The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
pro-federalism,

What does that mean?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
What does that mean?

I think it means he's anti-Federalist Society.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
Strongly dissent.

Both parties have valid points, meritorious arguments, defensible philosophies, and laudable goals. It takes time and effort and - yes - intelligence to figure them out sometimes, but they are there. Analysis of the available information does allow people to make an informed and rational and efficacious vote.

That's all good and well for the people who read, and listen, and learn about each side's positions and rationales. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who will, instead, merely watch a few ads, read a few hot-button gotcha headlines, and then vote if they have free time after the bar. These are the people for whom Edwards fixed his hair.

It's this second group whose participation you look to increase, thus raising the value of the noise and garbage of the "lead the dummies" "stoopid school of political discourse" advertising. Do you want more elections decided by people who figure out their political affiliation by watching Leno or Michael Moore? I think that's what you get when you "get out the vote."

the problem is that many intelligent people are not voting. Generally the way it works is if you think things are really screwed up you vote. If you don't mind the status quo then you don't vote.

So politicians, to get elected have to appeal to the people that think the country is screwed up. Since only the extremists are voting, the politicians are all turning into extremists.

They do it in Australia and it doesn't seem to have screwed that country up. Their economy is booming. Education system is fine. etc.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think it means he's anti-Federalist Society.

What I find funny about the Federalist society is that their mascot is James Madison, yet he opposed the Federalists. He was a Repub-Democrat like Jefferson. Their mascot should be Alexander Hamilton.

Not only did he contribute to the Federalist papers but he was a leading Federalist.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
the problem is that many intelligent people are not voting.

Why would you want to force people, who can't be bothered either to walk past the polling station or request an absentee ballot, to vote in an election. At best, you piss people off; at worst, you end up with even more random results.

BTW, interesting study in switzerland, which you shouldn't bother to read, suggests that making voting easier by allowing vote-by-mail and vote-by-email/internet reduces participation, because people don't get the opportunity to display their civic-mindedness by going to a polling place. Would people vote if they didn't get one of these to wear to work?



(btw, I once got into an argument with a poll monitor when I refused to put on the sticker--yes, I refust to hwear the sticker)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
What I find funny about the Federalist society is that their mascot is James Madison, yet he opposed the Federalists. He was a Repub-Democrat like Jefferson. Their mascot should be Alexander Hamilton.

Not only did he contribute to the Federalist papers but he was a leading Federalist.

The Anti-Federalist Society didn't have quite the same ring.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
What does that mean?

I aknowledge that on second thought this is very ambiguous. I believe that the federal government plays an important role in our society and has the ability to provide regulations and services to the citizens of this country in way that is more efficient and fair than if those same areas were left to the states. For example, environmental regulations, as well as the regulation of financial markets. I don't have a problem with the federal government as a govenment per se (although, of course, I may have problems with those in charge, and may disagree with particular policies).

In other words, unlike what appears to be the Republican party position, I believe there is a larger role for the Federal government than merely funding the armed forces and stamping out porn.

Did you expect I meant something different?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I aknowledge that on second thought this is very ambiguous. I believe that the federal government plays an important role in our society and has the ability to provide regulations and services to the citizens of this country in way that is more efficient and fair than if those same areas were left to the states. For example, environmental regulations, as well as the regulation of financial markets. I don't have a problem with the federal government as a govenment per se (although, of course, I may have problems with those in charge, and may disagree with particular policies).

In other words, unlike what appears to be the Republican party position, I believe there is a larger role for the Federal government than merely funding the armed forces and stamping out porn.

Did you expect I meant something different?

I thought it meant you were into states rights. I don't really care about states rights. It is individual rights I care about. If the individual is better off having some powers limited to the states, so be it, but I don't really don't care about state interests.

[Spanky]

Balt - you said you are for affirmative action. Do you really think affirmative action can solve anything. Please read below:



Ironically, his supporters always call him "the honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan," though he is anything but honorable. Farrakhan is back, with a "Millions More" march on Washington to commemorate the so-called Million Man March of a decade ago.

The whole notion that marches on Washington should be covered respectfully and even reverentially is outdated -- a throwback to the civil rights era, when marches led by true civil rights leaders really merited such attention. But the 1960s are ancient history. Today if we want to hear from African-American leaders, we can consult the State Department daily briefing, the "Oprah" show, the Fortune 500, the nightly news on television, our neighbor or our child's teacher. We can look to any realm of American life, because blacks are well-represented pretty much everywhere.

Still, it is true, as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina underlined, that parts of the black community remain poor and dysfunctional. Yet what can a march do for them? In his message (er, ranting) posted on the Internet, Farrakhan demanded "freedom for all political prisoners held in U.S. prisons and detention facilities, both foreign and domestic. We demand an end to police brutality, mob attacks, racial profiling, the herding of our young men and women into prisons, and the biological and chemical warfare perpetrated against our people." Elsewhere, Farrakhan renews his demand for reparations to the descendants of slaves and calls for "the establishment of peace in the world. We demand an end to wars of foreign aggression waged by the United States government against other sovereign nations and peoples. We demand an end to senseless violence and advocate peace amongst street organizations (gangs) and youth."

Okay. Now back to planet Earth. More than 75 percent of African-Americans are middle or upper class in 2005. Among those who make up the 24.7 percent in poverty, the overwhelming majority are unmarried women and their children. Family structure is the alpha and omega of poverty in America. You can slice the statistical pie in a thousand ways and still come to the same conclusion. For example: In 1995, the poverty rate for married couple black families was about 8 percent. In the same year, the poverty rate for families headed by white single women was about 27 percent. As David Eggebeen and Daniel T. Lichter wrote in the American Sociological Review, "Children from female-headed homes are five times as likely to be poor as children in two-parent families and nine times as likely to be in deep poverty." Maggie Gallagher, massaging the data a bit more to include a comparison with families that start and remain intact, yielded this statistic: "A child that is born out of wedlock is 30 times more likely to live in poverty than a child that was born in a marriage and whose parents stayed married."


The prisons are full of African-American youths. Some Farrakhan followers and others who are simply misinformed interpret this datum as evidence of racism in police departments and courts throughout the country. But not just any African-Americans crowd the prisons. The prisons are dominated by males raised without fathers. And while the illegitimacy rate among Americans at large is frighteningly high at 25 percent, it is stratospheric among blacks at 68 percent.

We are beyond the era of marches. The march on Washington Martin Luther King Jr. led in 1963 demanded, rightly of course, that the white majority live up to its responsibilities and cease hindering and persecuting American blacks. But no march and no demand can cure what ails some black Americans today. Only a profound renewal of faith in the values of marital fidelity and commitment can hope to alter the landscape of poverty. These are matters of spirit and belief; they can come only from within a community, not from outside.

But it is not impossible to achieve such a renewal. In the 19th century, Britain underwent a profound reformation of mores and morals led by the Victorians. Through Sunday schools, YMCAs, temperance societies and charitable work, they were able dramatically to reduce levels of crime, drunkenness and family breakdown. Within the black community today, there are many similar efforts (for example, the ministry of Eugene Rivers and the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise). To succeed though, blacks will have to reconcile themselves to the hard truth that poverty among blacks is about family structure, not white racism.

Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist and political analyst living in the Washington, D.C., area.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
(btw, I once got into an argument with a poll monitor when I refused to put on the sticker--yes, I refust to hwear the sticker)

What are you getting at here? Is this a secret message???

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Balt - you said you are for affirmative action. Do you really think affirmative action can solve anything.

Ask Clarence Thomas.

S_A_M

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Balt - you said you are for affirmative action. Do you really think affirmative action can solve anything. Please read below:

Regarding the article, I think both the stastics are carefully being manipulated to make a point. And even so, so what. Assume its true that there is no active white racism holding down black people. It's really just their family structure. I know that in in your world view that puts all the blame on them, then, but answer me one question: how did the families get that way? Could it have something to do with a cultural history of having families torn apart by white slave masters?

I know, I know, it was 140 years ago that slavery ended. I'm not suggesting that affirmative action be perpetual either. I'd prefer to see affirmative action that slowly over time (over say a generation) transforms from race based to economic status based.

But just saying "hey, we've had affirmative action for 40 years and there's no more racism" is b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Regarding the article, I think both the stastics are carefully being manipulated to make a point. And even so, so what. Assume its true that there is no active white racism holding down black people. It's really just their family structure. I know that in in your world view that puts all the blame on them, then, but answer me one question: how did the families get that way? Could it have something to do with a cultural history of having families torn apart by white slave masters?

I know, I know, it was 140 years ago that slavery ended. I'm not suggesting that affirmative action be perpetual either. I'd prefer to see affirmative action that slowly over time (over say a generation) transforms from race based to economic status based.

But just saying "hey, we've had affirmative action for 40 years and there's no more racism" is b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.

I still think there is lots of racism. I think the United States is the least racist country in the world (and works the hardest at combating racism) but that is kind of like saying that you are the least pathological serial killer.

Humans are by nature racist. However, how do you deal with racism? I do not see reverse racism as the answer.

Affirmative action has been tried in many countrys (India, Malaysia, Kenya, South Africa etc) and it always causes a backlash and never seems to address the problem.

In every country it has been tried it has increased the stigma of the group it is trying to help. In Malaysia they tried quotas in the universities (to combat the majority of ethnic Chinese) and all it has done is convinced everyone that Malays are not as qualified.

In addition, in the United States, many groups that face racism still succeed. In this countrys many minority groups and recent immigrants excel.

In addition, I have seen studies that show black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean do much better than native African Americans. This leads me to believe that it is more of an African American cultural issue than a structural racism issue.

I think Affirmative Action has made the problem worse and affirmative action should be stopped as soon as possible before it makes the problem worse.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
I still think there is lots of racism. I think the United States is the least racist country in the world (and works the hardest at combating racism) but that is kind of like saying that you are the least pathological serial killer.

Humans are by nature racist. However, how do you deal with racism? I do not see reverse racism as the answer.

Affirmative action has been tried in many countrys (India, Malaysia, Kenya, South Africa etc) and it always causes a backlash and never seems to address the problem.

In every country it has been tried it has increased the stigma of the group it is trying to help. In Malaysia they tried quotas in the universities (to combat the majority of ethnic Chinese) and all it has done is convinced everyone that Malays are not as qualified.

In addition, in the United States, many groups that face racism still succeed. In this countrys many minority groups and recent immigrants excel.

In addition, I have seen studies that show black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean do much better than native African Americans. This leads me to believe that it is more of an African American cultural issue than a structural racism issue.

I think Affirmative Action has made the problem worse and affirmative action should be stopped as soon as possible before it makes the problem worse.

I have no problem getting rid of affirmative action, as long as in doing so we also get rid of other institutational biases toward particular groups. For example, preference to children of alumni in college admissions.

Ultimately, this is a very difficult issue, and I think the approach of using cultural, ethnic and racial diversity as a goal and treating it as a good thing without setting quotas works pretty well. Because at my alma mater, at least, the alumni children will be hugely disproportionately white, privilieged and suburban, and if there wasn't consideration to the bias this creates in admitting the other 2/3 of the class, it would be a very sad thing indeed.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I still think there is lots of racism. I think the United States is the least racist country in the world (and works the hardest at combating racism) but that is kind of like saying that you are the least pathological serial killer.

Humans are by nature racist. However, how do you deal with racism? I do not see reverse racism as the answer.

Affirmative action has been tried in many countrys (India, Malaysia, Kenya, South Africa etc) and it always causes a backlash and never seems to address the problem.

In every country it has been tried it has increased the stigma of the group it is trying to help. In Malaysia they tried quotas in the universities (to combat the majority of ethnic Chinese) and all it has done is convinced everyone that Malays are not as qualified.

In addition, in the United States, many groups that face racism still succeed. In this countrys many minority groups and recent immigrants excel.

In addition, I have seen studies that show black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean do much better than native African Americans. This leads me to believe that it is more of an African American cultural issue than a structural racism issue.

I think Affirmative Action has made the problem worse and affirmative action should be stopped as soon as possible before it makes the problem worse.

Because it's a "cultural problem" it's not an issue so affirmative action should stop? Is that because African American culture doesn't instill adequate self-discipline, the fundamental building block to being a moral person, and therefore blacks are immoral and unworthy of assistance? When you cut through the rhetoric of the article you posted, that's exactly what you are arguing.

"Tough Love" seems like a good idea; we'll just stop coddling African Americans and they'll pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Or fall into a permenant underclass. Either way though, it won't matter, because it's just "cultural." Since it's "cultural" they can change it if only they apply themselves. Since they can (in theory) change it, if they fail to do so, why should you be burdened?

Affirmative action is not a monolithic entity. I suspect there are types of "affirmative action" we would both agree are unacceptable or at least counter productive. I suspect there are policies some have characterized as "affirmative action" that I could convince you are actually a good idea.

I'm as advantaged as one can get: white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, male, educated, (relatively) wealthy and completely abled. Additionally, I'm particularly good at taking standardized tests. In theory, affirmative action can do nothing but hurt me. But I would be poorer had I gone to college with just people exactly like me, and I am poorer for working almost exclusively with people exactly like me as peers.