Beck said "to be consistent," Clinton should give Obama "5 percentage points" because of affirmative action
On the January 25 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck asserted: "[I]f [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] wants to be consistent, I believe, affirmative action, she should give [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] an additional 5 percentage points just for the years of oppression." In the same discussion, National Public Radio commentator John Ridley said that "questions about 'Is Obama black enough?' " were "ridiculous." Beck responded by asking: "[C]an you imagine a white commentator saying that? Can you imagine if I said, 'Is Barack Obama black enough?' ... I don't see that man as black. Of course I do, because I'm not blind. I don't see him as black or white. He just is. He's an American. He's a man."
On the February 12, 2007, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck commented that Obama is "very white in many ways," adding, "Gee, can I even say that? Can I even say that without somebody else starting a campaign saying, 'What does he mean, "He's very white?" ' He is. He's very white." Later on the February 2007 show, Beck claimed that Obama "is colorless," adding that "as a white guy ... [y]ou don't notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?"
From the January 25 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
RIDLEY: Well, hypocrisy, Glenn, doesn't know political ideology. And I think there are a lot of liberals -- and I don't say this to denigrate liberals -- but the fact of the matter is, is that they live comfortably with their liberalism, because they don't necessarily have to deal with it. I mean, a lot of us go home to segregated communities and this and that, no matter that we can live wherever we want.
So, I think the fact that they have to deal with Obama -- you know, they could say Al Sharpton is not going to be president; we don't really have to deal with him, or Jesse Jackson or whomever -- but they've got to deal with Obama.
And for me, personally, a lot of the hypocrisy, I've seen that in a lot of the liberal media, where there were questions about "Is Obama black enough?" and those kinds of things, which are ridiculous. So, I'm not surprised --
BECK: Can you imagine -- John, can you imagine a white commentator saying that? Can you imagine if I said, "Is Barack Obama black enough?" I mean, I don't see -- I don't see that man as black. Of course I do, because I'm not blind. I don't see him as black or white. He just is. He's an American. He's a man.
PETER FENN (Democratic strategist): I mean, the good news -- sorry to interrupt you, Glenn -- the good news, I think, with this is that you have someone like Barack Obama, who is a very serious candidate for president of the United States, who is getting support all across the country, who is, you know, a black man, and a white woman. He is their son.
Now, you know, if someone had said to America, 30 years ago, 40 years ago, could this happen? That would be the farthest thing from their minds. And yet, you know, we are making tremendous progress in this country, and to have a discussion like this about whether someone is black enough or white enough is -- you know -- is outrageous.
BECK: It's insulting. It's insulting. And you know what? It is not the conversation that America is having. It is the conversation, again, politicians, both sides of the aisle, will do whatever they have to do -- they are becoming professional separators. All they do is pull us apart so they can angle and try to grab as many people and ignite their base -- and it's outrageous. And it's happening on all sides, on all issues, and it has got to stop or we're going to disintegrate.
John -- comment?
RIDLEY: Yeah, I would agree with that. I mean, the interesting thing is the Democrats went into this election with an incredible tableau. They had Obama. They had Senator Clinton. They also had Bill Richardson. In addition to, you know, whatever you want to call them -- traditional, capable white guys who are running for president.
So, to be able to present that at the general election, that this is what America represents -- and Glenn, I'm keeping the white guys in there --
BECK: Oh, I know, I appreciate it. John Edwards is in there pitching.
RIDLEY: He's in there. But the idea, even with Edwards, a guy who grew up in impoverished backgrounds and made good, at the general election, as a party, the Democrats could stand up and go, "Look, we represent America's future," regardless of who the actual nominee is now.
BECK: OK.
RIDLEY: But what are the Republicans going to be able to use in the general election? The sniping and the --
BECK: I have to just -- no, no, please. I have to tell you what I think if Hillary Clinton wants to be consistent, I believe, affirmative action, she should give Barack Obama an additional 5 percentage points just for the years of oppression.
Peter, John, thank you very much.
Yes, free speech is a terrible thing indeed.
No one has the right to be a bigot on public airwaves and/or cable systems. Free speech includes responsibility.
You know, Clams, you like to play fast and loose with that term, don't you?
I'm no fan of Beck, I think he's an a-hole, but this comment is not bigoted, it's just stupid.
The problem I have with Obama, and that I think Beck is getting at, is that he's kind of a poseur. He plays himself off as "Black" (whatever that means) but he's a guy who grew up in Hawaii, with an Anglo mother and a Kenyan father.
More power to him, it's an interesting background, but it would be kind of like a candidate with, say, a Spanish father and an Anglo mother, who grew up in Boston, say, trying to play himself off as a 'Latino' in the Southwest.
It wouldn't work in the Hispanic community, and I'm baffled that Obama gets away with it himself. I guess people aren't really that color-blind.
Well as long as I'm playing "fast and loose" I'll say that you and Beck are just two peas in a pod. As a matter of fact your post is the most bigoted thing I've read here all day. And you picked the most obvious and over-played type of bigotry that's aimed at mixed race people. Obama doesn't "play himself off" as anything. Whether he identifies himself as mixed or black, the whole world sees him as black. That is until idiots like you and Beck want to take him down a peg, and then suddenly he's not black enough for you. Disgusting.
And what the hell does growing up in Hawaii have to do with anything? Does that make too Hawaiian for you?
Glenn Beck isn't Jewish. Beck is a Mormon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck#Personal_life
He's talking about Hstybuf6553 not Glen Beck.
Glenn Beck isn't Jewish. Beck is a Mormon.
Actually, he's more of a moron.
I thought it was funny.
Bigotry is never funny.
I can definitely see how you have to be a conservative in order to appreciate this type of humor, I also thought it was amusing. It’s an anti-affirmative action kind off thing, you wouldn’t understand. You all have a large chip on your shoulders, this is why you cannot appreciate the humor.
If you listen to the tape, Beck was making a joke about affirmative action. Because affeirmative action teaches that the minority be given extra consideration to make the playing field level. Beck was mocking Clinton's support on that issue and saying "to be consistant" Hillary needs to give Barack extra points. It's a joke about affirmative action. Listen to the tape. He's making a joke. I guess once you've drank the kool-aid, you aren't allowed to laugh anymore. The way MM reprinted Beck's joke at the top of the page, one would think it was stated as gospel or Beck had carved it in stone somewhere. IT WAS A JOKE PEOPLE! GET IT? A JOKE!
Capt,
He is exploiting race by bringing affirmative action into a discussion where it doesn't need to be.
Car,
In this situation, race was not brought up until Beck made a very weak attempt at race-based humor.
Beck is clearly being ironic by pointing out how race-based affirmative action - as supported by the Clintons and the left in general is actually, well, racist!
And the statement about being 'black enough' is also meant to show that race should NOT be an issue. Any attempt to state otherwise or to paint Beck as some kind of racist is disingenuous.
And I'll say it again - like a broken record. If ya don't like Beck (or Hannity - or Rush - or Ingraham - or Savage) TURN THE STATION.
GF,
First of all, I am not sure the Left is racist, but that is beside the point. I suggest you take the advice you gave on Beck and apply it to this website. If you don't like it, CHANGE THE URL ;).
Who does CNN give a show to who is liberal these days
Affirmative action is actually not racist, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you here and now.
Who in the so called liberal media has asked if Obama is black enough? I know a few whack-a-doos out there were making something of this a short while ago.
"Employers should pick employees based on who will do the best job, not based on the color of their skin"
Great sentiment...totally divorced from reality though. Affirmitive action exists because too many emplyers did and would EXCLUDE people as potential employees based on the color of their skin.
"Are you saying it's good sometimes, and bad other times?"
Yep
DB,
I am of the opinion that it is none of the government's business anyway who a private company hires, or does not.....in that respect they need to get out of their business. I also believe that employers who exhibit racism in their hiring practices will most likely put themselves out of business, it doesn't stop at their hiring, it usually permeates many aspects of their business.
Understood, and well written. Though, Walt Disney might take issue with that ;)
Truly, I don't know what the answer is. Wish I did, I'd probably be a bit more wealthy.
I also believe that employers who exhibit racism in their hiring practices will most likely put themselves out of business, it doesn't stop at their hiring, it usually permeates many aspects of their business.
Tommy, you know how I respect you, but I have to disagree with you here. Black people have waited patiently for too long to be welcomed into the job market. For the most part black people had to take the scraps -- the type of jobs that "other" Americans didn't want to do. Waiting around and hoping for the job to collapse due to their racism does not help those who've been ostracized by the booming job market since the industrial revolution. And historians have noted that during the industrial revolution, instead of hiring many blacks who moved from the South to the North for jobs, these jobs instead hired the influx of European immigrants. Hell, even Pat Buchanan admitted this much in one of his books. You should check out this article regarding class-based Affirmative Action written by sociologists Stephen Steinberg. Here's an excerpt:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY WAS FORGED OUT OF THE CAULDRON of black insurgency. It was the mobilization of black protest, beginning with the civil rights movement and the ensuing upsurge of black militancy, that engendered the political pressure for the policy initiatives that came to be known as "affirmative action."
The most important of these initiatives was the Philadelphia Plan which was originally drawn up by Lyndon Johnson's Department of Labor, but shelved after Hubert Humphrey's defeat in 1968. A year later it was resurrected by Arthur Fletcher, the black Assistant Secretary of Labor, with the backing of Charles Shultz and Nixon himself. Why Nixon, who got elected by openly appealing to the racial backlash, backed the Philadelphia Plan has been the subject of much speculation. This is less mystifying when placed in proper historical context. During the summer of 1969 there was an outbreak of highly publicized protests against discrimination in the construction trades. Hugh Davis Graham, author of The Civil Rights Era, provides the following description:
Preston,
That is fine, we can respectfully disagree. But I come at this from a libertarian point of view, and I acknowledge many do not share it, but it is my view nonetheless, and as I said I respect other viewpoints.
I just don't believe the government has any business telling private employers, or private landlords, who they can hire or rent too. It has nothing to do with race for me, it is based on that premise and that principal alone. And as I said, racists and bigots cannot stay hidden for long, their racism always rears its head and for that reason they are usually their own worst enemy.
However, I understand the passionate disagreement many have with me on this, and I respect it.
It's cool, Tommy, I understand that you're a libertarian. In fact, I share a lot of libertarian views (notably on free speech). I also understand, as principle, why you oppose Affirmative Action. But what other solutions do minorities and women have when originally they’re not, and it some places still not, welcomed into many job sectors? I know you feel that being a decent citizen, following all the rules, and embracing education is the best way to solve upper mobility. But what if that's not enough? What if a person does all those things and they still are shutout to enter the mainstream based on the belief that women and minorities need to “stay in their place”? We either have to start with the premise that America is a just country that treats all its citizens equal to white men, or we face the fact that America, despite all its greatness, is not the perfect utopia and fair democracy that we'd like to believe.
Preston,
What job sectors are you referring too? Now of course there are certain employers who would discriminate, but an entire job sector? I see women and minorities in pretty much every job sector that I can think of. I could be wrong, or naive, but are they being discriminated in an entire sector of the marketplace?
The women and minorities you see owe being there to Affirmative Action. But if we go back to the roots of Affirmative Action, and why it was initiated in the first place, there was huge job and school discrimination. Perhaps the question now is how long should Affirmative Action be used since minorities and women have made great gains. I feel it should be put into place until women and minorities make as much as white men, and we're definitely not there yet.
You should check out this other article regarding Affirmative Action by Stephen Steinberg. He examines where the backlash began and how many liberal Jews who supported the Civil Rights Movement opposed Affirmative Action, for whatever reasons. Make sure to check out the part Occupational Apartheid.
I believe Affirmative Action requires that companies accepting governmnent money have programs in place if their work force demographics does not match the community demographics.
Technically it does not force anyone to hire anybody. Now if your community is diverse and your workforce is not, Affirmative Action requires a plan to make sure that your hiring practices will not bypass anyone qualified for the job that is not being represented in your community.
Is this not unreasonable for the government to ask for when handing out taxpayer money?
What really scares Beck and company is that Obama DOES NOT FIT their stereotype for African Americans and that he does have crossover appeal. Therefore they have to throw the straw man affirmative action for the unqualified stereotype at him any way they can.
No law or program requires anyone to hire someone unqualified for the job. If companies want to do this because thats their interpretation of being fair, its their own damn fault.
Affirmative Action is necessary if your organization's demographic does not reflect the demographic in your community.
Are you seriously saying that a private business has to have a workforce that reflects the demographic in your community? Business's operate for profit. Most private businesses don't care too much to act as social change agents. But you'd have it that a private employer needs to make sure that his employees are racially representative of the community?
A real life example was a white man and a black man inquiring over the phone about how to rent a place advertised in the paper (by a particular real estate group- not a bunch of different ones) in a predominately rich, white area in Pittsburgh (Shadyside). The white person was told he could look at the unit and apply for it 100% of the time, while the black guy was told it had already been rented- again, 100% of the time.
When the story broke in the newspaper, the lady who had been the one answering the phones over the 4 week long period said that she had been ORDERED by her bosses to tell anyone who SOUNDED black that there were no units! Now my question is how the HELL do you combat this type of prejudice WITHOUT some type of affirmative action law...?
Don't the civil rights laws allow people to bring lawsuits in these instances? I'm not being rhetorical. I mean, all things being equal, then of course there should be no discriminating by reason of color, or anything other race or gender factor. But that's not what affirmative action does. It favors one individual over another by reason of race or what have you, even when the non-favored individual is more qualified . . . .
No. AA is a little more complicated than that.
I'm a big fan of affirmative action, because it works. I don't know of any examples of unqualified people getting jobs over others-- I think that's a myth.
All sorts of intangibles go into hiring. AA critics always try to deny this. Hiring someone has never been a 'pure' process.
If you think it was because white politicians wanted to give African Americans preferential treatment you're mistaken.
Imperfect as it is, AA was seen as a remendy to a long standing problem, a problem the marketplace wasn't solving on its own.
Would the problem still exist if we wiped out AA?
I don't know for sure but I can tell you there are some posters on this site who believe an employer has right to hire and fire based on sexual preferences, not merit, so it's not a great leap to believe the attitudes which brought about AA in the first place still exist.
Thank you.
Not everybody mind you, there are some hard core cases out there, but changing some attitudes is better than changing none.
But on the whole AA didn't replace a big problem with an even bigger one.
Then you really need to do some research into how AA came into being in the first place.
Please share, and tell me how my description of AA is incorrect. It's preferential treatment based on race and/or gender. I never commented that there wasn't white AA. Why don't you try reading what I wrote before condescendingly replying to comments I never made
AA is the remedy not the problem.
To the contrary, preferences based on race and gender is what created injustice and inequalities to begin with. But with your sound logic, you'd like to solve the problem by using the same kind of practice that created the problem. Apology accepted for misreprenting my earlier comment.
Affirmative Action does not tell anyone to hire anyone based on skin color. Get over the stupid, old, lame, ignorant straw man. Affirmative Action is necessary if your organization's demographic does not reflect the demographic in your community. If so, then you should have a program in place to have a more balanced demographic. It could mean doing recruitement, mentorship programs, or merely having a policy that does not tolerate discrimination.
What is funny is that many organizations in this day and age realize that having a workforce that reflects their communities demographic is actual good for business. They would find having an all white (or any other hue) workforce undesirable and want to fix it.
I have yet to see the vast caucausian slums caused by Affirmative Action. The white victimhood game is very lame and weak. I am always amazed at how quicly the conservative mindset plays the victim card when it suits them.
"What is funny is that many organizations in this day and age realize that having a workforce that reflects their communities dempgraphics is actual good for business. They would find having an all white (or any other hue) workforce undesirable and want to fix it."
Absolutely, well said. And further evidence that government intervention in this area is discriminatory and unncessary.
Except the government's program has to do with companies recieving government money. Why can't the goverment request this? My understanding is that AA programs do not require "perfect demographics", only that those accepting government money have policies in place to insure that inbalances are not cause by discrimination.
In that case, any AA program is voluntary. I thought your gripe was with goverment AA.
"a problem the marketplace wasn't solving on its own"
Piggybacking,
In other words, for you libertarians, the "free market/fixes itself" solution did NOT work.
You need to do a little reading about how Affirmative action really works.
It does not require a private business to do anything. Not one thing.
If you wanted to start a company and hire only white people you could. You just would not be able to do business with the government. So its up to the business, what they want to do.
There are anti-discrimination laws (which most anti-affirmative action people confuse) that say that you can not refuse to hire some one based on any of the protected characteristics (race, gender, etc). The only cases I've read about were these were successfully applied involved companies that were openly racist and didn't take great pains to hide it.
But like I said, do some reading about the issue first. (and I do mean both sides, because there are valid points for each side).
yeah, except, that's not really true. I don't think any law insists that you hire one race over another despite qualifications. It might look that way sometimes to a person who want's to see it that way, though. There might even be the occasional example of it actually happening, but I think those cases are rare.
Here's the problem with Beck's comments: The group that has benefitted the most from Affirmative Action is WHITE WOMEN:
These groups include women, Native Americans, Arab Americans, Latino/as, Asian Americans, and African Americans. Of these groups, the United States Department of Labor found that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.
http://aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct30.php
Preston,
No problem at all. Anything that can be done to dispel any racist or sexist or any "-ist" rumors, you have an ally here. What are the odds that the people chirping the loudest on this thread actually read the study and comment?
"Who in the so called liberal media has asked if Obama is black enough? I know a few whack-a-doos out there were making something of this a short while ago."
I never heard wackos question this. What I heard were some serious African Americans who had actually fought the good fight, asking the question about whether Obama was really a poseur or not, or whether he was the one who was exploiting race.
What's inconsistent in this whole campaign is that Obama and his supporters clearly trumpet his ethnicity. But when someone else brings up the issue, even obliquely, all of a sudden it's 'hands off' time, and the outrage and self-righteousness rises up in them.
You can't have it both ways.
Goodfella,
I can't defend Beck here, he is just baiting through his typical wink and a nod schtick that is his trademark. I don't know if he is a racist or not, but he isn't doing anything to dispel that accusation.
Yes, my understanding is that Norway's economy has collapsed.
I have also heard that Norway has a trillion dollar debt. No, wait, that is some other big country whose name escapes me right now...
Buf,
What does Norway have to do with anything? Want to try again?
Buf,
That would be like saying that if Russia had an economic failing that it was due to white men. Try an American example and have you realized why Beck's point is ignorant at best?
He's saying, look if you believe in affirmative action, give the guy the "points. You make corporations do it, you used to be able to make schools do it, so why not make politicians do it?" H-Buf
H-Buf,
She would get points too, maybe even MORE than he would if they applied affirmative action since it has benefitted white women more than anyone else. See why Glenn isn't funny and injecting race??
“I don't see him as black or white. He just is. He's an American. He's a man.”
Beck was hired, in large part, because he’s a white man, but that’s neither here nor there. The silver lining here is that Beck may be experiencing some kind of on the job learning. It was only a couple months ago when he revealed to a fellow American and guest on his show, that he could not discern the difference between her and “those that [sic] are trying to kill us”.Beck was hired because his conservative, anti intellectual, psuedo cool , knee jerk, shallow patriotism and anti progressive polemic would safely entertain the correct demographic to please the advertisers without upsetting the status quo. CNN saw dollar signs and for this reason they hired him. Not because he is a relevent and insightful intellect for our time. NO! no! no! In fact, its the opposite, beck is rush- BO - hannity in a slightly different package. He is SAFE to the status quo and he entertains well for the proper ratings.
A media that would hire journalist/ analysts based on merit would find Beck at the bottom of the list. Unfortunatley our media is not about informing the citizen but rather, about pleasing stockholders.
I would say Beck can thank the conservative trendite Affirmative Action program for his job.
Buf,
Don't hide the ball here. You thought the joke was funny and its ironic just how wrong it is. Can you do better than changing the subject?
Look, funny is a subjective thing. She is a big supporter of aff action. So he says you foist it on everyone else, or want to, so try some of your own medicine and let's see how you like it. Now when you say it as I just wrote it, well it's not funny at all. But when I read it I liked the irony of it and I chuckled. It's one of those do as I say, not as I do things.
But as I said, humor is subjective. I don't like Larry the Cable Guy, but others think he's hilarious.
Buf,
The problem with the joke is that if Affirmative Action applied SHE would probably benefit the most not Obama! So, Beck screwed up the punchline. I guess that is hilarious!
Well, discrimination as you describe is reprehensible, of course. But I would not call it AA for white men, it's just plain old discrimination. That is illegal, and should be. Discrimination was not just for blacks as I am certain you know.
So is yours:
hispanics don't like obama because he's black. it's as simple as that.
hstybuf6553 / Sunday January 27, 2008 5:59:23 PM EST
that's not my discrimination. I said I liked Obama, just not as president. But I'm not prohibited from withholding my vote for anyone for any reason I choose, fair or not.
Discrimination of some sort is always with us. If I hit on a gorgeous chick (assuming arguendo I'm not married) and she says I'm not good looking enough, well that is discrimination. We can't make every form of discrimination illegal, but we can draw a line at a person's ability to make a living, buy a house, things related to commerce.
This guy calls slavery "oppression"?
For nearly 80 years in the United States, under both State and Federal Law, slavery existed as a legal institution. It was a "race-based" slavery: I'm under the impression that where slavery was legal, it was not legal to claim any person other than a Negro as a slave. Only Africans or persons of African descent were slaves; there was never ever such a thing in America as a legally enslaved white person (as far as I know).
Also, I believe that in those places where slavery was legal (again, "race-based" slavery), there was no such thing as a Negro who was not a slave: there was no such a thing in any "slave State" as an African or African descendant who was a Citizen or a Free Man (and again, no such a thing in those same States or anywhere at all in America, as a "white slave").
And this was all legal, under U.S. Law and in many States, for nearly 80 years in America.
And that time is not so far distant, as we would not say that today, America has many Americans who are the Great Grandchildren and Great-Great Grandchildren of slaves. And seeing as that formally legal institution of slavery was "race-based", then obviously that means that today's descendants of slaves in America, are Negro or Black or African-American (or American-African or whatever you call it if you're forced to call it something, as I am here).
And so as a result of all that, today we mandate that certain Government expenditures, when those expenditures go to and hire Americans, that a Just and fair percentage of Government funds might be spent in the direction of African-Americans, as a sort of...
"Race-based" JUSTICE
...in turn for something that, to call it injustice, is to use a word too lame to describe the inhumane practice of making people legal slaves based on the color of their skin, or the fact they are from Africa or descended from Africans.
Inhumane is the word.
To say that "race-based" slavery was merely an injustice, is about as stupid and ignorant as to refer to slavery as merely "oppression".
But I don't think the guy quoted above, is so much stupid or ignorant when he calls slavery "oppression". I just think he's clever like all the other snakes of his trade, when he carefully avoids the word (or topic) of slavery... but tries to sneak past us a vague reference to it, as mere "oppression".
"Only Africans or persons of African descent were slaves; there was never ever such a thing in America as a legally enslaved white person (as far as I know)." -Dem
Now I could be wrong, but I do believe that at one time, white males who did not own land could be bought and sold. Like I said, I could be wrong...
To ask if Obama is "black enough" implies an inherent cultural and class identification with "blackness," i.e. to be black implies being poor, from the getto, listening to gangsta rap, etc.
These questions about race are just another way of finding false distinctions between virtually identical candidates. Regardless of their skin color or gender, they are all virtually the same - born into a life of privilege and educated at Ivy League schools. They appeal to "liberals" because they have found a way to look like they care about the common working class person who struggles to pay the bills, but to me it always seems false because I know that they have never come close to experiencing that lifestyle.
What I would like to see is a candidate, black or white, male or female, who actually grew up poor enough to know what it's really like to be from the lower class that "blackness" is unfortunately associated with. Maybe I'll write in Flava Flav in the fall.
there were indentured servants.
Now this is off topic, but interesting. In 1854 the CA supreme court had a case where a white man had killed another white man, but the only witnesses were chinese. California had a law that said negroes and Indians could not testify against a white man in a capital case.
What to do? The court found that a celestial was for purposes of the statute an Indian and could not testify, so the guy went free. And the court went on, it would be a slippery slope if they let these guys testify, next they'd want to be judges and vote.
Affirmative Action is a hard thing to argue for, especially in modern times. It really comes down to this question: Should the govt. be responsible for fighting all forms of discrimination now and in the future, or should they also be responsible for making up for the effects of past discrimination?
A color-blind society is a noble ideal that most people desire (I hope), but if that doctrine had existed since the birth of America, I doubt we'd be having this discussion at all.
CARN:
What the GOVERNMENT, meaning its public servants, should DO is to not only pay lip service to the Constitution, but ENFORCE it.
The 14th Amendment calls for "EQUAL PROTECTION under the LAWS" for ALL citizens.
Now, should anything be done if this Constitutionally mandated responsibility is NOT being followed?
For 100 years following the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the LAWS were still preventing black folk and women from equal voting rights. Black folk BY LAW had to go to the back of the bus. Law enforcement in localities enforced BANS on "colored" people going into public facilities where they were "not allowed". Businesses routinely discriminated against blacks, women, and others as part of their employment policy.
The CONSTITUTION was clear, yet much of the nation was NOT in compliance with the EQUALITY the Constitution demanded. What to do?
What was called for was legislation WITH TEETH, law which mandated compliance with NON-DISCRIMINATORY practices, with penalties if the law was not followed. OF COURSE racists far and wide were angry with the federal elimination of Jim Crow. OF COURSE racists were outraged that they could no longer discriminate and stay in business. OF COURSE Affirmative Action was roundly despised by a large segment of the nation, because it was EFFECTIVE, and had TEETH, and sought to actually ENFORCE the Equality our Constitution demanded.
Should the government address discrimination? IT MUST, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the LAND, and whatever befalls an individual, can befall US ALL. If ONE citizen's civil rights can be violated, then NONE of us are truly FREE.
Are you serious, that you wonder if "the government" should "INTERFERE"?
THOMP:
Please don't tell me you're one of those white guys that feels that AA has prevented him from getting a job? AA addressed systemic discrimination that was often 100%, preventing blacks or women from being hired AT ALL.
AA broke that barrier, and then blacks and women HAD to be hired. And the nation was BETTER for it all.
Ah, but what about that white guy, looking for a job, and is turned down because the company chose the black guy instead? I can understand his anguish, having lost that 100% WHITE GUY Affirmative Action that was the policy for most of America's history.
What was that white guy to DO, now that his absolute preference has become a competition? Easy. He goes down the street, and applies for another job.
As a white guy, I stayed employed all through Affirmative Action implementation, no problem. I don't NEED that 100% preference to get a job, I'm fine competing with all applicants for that job. And if somebody else gets it, I look elsewhere.
Or, I suppose, I could be passed over for a job, sit down, cry a river, and blame the Black guys who DID get the job. How about it, Thomp? Are you a worker, or a whiner?
Tex, I basically look like an all white guy, but have some latino blood running through me. And no, that I've know of, I've never been the victim of racial discrimination (AA) in terms of applying for a job. Nonetheless, I did in fact struggle to find a job in the profession of my choosing, and it wasn't as easy as just walking down the street . . .
I know you're bright enough to realize that claiming the opposing guy's "crying the victim status" plays both ways in this argument, so no need to address those inconsequential remarks. But then again, you should remember that it's easy to speak so easily about an individual's "anguish" about being denied a job when you have the luxury of one and are making money. (That's another problem with AA -- it doesn't disturb the rich white politicians and other white elitists who so eloquently support it.)
Every argument defending AA is inherently contradictory -- all argue that you end discriminatory policies against one group by discriminating against another group. And yes, a policy that gives preference to someone exclusively by virtue of his/her race or gender is discrimination. I'm all for disallowing discrimination in hiring practices and everything else. I don't need 100% preference, but those days are in the past my friend. Enforcing the equal employment laws seems to me the best way to end workplace discrimination, and counting race and/or gender as a positive or negative factor seems counterproductive to that end.
Nonetheless, although I despise the policy and think its discrimination, let alone unconstitutional, I honestly can't help seeing your point that AA may have "broke that barrier." Perhaps 20 or 30 years ago, an exceedingly overbroad policy like AA was necessary to force employers to comply with equal employment laws and not use race or gender as a disqualifying factor. But that's the end game here, "equal" opportunity, not race/gender preferences. AA goes beyond enforcing "equal" opportunity, and in this day I think that with proper enforcement of the laws on the books the policy is unnecessary. At what point should we stop categorizing people based on race . .. ? My black colleagues, including my present black woman employer, certainly need no preferences. All they need is an equal opportunity. And in turns of getting raises and promotions and so forth, they and I should compete on an equal playing field, without preferences, quotas, or what have you.
He's saying, look if you believe in affirmative action, give the guy the points. You make corporations do it, you used to be able to make schools do it, so why not make politicians do it?
Oh, please, what a leap of logic. Just how widespread do you think AA is? I think even most supporters of it understand that the program needs to have some clearly defined limitations. Maybe I should go ask my BLACK psychology professor how many points the university assigned to him.
It would be a good question, but I hope you just use numbers on your bluebooks (if you still use those), and not your name.
I was just interpreting what Beck had to say.
Maybe Beck should review the fact that women are a minority, too.
For 145 years America went about the world crowing about its freedom and equality while denying women the right to vote.
Maybe we should revisit the ancient argument as to which had it worse, the American negro or the American woman.
The part that really got me was when Ridley claimed that liberals are even asking whether Obama is black enough. The only people in the "liberal" media that are even asking that question are conservatives. I'm a little glad that researching for an example of a liberal asking that question never crossed their minds. They wouldn't be able to find one and be force to invent examples. Wow. I am actually relieved at listening to an ignorant discussion as opposed to a fraudulent discussion.
NO WAY... Obama, to be fair, should get spotted 50% because he doesn't have a very popular former president in his corner to mess with Hillary's campaign.
Well,The Beaver is just being the Beaver. CNN hired an entertainer to do "Headline News"; go figure. Anyone who takes him seriously gets what they deserve.
Blaming the Beaver for moronic blather is like blaming your dog for pissing on the rug...its just being a dog.
>>BECK: Can you imagine -- John, can you imagine a white commentator saying that? Can you imagine if I said, "Is Barack Obama black enough?" I mean, I don't see -- I don't see that man as black. Of course I do, because I'm not blind. I don't see him as black or white. He just is. He's an American. He's a man.
Actually I can.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240010?f=s_search
"So, what would you call it when a person is passed over a job because of the color of their skin? Any color of their skin? Are you saying it's good sometimes, and bad other times?
Tommy's first post - general response, very general question, not specifically referring to AA or government policy.
"I am of the opinion that it is none of the government's business anyway who a private company hires, or does not.....in that respect they need to get out of their business. I also believe that employers who exhibit racism in their hiring practices will most likely put themselves out of business, it doesn't stop at their hiring, it usually permeates many aspects of their business."
Second post, well, no, and that's not what's being discussed. AA applies only to private firms that want to deal with the government.
He also "believes" it comes back to bite them. Have any data on that or is "beliefs" a good enough argument? History certainly doesn't share your "belief".
"I just don't believe the government has any business telling private employers, or private landlords, who they can hire or rent too. It has nothing to do with race for me, it is based on that premise and that principal alone."
Again, pretty much head in the sand view and again, not what's being discussed. Reality be gone!
"What job sectors are you referring too? Now of course there are certain employers who would discriminate, but an entire job sector? I see women and minorities in pretty much every job sector that I can think of. I could be wrong, or naive, but are they being discriminated in an entire sector of the marketplace? "
And you "believe" that AA has had no impact still? Step back several decades and you would not be able to say the same thing.
"Well, let's just say employee morale and a sense of fairness certainly starts off on the wrong foot when a potential new hire gets passed over a job simply because of the color of their skin."
Uh, those decades past await your visit...
"I am not taking about any specific race at all, even though you insist on making it about that. I am talking about the inherent unfairness of being passed over a job because of one's skin color. "
Goodness, let's all live in the utopian world and forget our past.
"Absolutely, well said. And further evidence that government intervention in this area is discriminatory and unncessary. "
So headway has been made and now we can all just forgot what brought this change about and move on as though nothing has ever happened. It's a perfect world boys and girls.
"I am specifically talking about private companies and their hiring practices, not government ones."
The argument changes to fit the last attack, we'll bring up AA as long as it fits our argument but we'll abandon it when it 's inconvenient.
I don't comment often here but do read through the posts often enough and I've noticed that this is what Tommy does. He's a wordsmith and his schtick doesn't change.
Wrong His Story Bluff. I'm not really disputing origins of a word, because by the same comparison the word ni#$ardly wasn't initially used to describe blacks, instead it was used to describe ignorant actions. Similarly picnic didn't derive from the use it took on in Slavemerica. But hey, keep finding websites that disprove common knowledge and sense.
Folks, I know some of you are tired of the "black struggle" and view America as an even slate, but seriously, next month is black history month. I've been forced to learn your history since grade school. Learn a little of ours and lets have some open, honest debates.
MIKESKEW
You're wrong on a couple of levels. AA does seek preferences, no matter what the form. At the very least, its a policy that counts someone's race or gender, exclusive of merit, as a plus. Prey tell how that's not a preference.
Furthermore, is it your position that because women and people of color were discriminated against for 300 years, its now okay to discriminate against young white men entering higher education or the workforce? And it is discrimination, no matter how lofty of terms rich politicians, unaffected by it, use to couch the policy. Many who hold this unprincipled position are way too quick to assume that every white guy is rich and gets jobs or gets into school without any worries. That minorites and women suffered much worse by virtue of the rancid policy does not somehow make the policy "just" simply by 'putting the shoe on the other foot" and applying it against someone else.
And equal opportunity for kids to go to good grammar schools so that they can move on to the elitist upper level schools is fine by me. But there are ways to improve the quality of childrens' education without resorting to racial policies.
Strictly complying with the words of the 14th amendment seems to me like the best place to resort --- "equal protection" -- And a 'color blind' interpretation of our laws seems like a better aspiration than one which pits one group against another based on the color of his/or her skin or his/her gender.
MIKE
The AA policy takes many forms, and the ones which I have in mind are those in construction and higher education. There are many permutations to the policy.
Everything you describe is not fair; it is discriminatory and wrong. Institutions should be "race neutral" in their hiring, enrollment and other such policies. As to your example, it wouldn't be fair that I have an advantage over you in getting accepted into a certain school because of my race, and neither would it be fair if you have an advantage over me because of your race.
And you're most definitely not going to get me to defend legacies. I like to see everyone apply for things based on their own merit. And in my opinion, we end discriminatory hiring policies, (as in your airline example), by enforcing the employment laws disallowing discrimination -- not by continuing to prefer people according to their race. Going by the black individuals with whom I work, including my black woman employer, preferences are not necessary when people are treated without regard to skin color or gender.
How bankrupt is the conservative philosophy. They have resorted to defending torture,spying without warrants on citizens, arrest and interment without charges,economicaly their defence of trickle down has been shown to utterly ridiculous and they have twisted the policy to right wrongs in employment and education as reverse racism. Yet they make no comment concerning how race and class was and is still being used to decide who gets the top spots in bussiness and education. "Your doing a great job Brownie!" Remember Katrina how did Brownie get that position? Oh, and lets not forget Monica Goodings testimony about the justice department hiring practices and violations of the Hatch Act. How about the flooding of the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division(you know that division that is supposed to be the "peoples watchdog against voting, education and hiring discrimination)with loyal Republican hacks with agendas contrary to the positions they hold. The truth is that there has never been a level playing field for poor whites ,latinos,or blacks. It is also true that any law or right fought for and gained by people of color has resulted in the increasing of rights and opportunitiies for all not less. The civil rights struggles and the fight for womens rights go hand in hand. The laws against discrimination broadened to include more than just Afro-Americans. This reverse racism BS is just that BS,used to confuse and obscure the real issue of lack of opportunity for those at the bottom.
STEVE comes to this forum with a very unreasonable, unyielding, presentation of the World According To Steve. He also comes here without knowing historical and other facts to back up what he believes is true, such as his opinions about AA.
It's futile to debate with Steve because when you present historically recorded facts to him he isn't man enough to admit his errors. Thank you for your efforts though. I appreciate your VIAN efforts to explain that AA has been victimizing many Americans for Hundreds of years and still counting today. Making Laws and Enforcing laws will never stop it.
When it comes to Steve, there's only one way to help him understand the truth. Dress Steve in drag, paint him black or brown and make him get a little experience being a woman and being black or brown. This has been done before with the participant having experienced a number of REVELATIONS and many new facts.
Loaded down with this reality and newfound knowledge Steve would no doubt become a champion for civil rights and equal opportunities for all Americans. He or She would become the next MLK!
Thanks Again for trying.
SAM
I'm glad that I stumbled back onto this. I love it when someone all but admits his ignorance by resorting to personal attacks, rather than address the issue. And their efforts aren't VAIN. I respect and appreciate other people's well-thought views.
In any event, and not surprisingly, much of your post makes absolutely no sense. I agree that AA "has been victimizing many Americans for Hundreds of years and still counting today". That's why discrimination based on one's gender or skin color, no matter what the form, is unjust. I'm at a loss as to where defenders of this discriminatory policy get "equal opportunity" out of race or gender based "preferencees."
The logic of AA is this --- discriminating against one group by reason of race or gender will be fixed by discriminating against another group by reason of race or gender. If that's not it, then please explain how preferring one group over another by virtue of race or gender is not discrimination.
That leads to your more nonsensical assertion, that "making laws and enforcing laws will not stop AA." Do you want to stop AA or not? Enforcing laws that make illegal discrimination based on race and gender most certainly will, and has worked. Check out the EEOC's website. The endgame is an equal playing field, right? The best way to achieve that goal is to fight against discrimination of all types.
And save your self-pitying bullsh*t abous dressing steve up, or painting him black. It's so typical of a losing argument when it basically resorts to accusing the other person of being unsympathetic, or against civil rights.
Hi STEVE.... I respect and appreciate your views too and IGNORANT is not me Steve. I agree that you STUMBLED back, because all I said was ( You're very "Unreasonable and Unyielding" in the face of POSTS made here ) In the face of historical and present day facts.
If my post was personal I would of said ( You're a "Stubborn and "IGNORANT" Moronic Gentleman." ) But no, what I stated was...
You're very "Unreasonable and Unyielding" AND... That most likely, the only way to reach you is to take extraordinary measures. SAID measures have been tested before with amazing results. You responded by saying....
"Save your self-pitying bullsh*t abous dressing steve up, or painting him black." - - THOMP.STEVE9098
Steve, I'm sorry if you've lost your temper but I meant well. I'm just trying to reach your reasonable, honest and compassionate side... If you have one?