Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119345)	12/24/2000 1:15:25 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Kenneth, one of the problems we get into when discussing affirmative action is in definition. For instance, some will say affirmative action means "quota's" based on race, gender or sexual orientation. Another person may see affirmative action as simply trying to help out a segment of the population which has heretofore been ignored. Colin Powell comes from a military background, and I believe he sees affirmative action policies similar to the way the services implemented them. Here's an example.... Many years ago the services realized blacks were disproportionately represented in the officer ranks. So, instead of implementing across the board quota's, they attempted to examine the root cause. Toward that effort, they discovered that traditional ways of looking for young men to go into the military academy's, often times, prevented them from recruiting highly qualified black applicants. They simply never visited black inner city high-schools, because of a deep seated tradition of recruiting at mostly white high schools. However, instead of enforcing quota's, they started sending recruiters to inner city schools in an effort to find qualified black applicants. In other words, the services were limiting their search for talent by focusing on predominately white schools. Some would call this king of effort "affirmative action", others simple common sense. I would call the effort a smart strategic initiative, which strengthened the services. Therefore, definition and details become the key. And one should ask the detailed questions when discussing affirmative action policies. Blind quota's are not the answer, but examining the system in order to find the best talent can be. Traditional hiring practices which focus on specific demographic talent may be inadvertently preventing minorities from getting hired, or finding a desk in a prestigious school. I believe that's what Colin Powell has been trying to tell Republicans. And I think he makes a good point.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119345)	12/24/2000 1:37:34 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Kenneth E. Phillipps, Affirmative action is a recognition of past discrimination and its effect on successive generations. So, are you suggesting that an unequality must exist to correct a previous wrong? Do you have a personal advantage with the current Affirmative Action laws? Since you are a Trial Lawyer, have you personally profited from the current laws on the books? One of the largest contributors to the Democrats is the Trial Lawyers Association. Are you a member?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119345)	12/24/2000 8:31:25 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 769667

Why should it be legal to refuse a person a job (or any other benefit) because he has a white skin and give it to another person because he has a black skin? Or vice versa? You're a lawyer. Explain that to me. Affirmative action is nothing less than the rebirth of the Jim Crow laws with different beneficiaries AND YOU KNOW IT!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119345)	12/24/2000 8:39:34 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 769667

If affirmative action is discriminatory, then so are veterans benefits. I think a more accurate way of portraying this is by saying that veterans benefits are an EARNED REWARD and affirmative is discrimination based on skin color. Veterans benefits are a form of delayed compensation. So what? Should earned pensions be illegal? Affirmative action is a recognition of past discrimination and its effect on successive generations. And are simply a disguised form of a bill of attainder. My copy of the constitutions says that bills of attainder are illegal. How about yours?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119345)	12/24/2000 10:23:21 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 769667

"You can't have it both ways. If affirmative action is discriminatory, then so are veterans benefits. You argue veterans benefits are a condition of employment but many veterans benefits are awarded after the service, not before as a recognition of service. Affirmative action is a recognition of past discrimination and its effect on successive generations. I agree with Colin Powell about affirmative action. You apparently disagree with him" This boils down to a question of arbitrariness. Affirmative Action is arbitrary, veterans benefits are not. We would not consider membership in Veterans of Foreign Wars to be arbitrary because it requires veteran status. We would consider membership in a country club to be arbitrary if it required one to be white. One has an objective standard, veteran's status, which is an earned benefit and is a value we as a society feel should be rewarded. One is arbitrary and unearned, namely the color of the skin one was born with. Veterans deserve the status because they have performed certain actions which earn the merit. The color of one's skin is not earned and any preferential treatment is undeserved. Affirmative Action is fundamentally racist. Its implicit premise is blacks are naturally inferior and incapable of achievement on the merit of their own intelligence and need a helping hand from whitey. Our society would be better served by addressing the root of the real inequalities by such mechanisms as school vouchers, which would allow black children who want to learn to go to schools that are conducive to learning. As opposed to gang battlegrounds and inner city social experiments. Its instructive that Al Sharpton is opposed to vouchers, while sending his children to private school. Here's a hometown example. A buddy of mine had a C average in high school (I had a B average) and got 300 points lower in his SAT than I did. We applied to the same college at the same time for the same semester. He got admitted on fast track, I had to wait for an opening. He's Vietnamese. Is this justice, to either party? What kind of message does this convey? Derek