasons.
I am a card carrying Democrat. I believe the Republican party is EVIL and Pat Buchanan is also evil. Saying that, I also believe that the Democratic party has some warts, among them its very racist. Affirmative Action is racism in action. Affirmative Action works to promote lesser qualified people because of some other quality than their actual ability to do the job or performance. Either racism is right or its wrong. If its wrong then its wrong period. It shouldn't be wrong except when it comes to white guys. And for the record I voted for Obama because he was hands down the best candidate, not so that I could be a part of voting in the first black President.
I understand why Affirmative Action was started in the 60's and won't argue against the logic used at the time. But how long will it be ok to discriminate against some of the people, some of the time? Sonia Sotomayer may be qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge but is she the best choice available? Someone mentioned that these positions are all political and that's true. They are chosen for political reasons but should they be? Bush, The Stupid, tried to give the job to Harriet Miers for purely political reasons and she may also have been "qualified". But she was also an idiot and so there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth until even all the Shrubs men couldn't carry off his folly. Although Sotomayer is no where near the buffoon Mears is her appointment is just as wrong...
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
- Login to post comments
I agreed with Buchanan more in that video.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Bite my tongue for saying this but I was agreeing with Buchannon far more then Maddow, I'm sure it's the first time I can only hope it is the last.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Anything rational point Buchanan had to make was easily drowned out by his misinformation.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
Buchanan is so racist, and so sexist..it is rofl.
He even shows up on auto-tune the news..but yeah. I can't even believe people like him still exist. lol.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
There's no doubt that Buchanon is racist. He attempted to take a more moderate approach in the video, but he still ended up spouting that whites 'deserved' the best jobs. However, for the most part, he agreed with the philosophy that people should be granted jobs according to their skill and intellect. Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, pissed me off significantly more by stating that Sotomayer should be given the position merely because she's a minority. I don't think Sotomayer should be given an advantage or disadvantage because she's a minority. She should given the same chance as anyone else.
Seriously, if supporters of affirmative action want to end racism, they should stop supporting affirmative action because that IS racism. Rewarding one race with a job when someone of another race is better qualified simply because they are of certain races...that's almost the definition of racism. Furthermore, arguing that blacks, hispanics, etc. need a hand up is retarded; what needs to happen is for people to stop focusing on race entirely. In a nutshell, people aren't denied rights by the race; they're denied rights by the individual. There is no collective, overarching entity of African Americans that benefits every time a black guy is picked over a white guy, and there's no invisible competition between the races to see who gets the most Society Points (if there is, I don't give a shit about it). The only entity that would benefit is that one black guy (maybe his family), and he got that job for no other reason than that he was black.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
OK, I agree with you somewhat often and when I don't, I usually find you amusing at least. However, that wins the prize for utter and complete irrelevance. Since that is so far away from anything, there is no trophy so I will have to make one for you.
It is a nice book shelf with matching book ends. On the right, you get an autographed picture of Dick Cheney inscribed with the words (formerly) one heart beat from the oval office. On the left, you get a similar picture of Nancy Pelosi inscribed with (actually) two heart beats away from the oval office.
Also, it comes prepopulated with a collection of really irrelevant books. On the Cheney side is the Rush Limbaugh tome “How to win right wing friends and influence pharmacists”. On the Pelosi side, it has Michael Moore's “How to hate the very land that made you rich and exploit the most gullible among us to your further enrichment”. In the middle is the two volume set by Sam Walton and Bill Gates: “How to not give a shit about all that crap and still get stinking rich on the dime of hard working people everywhere”.
=
Sweeeeeet!
It's like everything I wouldn't ever want, in one place....at once!
I should get started on that ebay listing....maybe I will hang on to that Bill Gates book, just in case.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Well, Buchanan is a racist. In other news, moving buses hurt when you stand in front of them and stoves are really freaking hot.
However, in this country, we value the content of an expression for what it is worth, not for who says it. From the first link, we can tell that ms. Maddow interviewed Buchanan specifically for the purpose of seeing what kind of crap he would pull.
As far as his message goes, if we can get past the crap that nobody should be surprised at him for spewing, he is concerned about a question of whether Sotomayor is qualified for the post she has taken. Let's emphasize the fact that she has already taken the post. She is there and absent an impeachment, the post is hers for as long as she wants it. That is quite nearly an endgame on the matter.
So is she qualified? Apparently the Senate thinks so. It is not like the debate lasted for a noticeable amount of time. Contrast that to Judges Bork and Thomas who had their debates drag on for quite a while over fairly trivial matters.
Anyway, every judge has a public record of all of their legal rulings. By the time anyone can be in contention for the Supremes, the record will be a long one. If there is any question of a nominee's qualification, that is where to look.
Honestly, it took me all of fifteen minutes to find two recent rulings that are at least prima facie questionable.
In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor ruled (on January 28, 2009) that “only the Supreme Court may overturn the Supreme Court”. However, there is a problem with the ruling. She did that in order to apply a legal standard from the 1860's that the Supreme Court has since overturned. In the same case, she also set aside the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th amendment in order to make a ruling based not on the law but on what she wanted to rule. This case and her legal theories basically contravene both Stare Decisis and her role in interpreting the Constitution.
=
I was gona post something but i would just be repeating this.
We actually have affermative action in south africa, yet it gives the advantage to the majority rather than the minority
Then again here the minorities hold most the good jobs so meh.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I think Ms. Maddow is super smart/sexy...does she like men? I bet the pillow talk would be sooo smart.
"Too much of anything is bad, but too much of good whiskey is barely enough."
(Mark Twain)
Out of curiousity, if a Rwandan Hutu emigrates and his children are born in the US, are they African American citizens? And given that Affirmative Action is granted to minorities who faced historical oppression (ie. slavery), should the African American children of a man whose people committed genocide get those privileges?
No. That is not what it is at all.
It is designed to help be a counterbalance to blatant racism in the workplace. The, "We don't want any darkies here." kind of situation that is STILL a huge problem in some places in the world.
It is designed to help balance out discrimination. It isn't perfect.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Signature ? How ?
by not perfect im assuming you mean you don't end rasism with racial policies, It just makes the new "victums" resent the old "victums" more creating a cycle.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Dude? Ever heard of google?
Madcow was hired for her job specifically because she prefers to munch carpet. Which, I suppose, makes her extra specially qualified to be a person who should be listened to when the context is "People being hired for every and any reason apart from actual ability to do a specific job".
=
And again...NOT DESIGNED TO END RACISM.
Why do you people think it is for something it isn't?It it there to help COUNTER some financially inhibiting, career inhibiting, and publicly accepted effects of racism that are KNOWN TO HAPPEN. NOT ELIMINATE IT.
IE When 20% of the professionals in a field are GAY, and the companies takes a GOD HATES FAGS approach, they can be held ACCOUNTABLE FOR DISCRIMINATION for not hiring anyone simply due to gender preference. If it stands out too much, they can be investigated. If you have 100 employees, and the only ones that are rejected are highly qualified gays, while you hire clearly lesser qualified other people...yes, this hurts society. It punishes people for simply being something other people do not like. That is what these laws exist to blunt.
It in NO WAY ENDS RACISM OR BIGOTRY. Again, I repeat....THAT IS NOT WHAT IT WAS MADE FOR. It exists to blunt some of the effects of it, so we don't have corporations that en-mass only hire a "master race", or "won't hire fags". Yes, there are vast sections of the USA with areas still like this. And I for one am thankful for the legislation.
The moment racism and bigotry stop existing, the legislation isn't needed.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Don't get me wrong. If you can demonstrate how discrimination, and effectively an entire demographic blackballed from careers in society, is GOOD for society, please feel free.
Knock yourself out.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
never said it was designed to end it, but i am saying it makes it worse. Short term it may help geting people employed but long term it hurts. Now if the government runs programs to increase acceptance of these groups then fine yes, its a good thing, but from what i have seen you still have government sponsered discrimination.. (no gay marrige etc)
And what actually happens is less qualified people get employed so they don't get sued. So hurts society in exactly the same way. When you have to fill minority quotas then you are bound to exclude more skilled people. Both ways people lose out.
Is something that blunts some of the effects of rasism but causes rasism worth it? for me not unless there is stuff being done about the side effects. These isn't here in south africa and i havent heard any differant about america.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I don't know about america but here large corparations dont care about race sexual orientation etc. it is the smaller companies that do that stuff. But im not saying AA is a ba thing im just saying it has draw backs that need to be addressed
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
And if it is allowed, you have places like Alabama that would have never hired a black or gay person. Corporations started with "religious values" would get even more fervant support, and you would have nationwide effective bans on hiring demographics within those companies, simply due to prejudice of their CEOs and the support the racists or bigots give them to not have "mixed staff".
The point isn't to make the most efficient system, but to provide a fairer system to counterbalance what is a known issue. When there isn't racism and bigotry, THEN it isn't needed.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
The reason i dont have a problem with AA itself, but i do have a problem with what it causes.
but it will always be needed aslong as the real problems are not addressed. That is my complaint, AA fine ill admit that it is needed in some cases, but adress what causes the need for it aswell or you will always need AA. AA adds to what causes there to be a need for it.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
The real problem? So what...do you have a magic cure for racism now, that doesn't take generations to work out?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
nope, but that is the point. What is being done to help it along?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
There isn't a lot you can do other than laws that make things like...
wait for it...
Affirmative Action, penalizing racism publicly.
Do you have any other ideas, or do you just hate it because it doesn't cure bigotry?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
When did i say i hate it? I just merely think it alone will cause problems in the long run.
There is more you can do, have programs promoting diversity in the work place. Not just do as we say or suffer. etc.
not have 100% of black people on tv playing low life thugs etc. not in the governments control i know
You need the carrot not only the whip.
Im in a rush so ill post more when i get back in a an hour or 2.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Therefore, even if an individual is the progeny of a group that committed racist genocide, if he/she is an African American, Latino, etc.., then that person deserves the benefits afforded by Affirmative Action?
I really hope you don't agree with this.
I could care less if someone committed a crime. The crimes stand on their own, they have absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action.
I really hope you aren't saying something along the lines of, "Black people shouldn't be able to get jobs because black people are ___ or did ___ in the past."
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
If there were racists against Germans, they couldn't find work because of the anti-German sentiment being so common...and it was becoming a problem in society, I would fully support affirmative action for Germans.
Regardless of the Holocaust. If that is what you are suggesting.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Have you ever considered that she might have been hired because she is an extremely intelligent, well-spoken person who is a Harvard/Oxford grad and a Rhodes Scholar?
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
Well, since that did not come up on goggle:
The answer is NO!
Let's take this one step further. She is whatever she happens to be. The question that I was answering was:
Well, the correct answer is “apparently not according to the information provided”.
Let's take this even farther...
=
No, what I am saying is that Affirmative Action policies should be applied to the most deserving of individuals. That is, each individual should be assessed even if they happen to be a member of a discriminated group. Even Barack Obama supports amendments to Affirmative Action to be applied to African Americans and Latinos who are poor.
Let's put Affirmative Action in a different context. The group which by far receives the greatest discrimination today are atheists. And suppose there is an Affirmative Action policy towards their betterment. Do you think an atheist like Bill Gates or his children should get preference for a job over someone who is poor? There are some neo-Nazi skinheads who are atheist. Should they get preference for a job over say an African American?
What I'm driving at is that the cultural context of discrimination is constantly changing. Indeed, African Americans as a whole faced the most extreme prejudice in American society at the inception of Affirmative Action policies. Back then it was totally fair for there to be legally mandated quotas in all aspects of society for African Americans to justly receive their fair share of the American dream to which they were deprived on the basis of skin color.
Yet the cultural context today has changed. We now have more vocal groups who have also been deprived of the American dream because they are gay or atheist. And let's not forget that in the exit polls, 70% of African Americans in California supported Proposition 8. So if an African American and a white homosexual are vying for the same position, who should get the job? All I'm advocating for is the provision that Affirmative Action be applied to those who are deserving and this should be determined on a case by case basis. What's wrong with that?
Well, normally one does not display the dirty laundry for the general public but that question can only be answered by doing so.
Fairly often, one will be in a situation where you are filling out a form which will be entered into a computer by someone who never actually sees you. Because of AA, we have forms that have a box one may check that prompts you to state that you are a minority and deserve special consideration. Pretty much, if you check that box, you will move ahead of the pack.
When I find myself in a situation where I can do so, I will check the box on general principle. Hey, the DNA says that my ancestors lived in Africa about 70,000 years ago. That is a drop in the bucket as far as actual biological considerations go.
If I do end up having to be in the room with whomever codes the info, I will tell him that much. If he happens to be a white guy (like me), well, he will usually accept my claim because it helps the outfit to pump the statistics.
=
:3
Why does it matter if they are poor or not? That doesn't change an ethnicity or orientation based hiring policy.
And it isn't fair now for that?
The most qualified, and the least represented. Qualifications come first, they only fill in representation if they have excluded a demographic intentionally usually to avoid legal issues.
It doen't make any sense, is what is wrong with it. It isn't a case by case basis thing. It is a "Lets not hire any gays because they are evil" sweeping decision. The only companies that legislation like this effects are ones with many employees, and the only way they completely avoid a demographic is by making a policy of it.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.