Ace of Spades HQ

February 13, 2014

Slate Liberal: It's Time to End Affirmative Action
— Ace

#slatepitches, as they say. Post something grabby for viral hits.

Per the Slate article's headline: "The Massive Liberal Failure on Race. Affirmative action doesnÂ’t work. It never did. ItÂ’s time for a new solution."

The guy wrote a book called, "Some of My Best Friends Are Black: The Strange Story of Integration in America."

Althouse comments:

Obviously, Slate's publishing the article boosts Colby's stature as an expert on this topic. It's why I'm reading Colby's piece. But I can see the reasons why Slate would publish this. It knows its readers are mostly white liberals, and it's easy to guess that they're susceptible to the narcissistic question: Where are my black friends? (Obama counts as one friend, but he's always so busy.) And Slate's headline is one of the most egregious pleas for traffic I have ever seen: "Massive Liberal Failure on Race: Affirmative action doesnÂ’t work...." Massive! Liberal! Failure! Race! The righties will not be able not to link to this, I can hear them chuckling. And maybe, oozing in around their self-loving liberalism, they believe that plenty of their regular readers, the good liberals, feel secretly aggrieved about affirmative action.

The guy's point seems to be that affirmative action has created (or reinforced) a separation between the races... which I actually don't think is true, but okay. He then suggests a big government expansion (of course!) in exchange for getting rid of affirmative action.

He says everyone on the right is desperate to get rid of affirmative action. That's not really true. That position exists. But some of us have a moderate take on it, something like this:

I do not oppose special efforts to find minority candidates for a position. I think such efforts are advisable and wise.

I don't even oppose soft quotas, not hard ones, but soft ones. For example, if a company has always had 3% or less black workers, despite blacks making up 15% of the nearby job pool, I don't mind a fair inquiry into this situation, so long as the company is able to rebut any presumption or conclusion that they're hiring on a discriminatory basis. (Part of the problem, here, is that such inquiries frequently do not seem fair, the company is not allowed to fairly rebut the implicit charge, and the soft quota quickly becomes a hard quota.)

I don't even mind, and I'm just speaking for myself here, Chris Rock's claim that affirmative action is a good policy, because a tie should go to the runner, as in baseball. He says it's so hard to get on first base, just as it's been hard for blacks to get ahead in America, that if there's a tie as to qualifications between a black and white applicant, you should give the job to the black one.

I know many conservatives may disagree in principle. In principle, I wouldn't disagree, or perhaps I'd disagree too, but mutedly. But while I don't mind ties going to the runner, per Rock's analogy, I will object when the runner is clearly out (that is, that there is a clear reason to hire the white guy over him, based on nonracial factors), but the law or political pressure supports the hiring of the black guy anyway.

Our goal should be a color blind society. We're not there yet. I don't mind some efforts taking cognizance of this fact... but I do start to object when the state imposes a discriminatory regime based on race. I maybe can go along with a little bit of such discrimination. But only a little.

A tie, a near-tie, okay. I get that. I concede diversity is, all other things being equal, a laudable thing to strive for. I certainly would like racial problems in America to be past us, and when the races are at rough economic equality, they will be past us.

But you can't turn to actual racial discrimination in favor of this goal.

I mean, when it comes right down to it: Even ignoring such things as principle (that it's unfair to discriminate against any race based on race, including the white race or, frequently as it turns out, Asians, who are "overrepresented" in colleges), the fact is that I have a strong personal preference to not be discriminated against myself. It's not "racist" of me to prefer to not be discriminated against, even if someone can make a compelling case (in their opinion) as to why I ought to be.

At any rate, read Althouse, read this #slatepitch, decide what you think.

Posted by: Ace at 02:20 PM | Comments (404)
Post contains 779 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Saw that article. Perhaps the ice is breaking?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 02:22 PM (bb5+k)

2 A Great, Pro-Life, Anti-Homosexual, Pro-Gun Conservative Republican once said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 02:24 PM (bb5+k)

3 >>>Althouse comments:

Formatting error?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 02:24 PM (IN7k+)

4 Yeah, Eric Holder will get right on that.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 02:24 PM (rQR0r)

5 Let the Wookie win!

Posted by: It's From Star Wars, It CAN'T Be Racist! at February 13, 2014 02:25 PM (DLu2s)

6 Affirmative action is spotting the runner second base, not giving him the tie.

Posted by: huerfano at February 13, 2014 02:25 PM (bAGA/)

7 'Soft Bigotry...' and all that.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 02:25 PM (rQR0r)

8 Well I completely disagree. AA may have had its place in an earlier time but that time has long past. There is no doubt that AA like the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP and every other race based organization do more to divide than they do to help. If the goal is to create a racially neutral society then neither side gets to have special privileges, that's not how neutrality works and all it does is divide on race.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 13, 2014 02:26 PM (g1DWB)

9 Stupid and uninformed people are over-represented in the Democratic party.

Posted by: Furious George at February 13, 2014 02:26 PM (yFb77)

10 "The Massive Liberal Failure on...."

Could have just stopped right there.

So can anyone name a Liberal success story????

Anything the sorry pricks have tried eventually turns to shit.

Posted by: Portnoy at February 13, 2014 02:26 PM (8N1kd)

11 Our goal should be a color blind society.

...which has been deemed racism, you know.
http://is.gd/q8iOVv

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 02:27 PM (ZKzrr)

12 >>>Well I completely disagree. AA may have had its place in an earlier time but that time has long past. There is no doubt that AA like the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP and every other race based organization do more to divide than they do to help. If the goal is to create a racially neutral society then neither side gets to have special privileges, that's not how neutrality works and all it does is divide on race. ... eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important. I agree such policies are divisive.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 02:27 PM (/FnUH)

13 In many ways, the story of Affirmative Action is the Story of Obama.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 02:27 PM (rQR0r)

14 Yeah, I think it's time to end affirmative action. It's reached its logical end, and its useful days are just about over.

Over on January 21, 2017, to be exact. Then you're all on your own!

Posted by: Barack Obama, Posable Affirmative Action Inaction at February 13, 2014 02:28 PM (DLu2s)

Serious question:

When the fuck is all the bitching about slavery going to be over??

The Russian serfs (read slaves) were freed at roughly the same time. Do you ever hear anyone, ever, bitching about not being able to get ahead b/c of serfdom??

Or 50 yrs later, are we still going to be hearing the same shit?

Posted by: prescient11 at February 13, 2014 02:29 PM (tVTLU)

16 Yeah, I think it's time to end affirmative action. It's reached its logical end, and its useful days are just about over.

Over on January 21, 2017, to be exact. Then you're all on your own!

Posted by: Barack Obama, Posable Affirmative Action Inaction Figure at February 13, 2014 02:29 PM (DLu2s)

17
I notice nobody came to me like a man....

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2014 02:29 PM (n0DEs)

18 "I do not oppose special efforts to find minority candidates for a position. I think such efforts are advisable and wise."

I disagree. You hire the most qualified candidate.

What. The. Hell are you thinking?

Justify that, or try, and I will rake you over the coals.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:29 PM (x3YFz)

19 I tend to think a person should get a position based on things like talent, experience and ambition--not skin color. But then, I'm apparently an evil conservative.

Posted by: Null at February 13, 2014 02:31 PM (xjpRj)

20 Admitting the failure of affirmative action requires the left to admit that they really do see blacks as incapable of competing without it. The end game is either: 1. "AA succeeded" = blacks can now equally compete. This ends the grievance industry and is a nonstarter for the left. 2. "AA failed because blacks are losers" is to admit racism. 3. "AA failed because of the soft bigotry problem" is to admit the right (and Booosh) was correct.

Posted by: wooga at February 13, 2014 02:31 PM (+YACC)

21 eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important. Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 06:27 PM (/FnUH) And why is this? Walter Williams just pointed out the other day that every time they raise the minimum wage, they knock mostly black first time job seekers right off the employment ladder. He says the policy hurts blacks disproportionately to whites. As a matter of fact, 50 years of Democrat policies have done more to destroy the black family and their ability to advance economically than any other cause. (IMO)

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 02:31 PM (bb5+k)

22 The people hurt absolutely worst by AA are the poor white and asian kids who have grown up in just as bad, if not worse, environments than the ones that are the rationale for AA. If you really want to get screwed in America, be a kid with an Asian name and a drug addicted single mother. As for AA in general, I have no problem with trying to make a concerted effort for diversity if, and only if, the actual standards are not lowered. Lowering the standards does no favors to anyone, and is frankly insulting.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2014 02:31 PM (jOumW)

23 There isn't a Zip Code in this country that doesn't have a success story. That's fair enough for me.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 02:32 PM (rQR0r)

24 I do not oppose special efforts to find minority candidates for a position. I think such efforts are advisable and wise. I disagree. Having worked in engineering, where lives depended upon accuracy, I want the best qualified people I can find. I want someone who knows what they're doing, because if they fuck up, someone could be seriously injured or killed. I don't care what color or sex those people are. But filling a position solely to fill some racial quota is not something you can do in any position of responsibility.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 02:32 PM (0HooB)

25 I have to go with Roberts on this one:

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

Of course, that fails to take into account that affirmative action may actually be a tax. Maybe if we were to get the IRS involved...

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 02:32 PM (IN7k+)

26 >>>"I do not oppose special efforts to find minority candidates for a position. I think such efforts are advisable and wise." I disagree. You hire the most qualified candidate. What. The. Hell are you thinking? Justify that, or try, and I will rake you over the coals. ... You don't think there's any good in a company which has few minority workers taking special efforts to advertise in minority newspapers, for example?

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 02:32 PM (/FnUH)

27 The people hurt absolutely worst by AA are the poor white and asian kids who have grown up in just as bad, if not worse, environments than the ones that are the rationale for AA. == ITA.

Posted by: votermom at February 13, 2014 02:32 PM (GSIDW)

28 Affirmative action should be based on economic disadvantage, not race. It is insane to favor Obama's daughters over a similarly qualified white son of a now unemployed coal miner from West Virginia. But our soft ameliorative apartheid system is nothing if not insane.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 02:33 PM (sOtz/)

29 We have already reported this article to AttackWatch

Posted by: MSNBC - A Television Program On TV at February 13, 2014 02:33 PM (5ikDv)

30 I feel sad that I did not listen to the wisdom of the horde and avoid the 5th Die Hard movie. That is time I will never get back this afternoon.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at February 13, 2014 02:33 PM (RZ8pf)

31 >>eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important. I've been a hiring manager in one way or another for many moons now. There are dozens of laws on the books to make to cover discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex.... you name it. And these laws get enforced at even the hint of discrimination. And frankly I don't care about any of that crap. I want to hire the best person for the job and if that person happens to be a transgendered, black cyclops I do not care. Money is money. But I can tell you that I am sick of the double standard of black congressional organizations who discriminate based on the color of skin .. these are public employees .. telling me that I'm a racist if I don't adopt their bullying tactics that have nothing to do with commerce. You want to stop racism, stop making everything about race.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 13, 2014 02:33 PM (g1DWB)

32 You don't think there's any good in a company which has few minority workers taking special efforts to advertise in minority newspapers, for example?

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 06:32 PM (/FnUH)

so... pandering? Ace... you're better than that.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:34 PM (x3YFz)

33 >>>Having worked in engineering, where lives depended upon accuracy, I want the best qualified people I can find. I want someone who knows what they're doing, because if they fuck up, someone could be seriously injured or killed. right, but I think we may be disagreeing as to Affirmative Action as sold, and AA as applied. As sold, it's about special outreach efforts, largely informational efforts, to make sure the company knows about possible minority candidates, and minority candidates know about openings. As applied, it often just becomes bean-counting. But as sold, I don't disagree with the principle. I disagree with the bean-counting form it usually takes.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 02:34 PM (/FnUH)

Frankly, I have been told I was the wrong color for a job. A job I earned and was most qualified for.

But I was the wrong color.

I don't care if you're purple, most of the times the best candidate shld get the job.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 13, 2014 02:35 PM (tVTLU)

35 Hell no. Affirmatively abridging my privileges and immunities is unconstitutional, illegal, and wrong. Equal protection means equal protection. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Posted by: dustydog at February 13, 2014 02:35 PM (Rqd+i)

36 >>>Affirmative action should be based on economic disadvantage, not race. It is insane to favor Obama's daughters over a similarly qualified white son of a now unemployed coal miner from West Virginia. But our soft ameliorative apartheid system is nothing if not insane. this is a good point, and people do try to shift to this format. I think Perry, for example, shifted Texas' preferences to being income-based, or tried to, in some areas, like college admissions.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 02:35 PM (/FnUH)

37 But while I don't mind ties going to the runner, per Rock's analogy, I will object when the runner is clearly out (that is, that there is a clear reason to hire the white guy over him, based on nonracial factors), but the law or political pressure supports the hiring of the black guy anyway.

But that was the Potemkin Village employed by AA apologists from its inception. "Everyone in the pool is qualified". What they don't say is that the standards for admission into the pool have been diluted to the point of vanishing, so that my golden doodle can meet them. Then it comes down to personal preference, and we are where we are today: institutionalized racism.

The laissez faire attitude to hiring decisions may not directly address the lingering effects of discrimination, but it's probably the best we can do to get us past them.

Posted by: Vishnu at February 13, 2014 02:36 PM (6TB1Z)

38 Find me an honest human being that doesn't want to be judged or graded on merit instead of skin color.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:36 PM (x3YFz)

39 15 Serious question: Or 50 yrs later, are we still going to be hearing the same shit? Posted by: prescient11 at February 13, 2014 06:29 PM (tVTLU) Yes, sadly yes

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 02:36 PM (HVff2)

I don't even like soft quotas at all. Speaking of which, if we're going to apply it strictly, there's going to be a lot of Jews getting kicked out of law firms, hospitals and hollywood.

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 13, 2014 02:36 PM (tVTLU)

41 You want to fix racial inequality then fix it on the front end, in the schools... not on the back end where you penalize other hard working citizens just because they are the wrong color.

Posted by: E.T. at February 13, 2014 02:36 PM (uGlk8)

42
I favor this affirmative action plan called school vouchers.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2014 02:37 PM (n0DEs)

43 eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important.

Finish high school, take whatever work you can find, don't have babies before you're married...nothing race-specific there.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 02:37 PM (ZKzrr)

44 If America is so racist, how is it that Vietnamese, Koreans, Bangladashi, Indians and other recent "not white" immigrants have moved in and immediately raced up the ladder to the point they dominate elite college and medical school admissions?

If Middle Easterners, Eastern Europeans, Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, and everyone else can make it, why can't born-in-America inner city blacks? Perhaps the problem is culture, not race?

Posted by: Multitude at February 13, 2014 02:37 PM (gJDLl)

45 "when the races are at rough economic equality, they will be past us." Racism is caused by socioeconomic inequality ? I understand your sentiment, Ace, but the rationale sounds weak. Plus, where you've achieved your economic parity through racist favoritism, how will that foster unity as opposed to division and resentment ?

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 13, 2014 02:37 PM (il1Hy)

46 The problem is affirmative action, besides being a bad policy in general, is who is running it.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:37 PM (nzKvP)

47 If America is so racist, how is it that Vietnamese, Koreans, Bangladashi, Indians and other recent "not white" immigrants have moved in and immediately raced up the ladder to the point they dominate elite college and medical school admissions? Off to the re-education camps with you

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:37 PM (nzKvP)

48 Diversity for diversity's sake is not a laudable goal.

Posted by: Darth Randall at February 13, 2014 02:38 PM (xWgW3)

49 33 Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 06:34 PM (/FnUH) That is much clearer Ace

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 02:38 PM (HVff2)

50 What's your desired goal?

Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcome?

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 02:39 PM (5ikDv)

51 Ace wrote: "I certainly would like racial problems in America to be past us, and when the races are at rough economic equality, they will be past us." Are you kidding? At a time when the blatant falsehood that women make 77 cents for ever man's dollar? It is well understood that women make ~95 cents per man-dollar, which seems to mean 'rough economic equality' to me, and we will NEVER hear the end of that dishonest bleat. Ace, you are a cockeyed optimist.

Posted by: Beryl at February 13, 2014 02:39 PM (Dmf/8)

52 pep = vishnu

As sold, it's about special outreach efforts, largely informational efforts, to make sure the company knows about possible minority candidates, and minority candidates know about openings.

As applied, it often just becomes bean-counting.

But as sold, I don't disagree with the principle. I disagree with the bean-counting form it usually takes.

That's like saying you're in favor of communism, not as practiced, but as it operates in theory. The problem is that it NEVER works as in theory. and it NEVER will.

Posted by: pep at February 13, 2014 02:39 PM (6TB1Z)

53 >>>You don't think there's any good in a company which has few minority workers taking special efforts to advertise in minority newspapers, for example?

At first blush, this can seem to be a reasonable approach. What could be wrong with casting a wider net and then selecting the best candidate? But, it always seems to be the case, that when casting the wider net does not yield the hoped for results, additional steps will inevitably follow. Stuff like, we'll just show preference in the case of a tie. Followed not to far behind by something like, well the candidate that was selected was qualified, and the extra diversity amounted to a plus factor.

Once you start down that road, it always ends up in the same place.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 02:39 PM (IN7k+)

54 Everyone's over here now.... Guess I'll never know if Alex is a smallish person.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 02:39 PM (YEQ2h)

55 @36 Disadvantaged minorities will still disproportionately get a leg up, just not unbelievably advantaged minorities. Who exist in great numbers, gaming an unfair system.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 02:39 PM (sOtz/)

56 "I think Perry, for example, shifted Texas' preferences to being income-based, or tried to, in some areas, like college admissions." I'm not sure about what you're talking about specifically, but for a long time (maybe still, I'm not sure) Texas had a 10% rule for college admissions. If you graduated in the top 10% of your graduating class, even if your school was a mess of gang bangers or imbreds, you got automatic admission to any Texas public school. Basically, this meant that the best kids from bad schools who didn't have the test scores could go to UT or A&M. I know they've tinkered with it somewhat, and maybe totally eliminated it, but I think that sort of rule does help address the issue of getting kids in bad communities into good schools.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2014 02:39 PM (jOumW)

57 As sold, it's about special outreach efforts, largely informational efforts, to make sure the company knows about possible minority candidates, and minority candidates know about openings.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 06:34 PM (/FnUH)

Brother, I don't understand that bit. "minority candidates know about openings" what does that mean?

not being a dick, just asking for clarification.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:40 PM (x3YFz)

58 Democracy does not guarantee equal results and was never intended to

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:40 PM (nzKvP)

59 He says it's so hard to get on first base, just as it's been hard for blacks to get ahead in America, that if there's a tie as to qualifications between a black and white applicant, you should give the job to the black one.
---
If you hate white people this makes perfect sense. Someone concerned with fairness might expect the ties and only the ties to go 10% to blacks, 10% to hispanics, 70whatever to whites, and the rest to 'other.

Any legitimate American would never consider the question in the first place.
---
I concede diversity is, all other things being equal, a laudable thing to strive for.
---
*facepalm*
Diversity is a problem to be managed not a goal. The only possible way for any enterprise to be successful is a large degree of sameness in purpose and worldview (see also, America overrun with Democrats).
---
Our goal should be a color blind society
---
Good luck getting there when the majority knows you're screwing them blind in favor of those (and this is true of every Democrat client grievance group) who vote every election to steal from any of us who do manage to work in order to supplement their ill-gotten employment

Posted by: Methos at February 13, 2014 02:40 PM (hO9ad)

60 I don't care what color or sex those people are. But filling a position solely to fill some racial quota is not something you can do in any position of responsibility. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 13, 2014 06:32 PM (0HooB) Back in the 1990s, I was advocating for the Republican party to pick a black candidate to run for the Presidency. (Former member of BAMPAC) I knew in my heart that whites would not hesitate to vote for a Black Republican, and it would bring over a large chunk of the black vote as well, thereby guaranteeing a victory. I think the right man for the job was someone who could demonstrate that it is our principles which we hold to be essential aspect, and that they can be advanced and articulated by someone of any race. For this purpose, A Black man was ideal. I knew the media would fall in love with him because the thought of showing their tolerance of diversity would give them orgasms. (as it did, and does.) Unfortunately, we decided to let the Democrats do this first, and to our great detriment. Sure, it violates our principle of wanting people to be judged solely on their character, but from a pragmatic perspective, it was EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO. But we're the dumb party.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 02:40 PM (bb5+k)

61 It is unique among #slatepitches because it directly attacks their readership. Usually #slatepitches flatter liberal sensibilities.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 02:41 PM (T0NGe)

62
AA destroys economic gains for those it proposes to help.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2014 02:41 PM (n0DEs)

63 This was left at the bottom of the last post, unanswered. I leave it here without comment: 509 Alex, by reading the comments, am I to assume that you are a person of a smallish persuasion? Honest question - I could fill libraries with things I don't know... Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 06:34 PM (YEQ2h)

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 13, 2014 02:42 PM (oFCZn)

64 I am not sure affirmative action ever really had a place. One of the things about success is that if you look at a lot of things, the core fundamentals do not change. 1) Hard work. 2) Knowledge of what you are doing. 3) A plan and the ability to get others to go along with that plan. 4) Minimize stupid mistakes. 5) Chance. You cannot fake the first four things in that list. Even if you get the fifth one, if you do not have the other four, the fifth one will not get you through in the long run. Now the fifth one is the one that most people envision that AA would stand in for. The thing is, you cannot do that. It is chance, which means there is always going to be something that feels like fate in who wins and who loses. Not to mention, the idea is that white people, on the whole, come from better backgrounds than black people. However, I would contend there are just as many white people who come from as dire socio-economic situations as the black people this was envisaged to help. It is a tough thing, but I do not think you can help one group of people, based solely on the color of their skin, over another in the name of making everyone "equal." It does not compute to me.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 13, 2014 02:42 PM (TGgNi)

65 Kid's buddy got into West Point because he is black. A white candidate with his credentials would never have gotten close. He has zero AP classes. B average. And hadn't even taken the SAT when he got his appointment.

Posted by: NCKate at February 13, 2014 02:42 PM (1FoIf)

66 When I hire, I hire based on what your brain can do.

not on skin color, or whether you're 1 legged or have an afro or face tats.

You do what I need? hired. Can't? Not hired.

It's really simple.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:43 PM (x3YFz)

67 I'm not sure about what you're talking about specifically, but for a long time (maybe still, I'm not sure) Texas had a 10% rule for college admissions.

If you graduated in the top 10% of your graduating class, even if your school was a mess of gang bangers or imbreds, you got automatic admission to any Texas public school. Basically, this meant that the best kids from bad schools who didn't have the test scores could go to UT or A&M.

I know they've tinkered with it somewhat, and maybe totally eliminated it, but I think that sort of rule does help address the issue of getting kids in bad communities into good schools. Posted by: Lauren

My daughter went to UT. She said it was easy to spot the ones who didn't belong there. Her freshmen roomies both flunked out because they weren't prepared for the rigor and spent all their time partying. Not unusual, but it was clear that they came from lesser schools, but got admitted because they were in the top 10%. I doubt that flunking out helped their life prospects.

Posted by: pep at February 13, 2014 02:43 PM (6TB1Z)

68 Back when I was in College, back in the stone age, my black classmates ( who by the way never socialized with us whites, at least in public) knew all about every single "opportunity" out there and how to bring "race" to bare on the chances to get in. They didn't need any help finding out about it

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:43 PM (nzKvP)

69 and when the races are at rough economic equality

Which should happen pretty soon, when everyone who is not in the ruling class is equally destitute.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 02:43 PM (ZKzrr)

70 25% of Psychology Ph.D.s are men. No problem. 30% of math Ph.D.s are women. Must have affirmative action! There must be systematic discrimination going on!

Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 02:43 PM (T0NGe)

71 I do not oppose special efforts to find minority candidates for a position. I think such efforts are advisable and wise. I don't even oppose soft quotas, not hard ones, but soft ones. For example, if a company has always had 3% or less black workers, despite blacks making up 15% of the nearby job pool, I don't mind a fair inquiry into this situation, so long as the company is able to rebut any presumption or conclusion that they're hiring on a discriminatory basis. (Part of the problem, here, is that such inquiries frequently do not seem fair, the company is not allowed to fairly rebut the implicit charge, and the soft quota quickly becomes a hard quota.) --That sounds about like what the NFL is doing with respect to minority (or at least black) head coaches and GMs. I think it's mainly about the passage of time; it's just taken a while to see black head coaches rise to the top and excel. Hot coaches like David Shaw/Kevin Sumlin or assured legends like Tony Dungy have no trouble getting looks; if there's any area where there may be some discrimination it would seem that white retread coaches with so-so track records arguably get more second chances than black ones. Wonder how that dynamic goes in other sectors? I mean, for example, neither Neil deGrasse Tyson nor Ben Carson (before "coming out," at least) needs help finding a job anywhere in their respective fields, but what of the lesser-knowns?

Posted by: logprof, Chiefs fan at February 13, 2014 02:43 PM (X3GkB)

72 60. Back in the 1990s, I was advocating for the Republican party to pick a black candidate to run for the Presidency. (Former member of BAMPAC) I knew in my heart that whites would not hesitate to vote for a Black Republican, and it would bring over a large chunk of the black vote as well, thereby guaranteeing a victory. Well that sounds racist too. Run a guy who is black so we are 1st, or am I missing something?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 02:43 PM (HVff2)

73 KILLING ME SOFTLY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mpqXu0z3wU

Posted by: ROBERTA FLACK at February 13, 2014 02:44 PM (rQR0r)

74 But as sold, I don't disagree with the principle. I disagree with the bean-counting form it usually takes.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 06:34 PM (/FnUH)

Who is being naive now, Kaye?

Posted by: Michael Corleone at February 13, 2014 02:44 PM (Q9qpj)

75 Can we at least make the women sign up for Selective Service?

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 02:44 PM (rQR0r)

76 Re: the last topic.

Implementing news laws to constrain the executive won't change anything if half of Congress oppose them. They already ignore the law. Federal legislation only serves to constrain citizens, no matter the legislative intent.

Men of means need to stand now, before it's too late, and people like me will be by their side. We need to rally/protest and use the force of our popular will to constrain tyrants.

Posted by: 13times at February 13, 2014 02:45 PM (fGPLK)

77 I hire and fire for my small company. If I have a qualified black person apply, they go into the bin with the others. I don't know what "black" newspaper I would advertise in, per Ace, and frankly think that's a waste of time. If they're reading a "black" paper, they probably don't want or can't fit in to a group outside their comfort zone. I need people who can think for themselves.

And, with limited time, I need qualified applicants, not people who aren't equipped, for whatever reason (usual familial, cultural--fueled by 40 years of chronically dumb legislation to "solve" the social ills of America) to think and work.

Maybe, if we are clear what the standards are, and that skin color is not a qualification, potential applicants will find a way to raise their game.

Posted by: hamitchell at February 13, 2014 02:45 PM (yY/3g)

78 "because a tie should go to the runner, as in baseball" A common myth.

Posted by: anon a mouse at February 13, 2014 02:45 PM (gXRIG)

79 Perhaps the problem is culture, not race? --------- Now that's racist.

Posted by: Al Sharpton at February 13, 2014 02:45 PM (Aif/5)

80 I agree with the idea of having economic-status affirmative action for college admissions, but I would expand it to certain cultural/personal hardships/experience as well---first in the family to go to college (but not technically poor), that sort of thing. If college is supposed to be about broadening horizons, that makes sense. I personally applaud employers who make a special effort to find qualified applicants who are also women/minorities (like Mitt and his binders) out of sincere desire for equality, but the government shouldn't play around in that.

Posted by: Jenny Likes Her Phone at February 13, 2014 02:45 PM (5AEaG)

81 75 My 17 year old son is totally for that.

Posted by: NCKate at February 13, 2014 02:45 PM (1FoIf)

82 Pep, that is a good point. And that definitely does happen. There really should be a transition semester for those kids to help them get on solid footing to get them on pace for college level work. What's funny is that UT uses the transition semester (the summer before freshman year) to bring in students who weren't in the top 10% but had other desirable traits like super high test scores ect. In reality, those kids would probably be fine jumping right into freshman year. Still, at least it's a better system than straight racial quotas, imo.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2014 02:46 PM (jOumW)

83 73 Awesome song. Also hilarious that you pulled the karaoke version.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 13, 2014 02:46 PM (TGgNi)

84 I still find it easier to just say "I'm racist", then put on my tie and get to work.

Posted by: Jean at February 13, 2014 02:46 PM (4JkHl)

85 There's supposed to be affirmative action in hiring comedians? I did not know that.

Posted by: Seinfeld at February 13, 2014 02:47 PM (5J5S8)

86 "because a tie should go to the runner, as in baseball" Hell it doesn't even have to be a tie

Posted by: Jim Joyce at February 13, 2014 02:47 PM (nzKvP)

87
Navel gazing.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 13, 2014 02:47 PM (tOkJB)

88 Affirmative Action is premised on righting past wrongs (discrimination) by wronging other parties in turn. Two wrongs never make a right.

Posted by: votermom at February 13, 2014 02:47 PM (GSIDW)

89 I don't see any affirmative action for white basketball players. Unless they're gay, of course.

Posted by: --- at February 13, 2014 02:47 PM (MMC8r)

90 Hmm. Ace is/has definitely swung left, toward the center on a couple of drop dead issues lately. Are you preparing us for you declared membership in the squish party or as a dimocrat; doing the good fight to save them from themselves? You must be getting successful or picked up a bunch of lifelong sponsors.

You're too late on both counts, by about 30 years.

Posted by: Tortuga at February 13, 2014 02:47 PM (FmyWU)

91 >>But as sold, I don't disagree with the principle. I disagree with the bean-counting form it usually takes. Posted by: ace Unfortunately, we have to live with the real world and that includes AA being applied in such a way as to disadvantage others who have done no wrong. Simply a form of reparations being paid by someone who is blameless for anyone else's situation.

Posted by: Aviator at February 13, 2014 02:47 PM (DI+ja)

92 The problem with Affirmative Action in hiring and admissions (as opposed to in recruiting, to which I think ace is alluding) is that it becomes assumed that the black person or woman or transgendered person or Whoever was less qualified than their white male counterparts, which is not good for in organizations AND it, like modern unions, provides a safe haven for slacker workers and students because they feel invulnerable to being fired. The second is a really big problem. Half my husband's life, especially in California, was spent doing HR compliance crap just to make sure his organization didn't get sued when he had to let someone go. Like you, ace, I have no problem with an organization taking steps to enrich their applicant pool. It's essentially the Romney "binders full of women" approach and it's fine. If an org wants to make the extra effort to encourage women or minorities or whoever to apply that's their business. But it's bad policy to hire someone for reasons other than qualifications. Now those qualifications can include intangibles that the organization values, imho. But they should be color blind (or gender blind or whatever).

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 13, 2014 02:48 PM (zDsvJ)

93 It's almost as if the days of being a Navy Recruiter fade from my memory.

Back in the day, if you could find a Black Male Upper Mental Group you were golden.
Golden to the point of sending white bread home that day, even if white bread had better scores.
Sucked eggs watching your one applicant come out of classification as a non-designated Seaman Apprentice, and the other being guaranteed ET training, with advancement to E-4 if they complete the school.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice, at February 13, 2014 02:48 PM (DHj6D)

94 tie also goes to the mother , making Obama more black than white

Posted by: Avi at February 13, 2014 02:48 PM (p/izY)

Affirmative Action is discrimination.

But because it is viewed as 'Social Justice' it gets a pass.

How is it fair for a poor white person to be discriminated against because they aren't the right color?

And what about Sports?

Football and Basketball are still based on a meritocracy...and we see blacks 'over represented' in those fields.

Should those racial quotas be applied to Sports Teams?

Sports are a big business now, just like big corporations.

Posted by: wheatie at February 13, 2014 02:48 PM (eCZwh)

96 And at what point is the "wrong" cured? And who decides that? And what constitutes a "minority" and who decides? Sorry the concept sucks

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:49 PM (nzKvP)

97 about the Texas top 10 percent I have heard of parents pulling their kids out of their good schools and transferred them to shitty schools to get the top 10 per cent ranking universities are already conceding they are eventually going to lose AA cases in court they are switching from race to income class as a preference that way rich black kids wont get a preference but poor ones will. They reason the number of minority students will stay the same if they use income as the factor instead of race

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 02:49 PM (zOTsN)

98 eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important. I'm becoming more and more a fan of the theory that disparities among different communities (and women in, say, science) are more the result of the "crabs in a bucket" phenomenon than anything else. If there's really some sort of systemic discrimination that is keeping people down, you'd think Asians -- a visible minority -- would be seeing the effects of it.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 02:49 PM (T0NGe)

99 However, I would contend there are just as many white people who come from as dire socio-economic situations as the black people this was envisaged to help.

I keep asking how little blond Suzi in the trailer park in downstate IL with the mom who got knocked up accidentally on junior prom night and dropped out and works a couple under-29-hour jobs and gets high a lot to escape is "privileged" over Sasha and Malia, and the answer is always "You're a racist."

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 02:49 PM (ZKzrr)

100 You don't think there's any good in a company which has few minority workers taking special efforts to advertise in minority newspapers, for example? Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 06:32 PM (/FnUH) ********** If a person wants a job--why would they limit themselves to what is made available at-- "a minority newspaper"? I would suspect a person doing that--is not looking hard enough.

Posted by: Hillary! at February 13, 2014 02:49 PM (RJMhd)

101 "I certainly would like racial problems in America to be past us, and when the races are at rough economic equality, they will be past us." I don't know if this is ever going to be true societally, anywhere. Individually, sure, but we can do that now. I suppose I'd be curious if there were working examples, I truly haven't looked into it at all. Just doesn't sound like something that will happen

Posted by: morganm at February 13, 2014 02:50 PM (xd0hb)

102 What's a minority newspaper?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:50 PM (nzKvP)

103
The only way I can see AA as being even CLOSE to legal and moral is if it's based on class. As "Disadvantaged minorities" are overrepresented in the lower classes, giving a leg up based on class concurrently gives minorities the help that AA supposedly is after.

Presumably over the life of the program, the percentage of that minority in the lower classes would decrease, changing the demographics. And as other minorities' representation in the lower classes increase, they would be able to benefit from the AA program without having to change a thing. It'd be a self-regulating program, at least as far as the racial demographics go.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 13, 2014 02:50 PM (TIIx5)

104 The real side effect of AA is that minorities who DO earn their place by hard work are suspected of being AA hires. Like Clarence Thomas has attested to. Just like letting in so many illegal aliens make Americans suspect all immigrants of being illegal.

Posted by: votermom at February 13, 2014 02:51 PM (GSIDW)

105 44 If America is so racist, how is it that Vietnamese, Koreans, Bangladashi, Indians Indo-Aryans are white

Posted by: Avi at February 13, 2014 02:51 PM (p/izY)

106 What's a minority newspaper? Chocolate Paper?

Posted by: garrett on 10,000 Dollar Pyramid at February 13, 2014 02:51 PM (rQR0r)

107 Another thing that bothers me about the tie goes to the runner thing is it makes and implicit assumption that the black applicant is disadvantaged and the white applicant isn't. Aside from being racist ( that was fun ) it makes an assumption not based in fact. Not all of us started life on 3rd base. Many of us were sprinting for first as hard as any black applicant. And what do we say to the white applicant who gets turned down simply because they are white? Sorry, you're the wrong color, you don't count. Bad program.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 13, 2014 02:51 PM (g1DWB)

108 Great--left my Hillary! sock on. Craigslist--it's for everyone!!!!

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 02:51 PM (RJMhd)

109

75 Can we at least make the women sign up for Selective Service?

I think they should, garret....most definitely.

Posted by: wheatie at February 13, 2014 02:52 PM (eCZwh)

110 Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Hey how's that affirmative action working out?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:52 PM (nzKvP)

111 Cali legislators will be placing a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 2014 ballot to nullify Prop 209. It's in the works right now.

Posted by: 13times at February 13, 2014 02:52 PM (fGPLK)

112 I like AA so much we're going to start applying it in the way schools discipline students. Nothing could go wrong there.

Posted by: Atty Gen Eric Holder at February 13, 2014 02:52 PM (Aif/5)

113 This guy is your doctor?

Posted by: Larry David at February 13, 2014 02:52 PM (rQR0r)

114 A lot of this debate depends on a definition of AA. If used as a tie breaker for poor kids applying to college, I support it. Any race-based quotas and set asides are just institutional racism like the not-so-good old days.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 02:52 PM (sOtz/)

115 What's a minority newspaper?

All of them.

Posted by: Jean at February 13, 2014 02:52 PM (4JkHl)

116 Can we at least make the women sign up for Selective Service? And can I decide the service?

Posted by: Groucho Marx at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (nzKvP)

117 75 Can we at least make the women sign up for Selective Service?

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 06:44 PM (rQR0r)

heh. now that they let women apply for SFAS (google it) I figure one in 10,000 will make it through.

That's optimistic.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (x3YFz)

118 106 What's a minority newspaper? Chocolate Paper? Posted by: garrett on 10,000 Dollar Pyramid at February 13, 2014 06:51 PM (rQR0r) ******** Hmmm... I dunno maybe I will start one and call it-- The Minority Report. (ya--that sucked.)

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (RJMhd)

119 My high school was 40% black. Were they disadvantaged but I wasn't?

Posted by: --- at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (MMC8r)

120 I'm becoming more and more a fan of the theory that disparities among different communities (and women in, say, science) are more the result of the "crabs in a bucket" phenomenon than anything else.

I've never had a man at school or work disparage the work I do.

Women outside of work and school...don't get me started.

25% of Psychology Ph.D.s are men. No problem.

Men have better things to do.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (ZKzrr)

121 102 What's a minority newspaper?

Easy. The non-racist ones.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (5ikDv)

122 According to the latest US census data, blacks make up 13.1% of the population. Add in the 2.4% "two or more races" and round up to 16%. When the Congressional Black Caucus , the NAACP, all HBCUs, the board of directors of FUBU, Jet, Ebony & every other organization and/or business is made up of 16% blacks then I'll call everything fair. Or even, or balanced, or whatever. I'm with t9 -you hire the best candidate for the position. Period.

Posted by: shredded chi at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (ko4zy)

123 A lot of this debate depends on a definition of AA. If used as a tie breaker for poor kids applying to college, I support it. Any race-based quotas and set asides are just institutional racism like the not-so-good old days. Posted by: Beagle they say its a tie breaker its really a set aside/quota its a distinction without a difference

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (zOTsN)

124 SO

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (nzKvP)

125 If there's really some sort of systemic discrimination that is keeping people down, you'd think Asians -- a visible minority -- would be seeing the effects of it. --- Asians do get discriminated against in college admissions. Almost impossible to get into the Ivies if you're Asian without a near perfect SAT. Then even if you have the grades, they cut you for being "boring" if you don't have a sport or haven't cured cancer.

Posted by: votermom at February 13, 2014 02:53 PM (GSIDW)

126 Can we at least make the women sign up for Selective Service? And why don't you see the femynysts out there demanding it?

Posted by: --- at February 13, 2014 02:54 PM (MMC8r)

127 Whites were enslaved in Africa to build their buildings. Where my money bitches.

Posted by: redenzo at February 13, 2014 02:54 PM (WCnJW)

128 Well that sounds racist too. Run a guy who is black so we are 1st, or am I missing something? Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 06:43 PM (HVff2) It's turning lemons into lemonade. They try to use the race weapon against us, it was an effort to use it against them first. It is also a very important lesson and it would have been a boon to the culture. We would have had a conservative President, appointing conservative judges, and signing conservative laws. We would not have had government agencies being turned into weapons against us, and it could have shattered a huge swath of liberal lies about us. Yes, it's a violation of the principle that we ought to disregard race as a criteria of qualification, but in the cost vs benefit analysis, it's a no-brainer. It would have advanced our principles, our culture, and very possibly have saved the United States from the approaching disaster we all see coming.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 02:54 PM (bb5+k)

129 The thoughtful liberal defense of the obvious discrimination against the 'most qualified' in Affirmative Action is that jobs don't require the 'most qualified', just the adequately qualified. Kind of like a union job.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 02:54 PM (QupBk)

130 Fuck 'em No affirmative action No quotas Strict meritocracy - that's the only solution

Posted by: TexasJew at February 13, 2014 02:54 PM (U+u4A)

131 I want the-- Croatian-Alsatian Times damn it--and I want it now!

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 02:54 PM (RJMhd)

132 And what about Sports? Football and Basketball are still based on a meritocracy...and we see blacks 'over represented' in those fields. Should those racial quotas be applied to Sports Teams? Sports are a big business now, just like big corporations. Posted by: wheatie at February 13, 2014 06:48 PM (eCZwh) --I would love to see more black or Mexican chick curlers emerge. (It's more realistic to hope for a minority American or Canadian to join their respective team than to see an African or Latin American team make the Olympics in the near future.) At least we have Chinese and Korean curler babes for now.

Posted by: logprof at February 13, 2014 02:54 PM (X3GkB)

133 "eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important. I agree such policies are divisive." But why aren't we close? That's the important question. Is it because companies and their hiring managers hate black people on a wide-spread basis (systemic racism, as purported by the lefties)? Or is it something else? Look, how we fix that inequality is going to come down to fixing culture. And not just "black" culture but *poor* culture in general. I know that's not a popular solution, as no one wants to hear that their way of life is flawed and holding them back, and that's why it will never happen and we will likely always end up with some kind of AA to "level the playing field." But just look objectively at the cultural indicators and behavior/attitudes of successful people and then look at those same things for the people on the bottom. Regardless of race, some of the most common facts of poverty and inopportunity are lack of two-parent households or stable family units and high out-of-wedlock births, apathetic parental figures, and general attitudes about work and how to comport oneself in the workplace are...let's just say lacking. Contrast that with the middle and upper class folks of *all* ethnicities and it's like night and day. Strong family units, majority of births are within wedlock, parents are highly involved in the lives of their children, generally solid work ethic and a good idea of how to present oneself for and in the workplace. I'm pretty middle class. The county I live in has a substantial population of poorer folks. All races. So I've been in the position of working in multiple setting with poorer folks and while there are always exceptions, the vast majority of the folks I worked with who were on the lower end of the socio-economic scale- black, white, or whatever- were severely dysfunctional in their attitudes and mannerisms. I got lots of folks showing up to work (when they showed up at all, mind you) in pajamas or other states of inappropriate dress. No idea how to treat customers. No idea how to behave professionally, much less give a decent interview. And lot s and lots of folks behaving as if you were lucky that they showed up at all and were an asshole if you expected them to actually work for their paycheck. There was a general attitude that you owed them something for the effort it to grace the doorstep. This was not a limited experience. It was **very** widespread. And I wouldn't say any of these folks were *bad people.* Please don't mistake me for doing so. On the contrary, many were very, very nice. They just has zero idea what it meant to actually work or what was expected of them and I gathered through conversation that they weren't aware of anyone else in their social circles that had any clue as to how to do these things, either. I don't know how we fix those cultural differences. Anyone who has seriously publicly suggested that these things are a huge part of the problem has been immediately excoriated. Until we have a large chunk of the poor that are ready to take a serious look at their lifestyles and life choices and re-evaluate themselves and the example they're setting for their children we're going to be stuck at this same level of progress.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 02:54 PM (qFpRI)

134 I am not sure why you promote Ann Althouse, I don't recall her ever linking to Ace of Spades.

Posted by: Evi. L. Bloggerlady at February 13, 2014 02:55 PM (4kTo2)

135 eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important. Not our fault. *nods head at two LIbEralS arguing that 2+2 = pOtATo!!111 and bitching about being unemployed.* For the last thirty plus years, education has failed to provide the tools for equal economic opportunity by instilling an entitlement mindset and fostered racial hatred. Both are a direct result of, yet another, unintended consequence of the stupid that is LIbEraliSm.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 02:55 PM (X8dOg)

136 eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important. I agree such policies are divisive. Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 06:27 PM (/FnUH) True, but why are blacks lagging economically? What role does single parenthood play, high school drop out rate, school attendance rate? These issues aren't solved by affirmative action. Black people don't have much control over the racism that does exist. What they do have control over is their own behavior. By focusing on racism, many are not focusing on issues that they can take charge of, that could make positive impact on their lives, such as finishing school and waiting until after marriage to have children. You can't control how other people think. You can control your own life choices.

Posted by: nerdygirl at February 13, 2014 02:55 PM (5J5S8)

137 104 The real side effect of AA is that minorities who DO earn their place by hard work are suspected of being AA hires. Like Clarence Thomas has attested to. Just like letting in so many illegal aliens make Americans suspect all immigrants of being illegal. Posted by: votermom at February 13, 2014 06:51 PM (GSIDW) --My spidey sense is mega-tingling that Mike Tirico (ESPN) is a closeted black conservative.

Posted by: logprof at February 13, 2014 02:55 PM (X3GkB)

138 it makes and implicit assumption that the black applicant is disadvantaged and the white applicant isn't. Like maybe was raised by a bank vice president and sent to the most expensive private school west of the Mississippi.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 02:55 PM (T0NGe)

139

Finish high school, take whatever work you can find, don't have babies before you're married...nothing race-specific there.

That's old skool. We be new skool. That's retarded, sir.

Jenteel

Posted by: tbodie at February 13, 2014 02:56 PM (RX6BJ)

140 Asians do get discriminated against in college admissions. Almost impossible to get into the Ivies if you're Asian without a near perfect SAT. Then even if you have the grades, they cut you for being "boring" if you don't have a sport or haven't cured cancer. Posted by: votermom at the best prep schools it is nearly impossible for an Asian to get in unless they cured cancer or something if you have top grade, played violin and were a state champ tennis player, they don't want you they have that already they want the inner city child of a crack head

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 02:56 PM (zOTsN)

141 Re ace's "minority newspaper" example. In real life, there's an organization called SACNAS, whose purpose is to help mentor and encourage "Chicano" (their term) and Native American young people to pursue careers in science. IIRC they have programs for H.S. kids and definitely for college students. They have annual science meetings at which students present papers etc. It's pretty routine for universities to send at least one representative to SACNAS for recruiting purposes. And I see nothing wrong with that. I'm curious if everyone here supports the government-based initiatives (and incentives, I believe) for hiring veterans. I may lose my Moronette card, but I am not enamored of them. Seems to be the same as AA in my book.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 13, 2014 02:56 PM (zDsvJ)

142 I am not sure why you promote Ann Althouse... It's not about promotions. Ace has other motivations.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 02:56 PM (rQR0r)

143 the worst aspect of aa is that it assumes all whites are equal and all blacks are equal. so a white immigrant kid from russia, Greece , syria is put in the same pool competing with as a blue blood slave owning family like Al Gores. and biracial slave owning descendants like Obama, Caribbean Americans who never faced Jim Crow like Holder and African immigrants whose families unloaded their undesirable slaves o the New World get to steal aa slots for authentic african americans.

Posted by: Avi at February 13, 2014 02:56 PM (p/izY)

144 I am not sure why you promote Ann Althouse, I don't recall her ever linking to Ace of Spades. I think she did for the 'nutting' post.

Posted by: --- at February 13, 2014 02:57 PM (MMC8r)

145 I'm just gonna tell my kids to pass for Hispanic to get into college.

Posted by: votermom at February 13, 2014 02:57 PM (GSIDW)

146 What's a minority newspaper?

The National Society of Black Engineers has a publication.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 02:57 PM (ZKzrr)

147 >>Like maybe was raised by a bank vice president and sent to the most expensive private school west of the Mississippi. Yea, something like that. Wish I could have gone to school at an exclusive prep school in Hawaii.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 13, 2014 02:58 PM (g1DWB)

148 When the CBC, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and Yada Yada Yada start addressing some of the real problems affecting Black Americans and stop blaming whitey get back to me and we can discuss stuff.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:58 PM (nzKvP)

149 True, but why are blacks lagging economically? What role does single parenthood play, high school drop out rate, school attendance rate? These issues aren't solved by affirmative action. But they are all promoted by a dependency culture.

Posted by: --- at February 13, 2014 02:58 PM (MMC8r)

150

122 According to the latest US census data, blacks make up 13.1% of the population.

And there are more blacks here from immigration than from descendants of slavery.

I don't remember the exact percentage...but it is true.

It's not a statistic that is talked about very much.

Posted by: wheatie at February 13, 2014 02:58 PM (eCZwh)

151 Ann Althouse, the one who voted for Barack Obama?

Not saying it undermines what she just wrote or anything. Just wondering about the cognitive dissonance implied.

Posted by: Michael Corleone at February 13, 2014 02:58 PM (Q9qpj)

152 Guess who doesn't give a shit about a diverse workforce?

Posted by: China & India [/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 02:59 PM (aHw7C)

153 As someone born into a poor working class family the one thing that bothers me most about affirmative action talk is the accusation that I am some how privileged just for being born white. This seems to almost exclusively be used by affluent whites on the far left to attack other whites.

Posted by: Drew in MO at February 13, 2014 02:59 PM (cGlgB)

154 But as sold, I don't disagree with the principle. I disagree with the bean-counting form it usually takes. Ace, serious question. (For once, I know) How do you seperate the two without causing more problems?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 02:59 PM (ndIek)

155 your white privilege is showing y'all sarc

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 03:00 PM (zOTsN)

156 13 In many ways, the story of Affirmative Action is the Story of Obama. Posted by: garrett

Gets me every time.

As far as affirmative action, there's seldom a tie between 2 job candidates especially in recent job markets, however I don't mind seeking out qualified job applicants using sources minority's read and other's don't like Jet or whatever but good companies do that anyway or should, why the coercion? The rest of your post is liberal bullshit.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:00 PM (38LLM)

157 Y-Not, I think the preferences for vets would fall into what I mentioned earlier---accounting for personal and cultural experiences. To me, that's fine for college admissions, but maybe not the workplace. By this I mean strict "if you servec at all, plus one for you"---obviously, the job you did while serving matters for future employment.

Posted by: Jenny Likes Her Phone at February 13, 2014 03:00 PM (5AEaG)

158 @123 Being poor is a real disadvantage. If someone from a poor background can come close to a prep-schooled and tutored rich kid, like Obama's daughters say, the poor student of any color deserves a chance. As I said, any race-based system is just more institutional racism. Economic AA would still help black people more than any other group based on the statistics I have seen.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 03:00 PM (sOtz/)

159 In applied for law school in 1992. I had been graduated (yes, I know the proper way to say that) from S.F. State U. with honors, 2LT in the reserves, born abroad, and top 9% LSAT score. Couldn't even get into U.C. Davis, U.S. News ranking 50, but I could get into Boston U., ranked 25, but only because it's campus was abysmal (the school was in a tower that had 6 elevators that were slooooooower than molasses) but faculty was top-10. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm grateful that I had to move 3,000 miles and pay 4x as much for tuition, but when the Bar comes around to ask me to do pro bono work, I tell them that since I wasn't good enough for them because of my ethnicity then, I certainly am not now.

Posted by: SFGoth at February 13, 2014 03:00 PM (iucOx)

160 When it comes to entrance to college ... I say if I have the money for class and I am next in line I get in. No race based selection , no SAT crap... hell I don't even care if you can read or write. If you got the $$$ then first come first serve. Kinda like buying a car. And if I can't read or write and want to get into med school ... why should the school care as long as they get paid.

Kinda streamlines the process dont it?

Posted by: E.T. at February 13, 2014 03:00 PM (uGlk8)

161 What would be really awesome would be if the government restricted itself to following the constitution. Per the 14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any law which requires treating people differently based on their race (affirmative action) is unconstitutional on its face. This is whether the state is the actor or if it is requiring some business to do the discriminating. It flat-out violates the 14th. In addition, outside of the 14th, the federal government has no authority in legislating or regulating one way or another whether private businesses and individuals discriminate against one another. It is not one of its enumerated powers. Hint: the commerce clause is not about race relations.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 03:00 PM (IN7k+)

162 I'm done with affirmative action, myself. Both in the bean-counting way, and that way in which it is applied - someone given a position because of the color of their skin, not their skills or the content of their character. There was an opponent of A-A some years ago in California (a Person of Color, no less - I guess that is the current PC term) who was about abolishing it on the very real grounds that the perception had become set in cement; a Person of Color in an office or profession was almost immediately seen as a beneficiary of A-A ... and therefore less qualified and given the position because of the color of their epidermis. I used to be a bright and shiny and un-cynical person. I used to assume that a persons' talents and drive got them as high in their profession as they were able to go. Best of the best, and all that - didn't care if they were black, white, another-color or purple with cerise polka-dots. Just do the job, be good at it. Chips falling where they may.

Posted by: Sgt. Mom at February 13, 2014 03:00 PM (Asjr7)

163 Ace, I appreciate that you have thoughtfully and openmindedly communicated your calm position on AA. I disagree, though, that the tie goes to the runner because there's no actual proof that because someone's skin is X color it means his life was more burdensome. Was just discussing this this morning with a well-off friend, Mexican by birth who is a lawyer married to a white lawyer. She wavers as to whether she should claim bennies for her half-Mexican, but in no way burdened by their race or economics, kids. They're a member of the Hispanic professional class in a South Texas city dominated by Hispanics. And yet--people like you might claim that the tie should go to their kids and not mine because mine have two white parents, who by the way were both born dirt poor and worked their asses off for everything they have. Fuck that shit. Someone upthread probably already said all this.

Posted by: Republic of Texas 2: Electric Boogaloo at February 13, 2014 03:01 PM (Gk2GE)

164 don't have babies before you're married --------- I don't like Bill-O but that's one place I think he makes a good point. Having 74% of births in an unstable family environment cannot be good for your cultures future.

Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2014 03:01 PM (Aif/5)

165 "Tie goes to the runner"? That's bullshit, to put it nicely. I have never ever not once heard a baseball or softball umpire call "tie" at the end of a base play. Ever. I have ever heard of anyone seeing or hearing of such a call being made, even anecdotally or "friend of a friend of my dentist's third cousin".

The three options (yes, there are three) are 1) "runner is safe", 2) "runner is out" or 3) no call, because the play has not yet concluded and/or the ball is still live, pending application of an obscure rule. No call means the umpire has not yet determined whether the runner is safe or out, and once everything has slowed down, and advice has been sought, it reverts to one of the other two options.

Never a "tie". Ever.

Posted by: Drumwaster at February 13, 2014 03:01 PM (K6BSx)

166 This race/minority thing just continues to chap my ass (hold the jokes till I'm done).

Where I grew up, we were raised to look past skin color, background, and just accept/reject on merit and character.

I want to throat punch the race baiters and the libfuckery that has placed a divide between me and my fellow Americans.

Everyone get the fuck out of my pool! NOW!

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 03:01 PM (x3YFz)

167 I'm curious if everyone here supports the government-based initiatives (and incentives, I believe) for hiring veterans. I may lose my Moronette card, but I am not enamored of them. Seems to be the same as AA in my book.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 13, 2014 06:56 PM (zDsvJ)

I am a veteran who is not a particular fan of that, though more because of the government involvement.

I've got no problem, however, if Wal-Mart or some other private entity wants to make a big deal out of hiring veterans.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 13, 2014 03:01 PM (Q9qpj)

168 As I said, any race-based system is just more institutional racism. Economic AA would still help black people more than any other group based on the statistics I have seen. Posted by: Beagle this is what UT has concluded, and is moving towards economically based AA

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 03:01 PM (zOTsN)

169 141 Re ace's "minority newspaper" example. In real life, there's an organization called SACNAS, whose purpose is to help mentor and encourage "Chicano" (their term) and Native American young people to pursue careers in science. IIRC they have programs for H.S. kids and definitely for college students. They have annual science meetings at which students present papers etc. It's pretty routine for universities to send at least one representative to SACNAS for recruiting purposes. And I see nothing wrong with that. ******* How about basic inefficiency? How is that for an argument? Why should I have to pay for multiple ads to reach various pluralities--and then what is the limit on those pluralities? Basically--businesses should be free to discriminate against future employees who limit their job hunting to -- "minority newspapers" and / or your example-- minority promoting organizations. If someone can't get the basics of job hunting skills down properly the eliminate themselves. (Let's see might deal with the rest of your comment--or let someone else go for it.)

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:02 PM (RJMhd)

170 From the post: "I concede diversity is, all other things being equal, a laudable thing to strive for." Why? Or as the teacher used to say, please show your work. This is one of those things people parrot lazily, since they've been taught it forever. "Diversity is our greatest strength." Why, exactly? Diverse immune systems to protect a community from plague, I get. Diverse skill sets to achieve a difficult task, like in a heist film, I get. But racial diversity just because? Because diversity? I'm not saying every workplace will devolve into San Quentin-style race riots just because there are different races working under the same roof. But in what sense does it HELP the business, specifically? (I will accept "cynical corporate PR stunt" as an answer. But it is in no sense "laudable.")

Posted by: Nathan at February 13, 2014 03:02 PM (ttq1K)

171 >>"Our goal should be a color-blind society. We're not there yet."--Ace.

You may not be interested in race, Ace, but race is interested in you.

Posted by: Commissioner Gordon at February 13, 2014 03:02 PM (2U2em)

172 End affirmative action in the drawing of boundaries for Congressional districts while you're at it. Were it not for that travesty, does anyone here think that Sheila Jackson Lee, Corinne Brown, Maxine Waters and practically any other member of the CBC would survive a truly open election for their seat?

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars™ [/i] [/b] [/s] at February 13, 2014 03:02 PM (HsTG8)

173 Â“The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, [were] by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia,Â” he said, the Daily Mail reported. --Justice Clarence Thomas-- http://victorygirlsblog.com/?p=17970

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 03:03 PM (bb5+k)

174 Sadly, it's people's "reasoned" acceptance of the incorrect premise that begins the dance that leads to hard quotas, politically correct speech and soon, coming to a city near you, the destruction of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of Speech and Freedom of religion. (amongst others)

By not taking a stand, by not drawing hard lines in the sand, all that has been done is encourage those who will take surrender in inches and accede to "reasonable" restrictions or rules.

Wish washy and namby pamby don't seize the hill, hold the fort or assault the beach.

Far as I'm concerned the moderates will be the death of us yet.

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

- Rev. 3:16 -

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (13th Level SoCon) at February 13, 2014 03:03 PM (LSDdO)

175 They just has zero idea what it meant to actually work or what was expected of them and I gathered through conversation that they weren't aware of anyone else in their social circles that had any clue as to how to do these things, either. Crabs in a bucket.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 03:03 PM (T0NGe)

176 I don't like Bill-O but that's one place I think he makes a good point.

I get that one from Walter Williams.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams051105.asp

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 03:03 PM (ZKzrr)

177 "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr." I have always hired the best applicant for any job I have hired for. At one time I was a minority in my own office (white male). I'm offended by those who feel that a physical characteristic (race, gender) they have entitles them to something over someone else. How is that different from a white racist feeling entitled to something due to THEIR skin color?

Posted by: Aviator at February 13, 2014 03:03 PM (DI+ja)

178 another problem is fakes like Obama and Lizzie Warren staling slots for the authentic. I also know a family ( both parents ashkenazi Jews), whose mother grew up in Guatamala. Her grandfather got on the wrong boat. So her kids are "hispanic". their son was flown to Wash U with a plane full of black and latino kids. it was like he was at the Dexter Lake Club in Animal House.

Posted by: Avi at February 13, 2014 03:04 PM (p/izY)

179 SLATE's notoriously contrarian -- so much so, liberal bloggers mock it constantly. So, you're not getting any "liberal" POV from a typical SLATE piece: more likely, you're getting something that caught the publisher's eye as a bit whacky and counterintuitive. SLATE never seems to direct online discussion. Weigel's got a lesser audience than he had at WAPO, and spends and enormous amount of energy posting stuffs that's just opaque. His schtick is he's got pipelines into conservative streams of thinking, but I doubt anyone here would agree. There's also Matt Yglesias, but with all the New Media outlets popping up from liberal billionaires, I expect he'll soon be moving on; he always does. Other than that, there's exactly what you'd expect from a media experiment birthed out of the WaPo: a marketplace grab-bag of cheap jewelry and what passes for pseudo-pop hipness in the tiny center of the uncommitted online media.

Posted by: Deshroomius Bandersnatch at February 13, 2014 03:04 PM (w45V0)

180 AA is never going to help minorities enough to overcome the destructive leftist policies. Does that mean we have to be stuck with it forever?

Posted by: gm at February 13, 2014 03:04 PM (/kBoL)

181 Human biodiversity, Ace. Read about it.

Posted by: ToursLepantoVienna at February 13, 2014 03:05 PM (Oeogr)

182 that if there's a tie as to qualifications between a black and white applicant, you should give the job to the black one.

Is there ever truly a tie in candidates' qualifications? That would be identical prior experience, identical schools, identical GPAs, etc.

Affirmative action is discrimination, pure and simple.

Posted by: Titanium at February 13, 2014 03:05 PM (IgOQg)

183 I'm curious if everyone here supports the government-based initiatives (and incentives, I believe) for hiring veterans. I may lose my Moronette card, but I am not enamored of them. Seems to be the same as AA in my book. Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 13, 2014 06:56 PM (zDsvJ) ************ Well--I guess I could make the argument that in lieu of paying military you offer them "benefits". Sometimes all of these "benefits" are not utilized and you--the taxpayer save money in the bargain. It's an incentive to recruit young people into the military that you the taxpayer might not have to ultimately pay for--although you are free to resent that for whatever reason you might have. It's nothing new.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:05 PM (RJMhd)

184 I may lose my Moronette card, but I am not enamored of them. Seems to be the same as AA in my book. I think for veterans, the argument is that they spent a lot of time outside of the private sector and either haven't developed the specific skills needed to get a job in that sector or haven't shown a work history that's comparable with the rest of the applicant pool.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 03:06 PM (T0NGe)

185 Diversity of thought is great but make sure they can think first, whoever they are.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:06 PM (38LLM)

186 Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 07:03 P

No, crabs in a bucket is where the people around them pull them back out of fear or jealousy. Mandy was describing general ignorance--Great-Grams may have had a job before you were born, but when Grams and Mom and all your aunts and cousins have been on assistance their whole lives, who do you know who can tell you not to show up to work in flip-flops with your gunt hanging out?

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 03:06 PM (ZKzrr)

187 Tie goes to the runner, crackah!

Posted by: Chris Rock - Esteemed Policy Wonk [/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 03:06 PM (5ikDv)

188 >>>0 From the post: "I concede diversity is, all other things being equal, a laudable thing to strive for." Why? Or as the teacher used to say, please show your work. This is one of those things people parrot lazily, since they've been taught it forever. "Diversity is our greatest strength." Why, exactly? ... I didn't say it was "our greatest strength." I would say, however, that a society in which there weren't any racial tensions (or very little of that) would be a nice thing. Look, if you could wave your magic wand, and blacks would suddenly be economically just as well-off as whites or Asians, and thus there were few racial tensions or grievances, would you wave your magic wand? I bet you would.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:06 PM (/FnUH)

189
I am not sure why you promote Ann Althouse
Posted by: Evi. L. Bloggerlady

Whenever you see an Athouse link, assume her eDaddy Instapundit* mentioned her first, and it just flowed thru the blogging food chain. He's the only one left who actually cares about what her cats are typing under her nick.

*Hmmm.... And click my Amazon link for a great deal on steak knives.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2014 03:06 PM (kdS6q)

190 who says the non black guy isn't running too

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 03:06 PM (zOTsN)

191 183 I may lose my Moronette card, but I am not enamored of them. Seems to be the same as AA in my book. I think for veterans, the argument is that they spent a lot of time outside of the private sector and either haven't developed the specific skills needed to get a job in that sector or haven't shown a work history that's comparable with the rest of the applicant pool. Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 07:06 PM (T0NGe) ****** And this.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:07 PM (RJMhd)

192 Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? Doesn't seem to work for me.

Posted by: Titanium at February 13, 2014 03:07 PM (IgOQg)

193 175 They just has zero idea what it meant to actually work or what was expected of them and I gathered through conversation that they weren't aware of anyone else in their social circles that had any clue as to how to do these things, either.
____

it's cultural, and endemic. And do you know why? Democrats.

Show me one example of where the democrats have helped their "minority" constituents.

just one.

A culture of failure. Why? because if they start succeeding, they become conservative. That's why.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 03:07 PM (x3YFz)

194 Holy crap the citizenry has been really isolated from those that serve. It's criminal.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:07 PM (RJMhd)

195 Croatian-Alsatian Times damn it--and I want it now! Look for the newest location of Achmed's Kosher Sushi opening near you.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 03:08 PM (0HooB)

196
There was an opponent of A-A some years ago in California (a Person of Color, no less - I guess that is the current PC term) who was about abolishing it on the very real grounds that the perception had become set in cement; a Person of Color in an office or profession was almost immediately seen as a beneficiary of A-A ... and therefore less qualified and given the position because of the color of their epidermis.

Posted by: Sgt. Mom at February 13, 2014 07:00 PM (Asjr7)

Ward Connerly. Prop 209 was his baby.

And the leftists in CA hate his guts.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 13, 2014 03:08 PM (TIIx5)

197 153 As someone born into a poor working class family the one thing that bothers me most about affirmative action talk is the accusation that I am some how privileged just for being born white. This seems to almost exclusively be used by affluent whites on the far left to attack other whites.

Yeah, if you want to see my "white privilege" I'll show you the callouses on my hands.
Then we can discus my grandfathers, both of them worked until crippled by it and one even beyond that point.

Posted by: typo dynamofo at February 13, 2014 03:08 PM (IVgIK)

198 191 Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? Doesn't seem to work for me.

Posted by: Titanium at February 13, 2014 07:07 PM (IgOQg)

Yeah, I run windows 7 and firefox and can't use any of the tools in Ace's stone age comment toolbar.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 03:08 PM (x3YFz)

199 I would say, however, that a society in which there weren't any racial tensions (or very little of that) would be a nice thing. ********* I cant' think of a place where that really happens and where there is also a significant--sizable minority or minorities. Hmmmm......

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:08 PM (RJMhd)

200 If someone can't get the basics of job hunting skills down properly the eliminate themselves. -- I think you're ignoring that there can be real cultural differences between people of different races (or sexes, for that matter). And I think that can be especially true for high school students looking for college or college students looking for grad schools. Why should a company that may for perfectly valid business reasons want a workforce that reflects its customer base fish in the ocean when it can fish in a stocked pond?

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 13, 2014 03:09 PM (zDsvJ)

201 Look, if you could wave your magic wand, and blacks would suddenly be economically just as well-off as whites or Asians, and thus there were few racial tensions or grievances, would you wave your magic wand? Does the wand have other uses? Because if the answer is yes, equality is going to be a bit lower on the list.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 03:09 PM (rQR0r)

202 Yeah, I run windows 7 and firefox and can't use any of the tools in Ace's stone age comment toolbar.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 07:08 PM (x3YFz)

Ahh...ok. I'm using the same combo.

Posted by: Titanium at February 13, 2014 03:10 PM (IgOQg)

203 191 Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? Doesn't seem to work for me. Posted by: Titanium at February 13, 2014 07:07 PM (IgOQg) --Put in brackets i for Italics, b for bold, s for strikethrough. Be sure to put a closing tag with / before the respective letter in brackets or an embarreling awaits you.

Posted by: logprof at February 13, 2014 03:10 PM (X3GkB)

204 Yeah, I run windows 7 and firefox and can't use any of the tools in Ace's stone age comment toolbar.

Those have been busted for awhile. You have to use BBcode.

[ i ] Italics [ /i ]
[ b] bold [ /b ]
[ s ] strike [ /s]

But without the spaces in the brackets.

And don't ever mess up the closing tag.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 03:10 PM (ZKzrr)

205 eh, we're not really especially close to the races truly being equal in terms of economics, which is important. I agree such policies are divisive. Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 06:27 PM (/FnUH) But the economic inequality is not due to the failure of AA, so much as it is due to other Welfare State programs that have acted to destroy the black nuclear family.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 13, 2014 03:10 PM (yDmQD)

206 Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? Doesn't seem to work for me. With great formatting comes great responsibility.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 03:10 PM (rQR0r)

207
"Diversity is our greatest strength?"

Quick, somebody find someone dark to stand with us for our group portrait.

Posted by: All those white people at OFA 2012 at February 13, 2014 03:11 PM (Q9qpj)

208 Two dudes buttfucking is exactly the same as being black.

Just saying.

Posted by: multi racial differently abled LGBT undocumented immigrant at February 13, 2014 03:11 PM (BmmBm)

209 Dude, every one of your positions is some form of government sponsored reverse discrimination.

Posted by: Just the Merits Please at February 13, 2014 03:11 PM (84b7V)

210 I made a pretty decent speech for a democrat a couple years ago regarding black youth and jobs.

Posted by: Mayor Michael Nutter (D) at February 13, 2014 03:11 PM (Aif/5)

211 185 Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 07:03 P No, crabs in a bucket is where the people around them pull them back out of fear or jealousy. Mandy was describing general ignorance--Great-Grams may have had a job before you were born, but when Grams and Mom and all your aunts and cousins have been on assistance their whole lives, who do you know who can tell you not to show up to work in flip-flops with your gunt hanging out? Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 07:06 PM (ZKzrr) Exactly! And like I said, a lot of these folks are really, really good-hearted people. I made and kept a lot of friends at those jobs. And it just kills me when I see my buddies and they're *still* without a decent job and you get talking about work and try to casually suggest that maybe they should try x or y (just general good work ethic things) and they look at me like I've grown a third eye! It breaks my heart.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 03:11 PM (qFpRI)

212
Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? Doesn't seem to work for me.

HQ noob test.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 13, 2014 03:12 PM (TIIx5)

213 200 Look, if you could wave your magic wand, and blacks would suddenly be economically just as well-off as whites or Asians, and thus there were few racial tensions or grievances, would you wave your magic wand?

Does the wand have other uses?

Because if the answer is yes, equality is going to be a bit lower on the list.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 07:09 PM (rQR0r)

Garrett, it's a trap.

It's not about wand waving. Our derision should be centered on those that either afford or deny based on race.

Step back. Remove hands from keyboard and think about it.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 03:12 PM (x3YFz)

214 The idiot ( and white I might add) who plows my drive way said he would be here by 11:30 AM. It's 7:15 PM and I am still waiting after having dug one lane free so escape is possible

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 03:12 PM (nzKvP)

215 What logprof & HR said. I think u might work for underline. When you get to the barrel (and you will), look for my car keys, will you?

Posted by: shredded chi at February 13, 2014 03:13 PM (ko4zy)

216 I think for veterans, the argument is that they spent a lot of time outside of the private sector and either haven't developed the specific skills needed to get a job in that sector or haven't shown a work history that's comparable with the rest of the applicant pool. Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 07:06 PM (T0NGe) ****** And this. Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 07:07 PM --- So a kid educated at an Indian college should toughen up and be a sophisticated applicant to grad school or for a job, but a veteran needs assistance? I'm sorry, I don't see it. You seem to be saying that companies have to provide extra training for a veteran who might not be as well-qualified. Perhaps that should be the VA's role or the American Legion's role or Uncle Sam's, not a private employer.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 13, 2014 03:13 PM (zDsvJ)

217 Not to worry, in another 300 years or so, there will be nor need for AA because this will all have been equalized and the survivors will no longer care about race but rather one's survival skills as to how they contribute to the "village".

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2014 03:13 PM (o3MSL)

218

191 Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? Doesn't seem to work for me.

Posted by: Titanium at February 13, 2014 07:07 PM (IgOQg)

----------

You have to use brackets....[ ] to enclose your commands.

Italics...use an "i" inside brackets.

For Bold, use a "b"...for Underline, use a "u"...for strikethrough, use an "s".

Spacing is tricky here.

I have to double-space to get a line break.

Posted by: wheatie at February 13, 2014 03:13 PM (eCZwh)

219 >>>Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? Doesn't seem to work for me.

None of the built-in tools in the commenting box work. But, you can hand code some html, but you have to use square brackets instead of angle brackets. Also, you can't put a clickable link in your comment, but you can put one in the "URL" box of your identity. I don't have a full list of the html that will work, but I know that italics, bold, and strikeouts will work.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 03:13 PM (IN7k+)

220 Look, if you could wave your magic wand, and blacks would suddenly be economically just as well-off as whites or Asians, and thus there were few racial tensions or grievances, would you wave your magic wand?

I bet you would.

Say what? As opposed to everyone else who had to earn their economic well-off'edness? Wave a magic wand, is that like give a man a fish?

Posted by: Gandalf at February 13, 2014 03:13 PM (Q9qpj)

221 Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 13, 2014 07:12 PM (TIIx5)

Part of the screening process!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2014 03:14 PM (o3MSL)

222 I'm just saying, if it's a 'Magic Equality Rod' sure, I'll wave it. But, if it's a straight up 'Magic Wand', well then... get your own fucking wand.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 03:14 PM (rQR0r)

223 Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 06:54 PM (bb5+k) Thanks for the explanation. I disagree with you on how outcomes would have been changed. Look at the grief every black republican/conservative has gone through. Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, etc We will always have race animosity. I'm not saying we don't try to do better. But I ain't loading my breath.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (HVff2)

224 I really oppose AA in hiring/admissions, but I just hope to shit the GOP doesn't fall for this trap and start talking about affirmative action right now. It will never be repealed in our lifetimes and it would be disastrous politics. Gotta go. Cheers.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (zDsvJ)

225 So a kid educated at an Indian college should toughen up and be a sophisticated applicant to grad school or for a job, but a veteran needs assistance? I'm sorry, I don't see it. You seem to be saying that companies have to provide extra training for a veteran who might not be as well-qualified. Perhaps that should be the VA's role or the American Legion's role or Uncle Sam's, not a private employer. Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 13, 2014 07:13 PM ************** Did you see my first response to that portion of your challenge? The tax savings passed on to you?

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (RJMhd)

226 Wand not Rod. hah.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (rQR0r)

227 >>> Our derision should be centered on those that either afford or deny based on race. no, in the instant question, it was being challenged whether or not a diverse society with more mixing (less racial clustering and division) and more general economic equality was a good thing to wish for, even in principle. Someone denied it was (or questioned it was), and I responded, oh come on, at least as a goal, who wouldn't want that?

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (/FnUH)

228 New YorkÂ’s homeless masses are sour on Chobani yogurt. The 5,000-plus cups of the Greek yogurt that were supposed to be sent to the Sochi Olympics but were denied by Russian customs will instead be donated to New York City food pantries Â— but they are a tough sell, workers said on Thursday. Â“They look at it and go, Â‘Eww.Â’ They never ate something like it before. [They] are used to the sweet yogurt,Â” said Debbie Torres, a kitchen worker at Food Bank For New York City, which will receive loads of Chobani this week. Â“I educate them. I tell them to put some granola in the ChobaniÂ… I say, Â‘Try it!Â’Â” said Torres, adding the West Harlem food pantry has been given cups of the yogurt in the past. The creamy snack caused a stir last week when Russian officials blocked cases of it bound for the US Olympic Team in Sochi, claiming the U.S. Department of Agriculture didnÂ’t have a proper certificate for shipping dairy products. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) then took a stand, imploring the Russians to let the shipment through while pointing out the yogurt would not be for sale. But Schumer backed down on Thursday, explaining stubborn Russians officials simply wonÂ’t budge. Instead, the yogurt, which was stored in a refrigerator at the airport, will go to Saint JohnÂ’s Soup Kitchen in New Jersey and to the Food Bank For New York City, Schumer said. Chobani sucks so much, even the homeless will not eat it? That would be a great commercial?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (nzKvP)

229 148 When the CBC, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and Yada Yada Yada start addressing some of the real problems affecting Black Americans and stop blaming whitey get back to me and we can discuss stuff. Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 06:58 PM (nzKvP) Which, of course, would put a screeching halt to the lucrative gravy train they enjoy. So? Ain't happenin'.....

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (X8dOg)

230 191 Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? Doesn't seem to work for me.

Posted by: Titanium

[ I ] WORD [ /I ] = Italics, substitute B for bold, and eliminate all spaces
between the brackets, the I or B or S(strike) and the word.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (38LLM)

231 End affirmative action in the drawing of boundaries for Congressional districts while you're at it. Were it not for that travesty, does anyone here think that Sheila Jackson Lee, Corinne Brown, Maxine Waters and practically any other member of the CBC would survive a truly open election for their seat? This X 1000. President Boy would write an EO saying, "You get this county, this county and that county. Let the chips fall where they may."

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (0HooB)

232 >>I'm curious if everyone here supports the government-based initiatives (and incentives, I believe) for hiring veterans. I may lose my Moronette card, but I am not enamored of them. Seems to be the same as AA in my book. I don't think they are the same, people make a choice to serve their country, they aren't born with it. That being said I don't like any government program that tries to screw around with the capitalism. But in practice, all things being equal and assuming the person was qualified for he position, I would definitely give a plus to a veteran and have. They have already proven they are team players and willing to sacrifice and understand discipline. And its kind of nice to be addressed with a Yes, sir and No, sir. Call me old fashion, respect in both directions works for me.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (g1DWB)

233 Is there a trick to formatting comments here (strikethrough, italics)? It's old school [ ] rather than < >. with i or s or b or u and /i /s etc to end it.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (QupBk)

234 I think for veterans, the argument is that they spent a lot of time outside of the private sector and either haven't developed the specific skills needed to get a job in that sector or haven't shown a work history that's comparable with the rest of the applicant pool.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 07:06 PM (T0NGe)

incorrect assumption. Thing about assumptions is they make an as out of you, and umption.

The fk? You think veterans live on another planet during their time in service and then just get air dropped in when they exfil?

Dumbest statement. Ever.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (x3YFz)

235 >>Look, if you could wave your magic wand, and blacks would suddenly be economically just as well-off as whites or Asians, and thus there were few racial tensions or grievances, would you wave your magic wand? I bet you would. Posted by: ace Probably not. I'm much more a fan of equal opportunity than equal outcome. There will always be a bell curve of ability, drive, etc and always a bell curve of outcomes. There will always be the professional grievance mongers to inflame grievances and tensions. It is, unfortunately, in the nature of humans.

Posted by: Aviator at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (DI+ja)

236 rather than '<' '>' effin pixyware

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (QupBk)

237 Why should a company...fish in the ocean when it can fish in a stock pond. --- This! Honestly, a lot of the opposition to the "soft" approach sounds like "I'll hire the best candidate...who lands in my lap, completely ignoring the issues of networking, culture, etc that might keep people from applying"

Posted by: Jenny Likes Her Phone at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (5AEaG)

238 Â“They look at it and go, Â‘Eww.Â’ They never ate something like it before. [They] are used to the sweet yogurt,Â”

Huh. I bought a Chobani once, and it had twice as much sugar as protein. Went back to the store brand.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 03:17 PM (ZKzrr)

239 >>>So a kid educated at an Indian college should toughen up and be a sophisticated applicant to grad school or for a job, but a veteran needs assistance? I'm sorry, I don't see it. You seem to be saying that companies have to provide extra training for a veteran who might not be as well-qualified. Perhaps that should be the VA's role or the American Legion's role or Uncle Sam's, not a private employer. ... Y-Not, I'd point out, though, that this particular incentive does not run afoul of any part of the constitution-- nowhere in the constitution does it say that one must not discriminate based on veteran status. That doesn't mean you can't object on similar grounds, but, you know, one is expressly forbidding in the constitution, and the constitution says nothing at all about the other.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:17 PM (/FnUH)

240 Not to worry, in another 300 years or so, there will be nor need for AA because this will all have been equalized and the survivors will no longer care about race but rather one's survival skills as to how they contribute to the "village". Posted by: Hrothgar I respectfully disagree. A new thing will be used to create distinctions Growing up in all white all scandi/german ND in the 60s, there were no black. No Jews. No Asians The only distinction was Lutheran/Catholic. The Scandis were Lutheran. The Germans were Catholic. And the Catholic kids were not called Catholic, but "those kids from second street". They were fast, they smoked cigarettes behind Holy Spirit School!

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 03:17 PM (zOTsN)

241 dammit rather than left arrow right arrow use brackets

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:17 PM (QupBk)

242
Look, if you could wave your magic wand, and blacks would suddenly be economically just as well-off as whites or Asians, and thus there were few racial tensions or grievances, would you wave your magic wand?
Posted by: ace

That racism springs from economic disparity is a classic Marxist/60s Liberal construction that is of questionable value.

Since there are, for example, black celebrities such as Jamie Foxx. Spike Lee and a horde of others who have every possible advantage of wealth and celebrity privilege --- and hate Mr. Y. T with a passion.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2014 03:17 PM (kdS6q)

243 So a kid educated at an Indian college should toughen up and be a sophisticated applicant to grad school or for a job, but a veteran needs assistance? ********* Y-Not the veteran doesn't "need" assistance per say. he earned it. It was an incentive used by your government to entice him into an all volunteer army. And in lieu of payment or cash--your government offered him that "benefit". And--it could be a benefit that he never takes and that you never really have to pay for--and it usually is for other federal jobs.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:18 PM (RJMhd)

244 Democratic Electoral Policy: Divide and conquer! There in lies the foundation of Affirmative Action

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 03:18 PM (nzKvP)

245 tangonline, I'm going to ask you now to observe basic rules of civility. People are answering you and discussing this in a civil way; please stop with all the "dumbest shit I ever read" crap.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:18 PM (/FnUH)

246 Ack-- per *se*

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:18 PM (RJMhd)

247 testicles

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:18 PM (38LLM)

248 Diversity of tribes in the Balkans is its greatest weakness. Diversity of thought is a strength.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 03:19 PM (sOtz/)

249 This seems to accept the fatally flawed leftist interpretation of diversity.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 13, 2014 03:19 PM (rCOda)

250 no, in the instant question, it was being challenged whether or not a diverse society with more mixing (less racial clustering and division) and more general economic equality was a good thing to wish for, even in principle. Someone denied it was (or questioned it was), and I responded, oh come on, at least as a goal, who wouldn't want that?

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 07:15 PM (/FnUH)

In that context, and I'm sure you've read my posts upthread, so you know I agree; we're on the same page.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 03:19 PM (x3YFz)

251 Go Gata.

Posted by: Corrine Brown at February 13, 2014 03:20 PM (Aif/5)

252 clarifying: When I say "ask you to respect civility," I actually mean ask. It is not an order. This is not a ban threat. But I'm just observing that this conversation could be had without all the sharp elbows, and will probably will be better without them.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:20 PM (/FnUH)

253 13 In many ways, the story of Affirmative Action is the Story of Obama.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 06:27 PM (rQR0r)

Why wasn't the thread stopped after this comment? Winner. Done and...done.

Posted by: Navin R Johnson at February 13, 2014 03:20 PM (RRbuy)

254 people go to 11 too often. Let's try to go to 4 or 5, only, sometimes, especially with one another.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:21 PM (/FnUH)

255 So a kid educated at an Indian college should toughen up and be a sophisticated applicant to grad school or for a job, but a veteran needs assistance? The point is that when an employer looks at a veteran's resume, it's a big black hole. You can't get letters from his supervisors, you might not understand the impact of the jobs he had in the military, etc.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 03:21 PM (T0NGe)

256 about veterans preferences I have seen it not as a "perk" or hand out to the vet but because they have the skill set the employer is looking for like law enforcement, firefighters, a lot of the work in the energy sector, private security, etc its up to the business to figure out if they need that particular skill set

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 03:21 PM (zOTsN)

257 Ace: "I don't even mind, and I'm just speaking for myself here, Chris Rock's claim that affirmative action is a good policy, because a tie should go to the runner, as in baseball."

A nice joke (via Rock) but I disagree here. If you are talking about a demographic analysis from high levels, sure, that sounds great and, on balance, fair. But we aren't. We are talking about individuals, ultimately, and not statistics. Why should a tie go to the runner? The fielder has a life, a family, and obligations he must fill too. By the tie always going to the runner, you're advancing a policy that is actually discriminating based on skin color. Oh, in the abstract of the entire personnel metrics department, you're being "anti-discriminatory" on a population of workers; but at the individual level, you are actually discriminating and doing so in an - in the context of race policies - evil and pernicious manner.

So I'm with you on the rest of the argument, but the "tie goes to the runner" is a wholly discriminatory practice on the individual level, and our goal is to advance the individual and not the population. Well, my goal is because it's individuals that matter. I'm not letting race traders bully me into defining how I pick my friends, peers, employees, craftsmen, etc no matter how "reasonable" their arguments are. I'm not associating with populations. I'm associating with people. The people will stand on their own.

And Cfuk the Government for dictating to me with whom I'll associate. Until I work for the Government, they have no right to pick and choose for me my circle of acquaintances.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (eHIJJ)

258 I'm late to this thread, but put me down for ending affirmative action. In fact, I'm also on record as saying that the antidiscrimination laws went too far when they outlawed private discrimination.

Posted by: rickl at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (sdi6R)

259 244 tangonline, I'm going to ask you now to observe basic rules of civility. People are answering you and discussing this in a civil way; please stop with all the "dumbest shit I ever read" crap.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 07:18 PM (/FnUH)

I'll issue a blanket apology. Two quick requests:

1) where did I say "dumbest shit I ever read" (post # so I can apologize to the offended)

2) t a n g o n i n e. Before you ban me, at least get my name right. Not like I've been with you for a decade or anything.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (x3YFz)

260 I think some military would like America to take their crappy "benefits" and just pay them a better salary. Like free "counseling".

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (RJMhd)

261 I really want to stress this is a request from a correspondent not an order from a sitemaster.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (/FnUH)

262

The only thing that works for me in my toolbar is the 'Special Characters' thingy.

Â©Â§Ã˜Â¥ÂŒÂ€Â®Â¼ ...Ã…Ã‡ÃŠ Ã´Âƒ ÂŠÃ¾Ã¥ÃÃ«Âš

Posted by: wheatie at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (eCZwh)

263 about veterans preferences I have seen it not as a "perk" or hand out to the vet but because they have the skill set the employer is looking for like law enforcement, firefighters, a lot of the work in the energy sector, private security, etc its up to the business to figure out if they need that particular skill set Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 07:21 PM (zOTsN) They also sometimes have skills many business like to have. Not the least of which is an already paid for Security Clearance.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 03:23 PM (nzKvP)

264 134 I am not sure why you promote Ann Althouse, I don't recall her ever linking to Ace of Spades. Posted by: Evi. L. Bloggerlady at February 13, 2014 06:55 PM (4kTo2)
Affirmative action.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 13, 2014 03:23 PM (kVfSG)

265 >>>no, in the instant question, it was being challenged whether or not a diverse society with more mixing (less racial clustering and division) and more general economic equality was a good thing to wish for, even in principle. Someone denied it was (or questioned it was), and I responded, oh come on, at least as a goal, who wouldn't want that?

Except the solutions are worse than the problem. School busing, anyone? People, people of all races, do some self segregating all on their own without any incentives. When concerned citizens try to force a change, it comes out badly.

Of course, I would distinguish any kind of segregating based on governmental laws and/or policy. Government should be indifferent to how people decide to segregate (or integrate) themselves.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 03:23 PM (IN7k+)

266 "Freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate." ~Ayn Rand

Posted by: rickl at February 13, 2014 03:23 PM (sdi6R)

267 assuming the person was qualified for he position, I would definitely give a plus to a veteran and have. They have already proven they are team players and willing to sacrifice and understand discipline.

I think that's why some people are surprised that tax incentives had to be created to get people to hire veterans. Why wouldn't you just hire them because they have proven work ethic?

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 03:23 PM (ZKzrr)

268 it's a big black hole ******** tsk,tsk tsk....

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:24 PM (RJMhd)

269 Tang, see the other posts-- I really want you to understand this was a pure REQUEST, not a ban advisory. I thought you were getting sharp when it was unnecessary, and was asking you to dial it back. Certainly you said nothing even close to ban territory. However, I just thought, "Why go down this road? Let's just talk?" Re: 1) where did I say "dumbest shit I ever read" (post # so I can apologize to the offended) You said Dumbest Statement. Ever to y-not.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:24 PM (/FnUH)

270 Damn that vet for surviving--how many tours and getting a slight advantage at being a mail man when he gets home from his 6th tour. Damn that bastard!!

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:25 PM (RJMhd)

271 as for why link Althouse... she finds interesting things that I don't see.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:25 PM (/FnUH)

272 You said Dumbest Statement. Ever to y-not. Yeah and let's remember that until I am done posting I don't want that "dumbest statement ever" Award to be given out!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (nzKvP)

273 it's a big black hole ...some might say it's a slippery slope.

Posted by: garrett at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (rQR0r)

274 a lot of vets also work for defense contractors, who really require that experience the kid from India doesn't have the experience they need it isn't just the education

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (zOTsN)

275 Holy crap the ingratitude. I'm beginning to think some Conservatives are just Dems that hate taxes.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (RJMhd)

276 its hard not to get defensive when you are vet. So few people have served, or even know anyone who has served. There are lots of misconceptions out there

Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 03:28 PM (zOTsN)

277 I don't believe AA, even that which ace supports, is going to solve the problems of minorities in the country unless AA is a figurative gateway drug to reduced out of wedlock births, reduced criminality and a focus on education. Plus it pisses a lot of people off; I wonder what the effect of pissing the people off doing the hiring has on increased minority employment?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (38LLM)

278 "The point is that when an employer looks at a veteran's resume, it's a big black hole. You can't get letters from his supervisors, you might not understand the impact of the jobs he had in the military, etc." Any vet that comes to you with a resume which shows a black hole or no supervisor contact information doesn't deserve to be hired, but to say this is indicative of all vets shows that you have little experience with vets.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (rCOda)

279 On the vet thing: I feel pretty much the same way as a previous commenter: if a private business wants to hire preferentially for qualified vets, I am all for it. To me this makes perfect sense from a business standpoint as well and is why I would look well on a "Military Service" listed in someone's resume (depending on the job applied for.) I have heard from discussing it with several bosses that the reason that most look preferentially toward people with degrees is not that the degree confers some sort of special intellect to the person, but tells you something about the person. That they have a certain amount of work ethic and so forth. I would imagine the same would be true of military service (dependent on type of discharge.) It shows they have the ability to work with others. They can follow directives. They know about chain of authority. The ability to commit to something. For all of those reasons, I would think vets would be something you would look for. Not just because they were in the military and needed a step up.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (TGgNi)

280 The kid from India doesn't have the experience they need ---- But if the veteran *does* have the experience, where the Indian kid (or the Indiana civilian, or whatever) why does the employer need an incentive to hire the vet?

Posted by: Jenny Likes Her Phone at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (5AEaG)

281 Bleh. My 279 should say "where the Indian kid (or the Indiana civilian or whatever) does not"

Posted by: Jenny Likes Her Phone at February 13, 2014 03:30 PM (5AEaG)

282 it is logically impossible for a color-conscious legal system to produce a color blind government.

Posted by: Shoey at February 13, 2014 03:30 PM (vA94g)

283 233

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 03:31 PM (HVff2)

284 >>I think that's why some people are surprised that tax incentives had to be created to get people to hire veterans. Why wouldn't you just hire them because they have proven work ethic? Government doesn't understand business at all. Well most of them don't. Most of us, particularly in this climate, are working our asses off to keep our heads above water. We aren't looking to make cultural statements or focusing on diversity for diversity's sake. Businesses, those that are still ticking, make hiring decisions based on what they believe are in the best interests of their business. That's it. No hidden agendas. Yea, you might favor a friend over an unknown at first blush but businesses aren't government. We can't just raise taxes when we are running short or pass laws to make people buy our products. Get government the hell out of our way and let us do what we do and we will hire people. Keep trying to micro-manage us and burden us with all sorts of nonsensical regulations and you won't have to worry about diversity hiring, we will just be turning people out to enjoy their freedom to paint and writer musicals.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 13, 2014 03:31 PM (g1DWB)

285 >>>I don't believe AA, even that which ace supports, is going to solve the problems of minorities in the country unless AA is a figurative gateway drug to reduced out of wedlock births, reduced criminality and a focus on education. Plus it pisses a lot of people off; I wonder what the effect of pissing the people off doing the hiring has on increased minority employment? i don't believe so either, as far as "solve." But help a few here and there, yeah. Again, bear in mind, what I'm defending is any kind of support for this *even in principle*, which many oppose. Granted, the "principle" is hard to separate from the reality of it as practiced.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:32 PM (/FnUH)

286
I think that's why some people are surprised that tax incentives had to be created to get people to hire veterans. Why wouldn't you just hire them because they have proven work ethic?

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 07:23 PM (ZKzrr)

Because we are all a bunch of fascists with PTSD who might bring our rifle to work one fine day?

Or because we are rigid inflexible automatons, not capable of embracing change?

etc, etc.

Posted by: Gandalf at February 13, 2014 03:32 PM (Q9qpj)

287 I don't like Bill-O but that's one place I think he makes a good point. Having 74% of births in an unstable family environment cannot be good for your cultures future.

Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2014 07:01 PM (Aif/5)

That's not even an unstable family; it's no family.

Posted by: Titanium at February 13, 2014 03:32 PM (IgOQg)

288 I oppose looking for anyone special in any category to fill a position except "the most qualified and capable for that position."
While I freely admit that's a minority of humanity, I consider specifically looking for approved ethic minoritiesÂ© wrong and stupid.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2014 03:33 PM (zfY+H)

289

You know...these days we have :::WARNING LABELS::: for everything.

If we're going to have Affirmative Action...shouldn't we at least get Warning Labels?

Like when you go to a Doctor:

:::WARNING - This Doctor Got Their Degree Via Affirmative Action:::

Or, when you get on a Plane:

:::WARNING - Your Pilot Got Their License Via Affirmative Action:::

Like I said, we have warning labels for everything nowadays...so could we at least get them for this?

If Merit and Accomplishment no longer matter, then the consequences of this present a Danger to the public.

Posted by: wheatie at February 13, 2014 03:33 PM (eCZwh)

290 I find it disingenuous of Y-Not to start that argument--get a response within minutes delineated to her not once but twice and then to say--patently ignore that not once but twice and then announce--again within minutes-- oops sorry---I need to flounce! She wasn't really interested in debate.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:33 PM (RJMhd)

291 "sitemaster" LOL. Somehow I don't see ace in high heels and fishnets wielding a whip. NTTIAWWT.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 03:34 PM (sOtz/)

292 270 as for why link Althouse... she finds interesting things that I don't see. Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 07:25 PM (/FnUH) You just like her cuz she's a cheesehead.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 03:34 PM (HVff2)

293 I still won't hire the Irish under the penalty of imprisonment.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:34 PM (38LLM)

294 #21

Minimum wage was first proposed as a means to remove undesirables from the workforce. It came from the same bunch of progressives who got behind eugenics. It was decided it was unfair for members of the 'lower orders' be willing to work cheaper, on the basis that they couldn't outwork the preferred type of people but they could 'underlive' them. So the minimum was proposed as a means to take that advantage off the table.

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Eugenics.pdf

Not a quick read but some very interesting history.

Posted by: Epobirs at February 13, 2014 03:35 PM (bPxS6)

295 275 its hard not to get defensive when you are vet. So few people have served, or even know anyone who has served. There are lots of misconceptions out there Posted by: thunderb at February 13, 2014 07:28 PM (zOTsN) ********* Na--look at the way she did it. That's all you need to know. Wasn't really interested in debate.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:35 PM (RJMhd)

296 White people are so icky.

Posted by: dogfish at February 13, 2014 03:35 PM (nsOJa)

297 Wait Y-not can't question veteran set asides without being an ingrate and worse?

Look I disagree with her take on this but how about trying to persuade her of the error of her ways rather than trash her.

One thing that has not been mentioned is that HR people frequently don't have a clue what a Vet's career may have prepared him for. Unless the applicant is very adept at spelling it out, they just don't know what to think.

Posted by: typo dynamofo at February 13, 2014 03:36 PM (IVgIK)

298 #288

Can we put a label on the White House gates?

Warning: This administration subject to Affirmative Action.

Posted by: Epobirs at February 13, 2014 03:36 PM (bPxS6)

299 I can handle some sort of class AA process because looking at how some fields limit applicants makes it necessary. Kid was looking at vet school. Typically only about 12% of applicants get accepted after doing four years of undergrad. Now here is the kicker, grades aren't enough. You have to show practical experience. Let's look at Michigan State U., they expect you to at least have 200+ hours of hands on vet experience before applying to vet school. Typical accepted applicant has over 700 hours. It is becoming like a guild. A poor or even middle class kid can't do that. BTW, I believe a lot of this is due to Asians who just grind through standard testing. Schools are starting to get desperate to find some differentiators beyond the test scores. However, that leaves poorer kids in a lurch.

Posted by: Chris at February 13, 2014 03:36 PM (crkWb)

300 Well kids don't wreck the place. Must go & make dinner

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 03:38 PM (HVff2)

301 I am not sure why you promote Ann Althouse, I don't recall her ever linking to Ace of Spades. Posted by: Evi. L. Bloggerlady at February 13, 2014 06:55 PM (4kTo2) Affirmative action. Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 13, 2014 07:23 PM (kVfSG) Now that was funny.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 03:39 PM (bb5+k)

302 296 Wait Y-not can't question veteran set asides without being an ingrate and worse? ******** Yep. She ignored counter points offered within minutes of her dropping her opinion. I didn't get to those points until she patently ignored not once but twice responses to her that assumed that she was not some how motivated otherwise.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:39 PM (RJMhd)

303 292 I still won't hire the Irish under the penalty of imprisonment.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 07:34 PM

Well, of course. Did it need saying?

Posted by: The common clay, you know, morons at February 13, 2014 03:40 PM (6TB1Z)

304 On the vet preference thing: not only are there preferences in government jobs, but vetrens are also a protected class in the private sector. So, if an employer decides that he does not want to hire a veteran because he doesn't like people with a military background, that employer has violated the law. So, employers, especially large corporations, have to protect themselves from those who might make the claim that they were discriminated against based on their military service. So, they track how many applicants have that background, what percent got hired (or not), and so forth. And as a prophylactic measure, they will make sure that the numbers come out right so that they have a way to defend themselves if anyone sues.

tl;dr: there is affirmative action for vets, both public and private.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 03:41 PM (IN7k+)

305 Asians have historically been allowed to marry whites. It's simply not the same, it's so freaking ridiculous that conservatives just lie and lie about this stuff. Chang and Eng married white women with zero problems. That was NOT the case for any black men in the 19th century in America. Asians simply have never faced the same discrimination as blacks. American-born blacks have always faced unique and harsher discrimination, period. Distracting from this by waving Obama's kids around doesn't make your own racial blindnesses endearing.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 03:42 PM (Ar0Ju)

306 265 "Freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate." ~Ayn Rand Posted by: rickl at February 13, 2014 07:23 PM (sdi6R) Yeah, I was thinking that Libertarians were all against imposing morality and stuff. Affirmative action at it's essence, is the imposition of a particular type of morality. I commend the goal, but do not agree with the means used to advance it.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 03:43 PM (bb5+k)

307 Also, you all act like there's never been white ethnic affirmative action (which still goes on in the trade unions to this day). No, it's all those dastardly unqualified colored people wanting handouts. Bah.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 03:43 PM (Ar0Ju)

308 I think for veterans, the argument is that they spent a lot of time outside of the private sector and either haven't developed the specific skills needed to get a job in that sector or haven't shown a work history that's comparable with the rest of the applicant pool. Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 07:06 PM (T0NGe) You probably wouldn't want to know what we think of most civilians. ....and I have seen their "work ethic" in the private sector. Let me just say: unimpressive, half-assed, entitled and whiny bitches.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 03:44 PM (X8dOg)

309 There is no meritocracy. It's a myth that conservatives love and that liberals are happy to let them have because it makes things so much easier for them.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 03:44 PM (Ar0Ju)

310 I've been rolling a tobacco/granola cigarette mix for years. It's important to be healthy.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 13, 2014 03:45 PM (oFCZn)

311 "I would say, however, that a society in which there weren't any racial tensions (or very little of that) would be a nice thing. Look, if you could wave your magic wand, and blacks would suddenly be economically just as well-off as whites or Asians, and thus there were few racial tensions or grievances, would you wave your magic wand? I bet you would." ****************** Sure I would. But I don't think it would alleviate the tensions and grievances in the way you do. Unless we think those tensions are mostly economic in origin. I'm not convinced. (Partly because it reeks of a Marxist materialist conception of group dynamics. But also because it's not the type of complaints you hear coming from black groups.) I'm not even sure I believe poverty causes crime. The reverse seems more plausible to me. In any event, does a (racially) diverse workplace advance that goal? Does it reduce tensions and grievances? Does it at least advance the black population economically? The individual hired for a job has gained economically, but is the wider community better off? Seems tenuous to me. Is this why diversity is a laudable thing to strive for? It could, maybe, somewhere down the line, improve the black population economically, which may, somehow, through a mechanism yet to be determined, reduce racial tensions in the country?

Posted by: Nathan at February 13, 2014 03:45 PM (ttq1K)

312 I'm a vet and I don't agree with special preference for veterans in hiring. I'll go all in explaining to a potential employer why hiring honorably discharged/retired vets that adhere to the best aspects of their former profession is a good idea but in the end it should be an employers call without any legal pushing one way or another.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 13, 2014 03:46 PM (dvRYt)

313 Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 07:44 PM (Ar0Ju) Taking the Slate approach to pimping your blog huh?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 13, 2014 03:46 PM (rCOda)

314 >>There is no meritocracy. It's a myth that conservatives love and that liberals are happy to let them have because it makes things so much easier for them. Bullshit. Come work for me. Do your job and you will keep it. Excel and you will get promoted and make more. Do a bad job and I will help you celebrate your freedom.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 13, 2014 03:47 PM (g1DWB)

315 303 On the vet preference thing: not only are there preferences in government jobs, but vetrens are also a protected class in the private sector. So, if an employer decides that he does not want to hire a veteran because he doesn't like people with a military background, that employer has violated the law. So, employers, especially large corporations, have to protect themselves from those who might make the claim that they were discriminated against based on their military service. So, they track how many applicants have that background, what percent got hired (or not), and so forth. And as a prophylactic measure, they will make sure that the numbers come out right so that they have a way to defend themselves if anyone sues. tl;dr: there is affirmative action for vets, both public and private. Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 07:41 PM (IN7k+) ********** Again something that is not analogous -- a veteran earned that--he wasn't simply gifted it by being born a certain hue.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:47 PM (RJMhd)

316 Late to the party (again) but Ace really really needs to read Thomas Sowell's Race and Culture. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: ChicagoRefugee who still likes Sam Clovis for Senate at February 13, 2014 03:48 PM (a3DHl)

317 308 So you are saying there is no meritocracy, so there is no need to agitate for one. You also say there is no racial equality, so we MUST agitate for it in ways designed to make sure we never have it.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 13, 2014 03:49 PM (TGgNi)

318 Ace sez: I don't mind a fair inquiry into this situation, so long as the company is able to rebut any presumption or conclusion that they're hiring on a discriminatory basis. And Obama's IRS doesn't mind if companies fire people, as long as said companies promise that they aren't doing it due to Ozerocare. Fact is, it's none of your (or my) goddamned business why they hire the people that they do. Have conservatives now accepted the New Normal, or are you just trollbaiting?

Posted by: skh.pcola at February 13, 2014 03:49 PM (K8yH5)

319 Racial blindnesses are not endearing. I'm glad you agree with teh Derb.

Posted by: kartoffel at February 13, 2014 03:50 PM (07vvi)

320
After 50 years of busing students, AA, The Great Society etc. -- we've really got the problem fixed.

The whole problem was actually going away all by itself until we decided to "fix" it. As history shows, the more we meddle with it the worse it gets.

So why should conservatives rush in to fix a problem caused by liberals -- only to get blamed for the inevitable failure of whatever is done?

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 13, 2014 03:50 PM (tOkJB)

321 It seems like the "unreal woman" needs to get laid.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:51 PM (38LLM)

322 >>No, it's all those dastardly unqualified colored people wanting handouts. Bah. Posted by: The Unreal Woman You haven't read a word anyone has written here have you, you silly fuck?

Posted by: Aviator at February 13, 2014 03:51 PM (DI+ja)

323 And please unreal woman stop calling African Americans colored people, it's offensive.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:52 PM (38LLM)

324 311 I'm a vet and I don't agree with special preference for veterans in hiring. I'll go all in explaining to a potential employer why hiring honorably discharged/retired vets that adhere to the best aspects of their former profession is a good idea but in the end it should be an employers call without any legal pushing one way or another. Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 13, 2014 07:46 PM (dvRYt) ********** In most cases it's for other federal jobs--so in a sense it's your old boss offering to re-hire you and you agreeing ahead of time to be rewarded with that benefit instead of being simply paid more to sign up for military service in the first place.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:52 PM (RJMhd)

325 >> It seems like the "unreal woman" needs to get laid. Posted by: Dr Spank She just needs something to take care of that vaginal itching. Probably enough to drive anyone to the edge of insanity.

Posted by: Aviator at February 13, 2014 03:53 PM (DI+ja)

326 She just needs something to take care of that vaginal itching. There's a balm for that.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:54 PM (QupBk)

327 Segregation was never the problem. Diverting resources that blacks paid taxes for too was the problem. Black Americans never got the kind of welfare whites got-- heavily restricted to married couples, with behavior requirements designed to weed out loafers. They got something different, not "equal", not "the same", not even "similar".

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 03:54 PM (Ar0Ju)

328 Let's not over think this. Look for this idea to get a lot of play on the left in the near future because the Dems have decided they're going to get their Mexicans and don't NEED the blacks anymore.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 13, 2014 03:54 PM (XO6WW)

329 >>>a veteran earned that--he wasn't simply gifted it by being born a certain hue.

When it comes to a government job, like the post office as an example, then sure. The government can give preferences to vets and say it was one of the benefits promised when they got him to sign up for military service.

That does not apply to the private sector. The vet has not earned anything from that private employer, and any job with that private employer did not belong to the government, so it was never theirs to offer as a carrot.

Personally, I think that vets are an asset to any employer. Based on my own biases, I would say that they are in general, more punctual, better groomed, more likely to have a higher level of integrity, etc, than just someone else off the street. But, that determination should be left to each individual employer. If someone thinks that vets tend to be a bunch of fascistic baby-killers, then they should be free to act on their misguided prejudices and be able to refuse to hire any vets.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 13, 2014 03:56 PM (IN7k+)

330 Posted by: The Unreal Woman

I'd like to understand where you're coming from but your use of the term coll#red has infuriated the logical side of my brain.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:57 PM (38LLM)

331 TBH3K by 400!

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 13, 2014 03:58 PM (m9V0o)

332 >>There's a balm for that. Yeah, I think it's called Ben-Gay.

Posted by: Aviator at February 13, 2014 03:58 PM (DI+ja)

333 And if we're going to mention Asian academic dominance here's something that should be taken into consideration ... http://tinyurl.com/l3kgdbo

Posted by: ChicagoRefugee who still likes Sam Clovis for Senate at February 13, 2014 03:59 PM (a3DHl)

334 281 it is logically impossible for a color-conscious legal system to produce a color blind government. Posted by: Shoey at February 13, 2014 07:30 PM (vA94g) dyslexia strikes again, but you know what I mean

Posted by: Shoey at February 13, 2014 04:00 PM (vA94g)

335 326 Whoa whoa whoa. You are saying segregation was not a problem? If you are talking about voluntary segregation (people living in communities with their racial brethren out of choice), I agree. However, forcing people to attend schools, restaurants, Laundromats of one color or another is pretty much wrong. Plus, I do not see how you make up for politicians diverting government funds/benefits to the benefit of one group over another, is then solved by diverting the funds/benefits of one group to the benefit of one group over another.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 13, 2014 04:00 PM (TGgNi)

336 Black people's experience is working hard, doing the job and then being the first laid off anyway. Pretending that's not real is hardly insanity or whatever other nonsense you want to spew. All things are never equal, subjective factors are always part of the hiring process.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 04:00 PM (Ar0Ju)

337 new one up

Posted by: seamrog at February 13, 2014 04:02 PM (alMld)

338 Bussing students wasn't done for the benefit of the students, it was done instead of providing equal access to academic resources (books, clean buildings, etc.) Again, black Americans have never actually received equal opportunity. They've been thrown a few crumbs and told something's wrong with them for not being superachievers.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 04:02 PM (Ar0Ju)

339 In most cases it's for other federal jobs--so in a sense it's your old boss offering to re-hire you and you agreeing ahead of time to be rewarded with that benefit instead of being simply paid more to sign up for military service in the first place. Thing is being a veteran is not some general universal quality. I've known hard working, dedicated veterans and I've known lazy dirtbag veterans. There are variations as in any profession. If you believe in hiring the best it seems that being a veteran alone shouldn't factor into private or public sector hiring as it's too general. Give an employer specifics and evidence as to you being the best candidate.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 13, 2014 04:02 PM (dvRYt)

340 All things are never equal, subjective factors are always part of the hiring process. Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 08:00 PM (Ar0Ju) No point in arguing with you. You're not real.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 13, 2014 04:03 PM (yDmQD)

341 She believes segregation was the best thing since sliced bread, she calls African Americans coll#red at the drop of a hat and she believes blacks can't hold a job. Who is this "unreal woman"?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 04:03 PM (38LLM)

342 >>The Unreal Woman Get back to us when you decide to get real.

Posted by: Aviator at February 13, 2014 04:04 PM (DI+ja)

343 My use of "colored" was sarcastic. I know, I know, I'm just an actual black person who reads history books. What the bleep would I know about black experiences in the workforce. I'm not a white conservative screeching about they'd totally hire a black person, it's just no black person ever shows up for those internal job postings at their all-white company. Clearly the black person just doesn't want it enough.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 04:05 PM (Ar0Ju)

344 I bit on the blogwhoring. God help me.

>>Why Bronies are superior to the Neoreaction

Phenomenal. I don't know whether to consider myself trolled or deeply entertained.

Posted by: kartoffel at February 13, 2014 04:05 PM (07vvi)

345 I'm retired Navy, with an Unlimited Tonnage Merchant Mariners License. In other words, a vet. Guess what my GS job is? I work as a planner for the Coast Guard. Note the skill-set match.

Posted by: Deck LDO at February 13, 2014 04:05 PM (84b7V)

346 So we can expect this smart military blog to start leading by example? What groups are we going to include for the affirmative action? Character matters, not color. Is this Ace Of Diamonds?

Posted by: sithkhan at February 13, 2014 04:05 PM (qWAB9)

347 They got something different, not "equal", not "the same", not even "similar". And exactly how is that 50 year old grievance the responsibility of my 14 year old son? Especially at a time in history when 'white boy' is THE most commonly used racial slur? http://tinyurl.com/qffjvnb

Posted by: ChicagoRefugee who is, in fact, a Real Woman at February 13, 2014 04:06 PM (a3DHl)

348 Many blacks were pro-segregation. Read a dang book sometime. It was a divide within the black community. The integrationists won, in historical terms. But there was division about what was a better way to go.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 04:06 PM (Ar0Ju)

349 I'm always baffled when ace or Insty link Althouse. She doesn't return the favor, and she casually assumes that all conservatives are unprincipled and racist. In this post, in fact, she treats it as a given that when Republicans say they want to end AA, they don't mean it. Besides, she gives off that creepy liberal white lady racist and classist vibe. Like blacks and the poor need the help of their betters, and if you don't agree, you're a terrible human being.

Posted by: VKI at February 13, 2014 04:07 PM (qySNZ)

350

Black people's experience is working hard, doing the job and then being the first laid off anyway.

*******

In my experience, it's exactly the opposite.

Black women are untouchable at my company and they know it. Some just do their jobs like everyone else. The ones who weren't raised right are nothing but loudmouthed, troublemaking shitbirds. They get away with this that any white man would get promptly fired over.

But do go on about your oppression...

Posted by: Warden at February 13, 2014 04:07 PM (HzhBE)

351 You are either a walking synthesis of all things horrifying or a hardened professional. Either way, good show.

Posted by: kartoffel at February 13, 2014 04:07 PM (07vvi)

352 Posted by: The Unreal Woman

Are you reading A People's History of the United States?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 04:08 PM (38LLM)

353 I posted to this thread because I think the meritocracy myth is a huge problem. Conservatives don't hire on merit. Nobody does. Black Americans still have to face racism in hiring and firing.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 04:08 PM (Ar0Ju)

354 347 I read quite a few books. I am not saying what was desired by anyone. I am saying that forced segregation was wrong. I am saying that telling a black person going into a white bar that he was not allowed or a white person going into a black bar that he was not allowed was wrong. Am I really having this argument?

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 13, 2014 04:10 PM (TGgNi)

355 "Look, if you could wave your magic wand, and blacks would suddenly be economically just as well-off as whites or Asians, and thus there were few racial tensions or grievances, would you wave your magic wand?" Once again I don't buy that Black racial tension would be alleviated by more economic parity. It seems like a tautology. It's homo economicus thinking that disregards education, socialization, culture, etc.. We premised the Great Society on that idea and where did that get us ? Tom Sowell has written a great deal on the causation/correlation problem with ethnic minorities, socioeconomic disparity and affirmative action. I prefer his approach which was to essentially disregard vestigial racism and concentrate on individual character and merit. Otherwise you undermine both the self-worth of the recipients of AA and the respect given to minority achievers. It's a tempting trap to fall into when you've been called a KKK racist xenophobe blabbity-blah for decades, but don't buy in. Remember Rick Perry's "heartless" gaffe that killed his campaign in the cradle. Don't buy into kindness that kills.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 13, 2014 04:10 PM (il1Hy)

356 >>Black Americans still have to face racism in hiring and firing. Tell it to Obama and Holder. They are monumental fuckups and lawbreakers and we can't seem to fire them.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 13, 2014 04:11 PM (g1DWB)

357 338 In most cases it's for other federal jobs--so in a sense it's your old boss offering to re-hire you and you agreeing ahead of time to be rewarded with that benefit instead of being simply paid more to sign up for military service in the first place. Thing is being a veteran is not some general universal quality. I've known hard working, dedicated veterans and I've known lazy dirtbag veterans. There are variations as in any profession. If you believe in hiring the best it seems that being a veteran alone shouldn't factor into private or public sector hiring as it's too general. Give an employer specifics and evidence as to you being the best candidate. Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 13, 2014 08:02 PM (dvRYt) *********** Eh--I still think if you were honorably discharged and your former employee wants to give you extra points in the process of rehiring you in lieu of paying you a cash incentive upfront it in the end saves the taxpayer money. Not all vets take advantage of it. And an employer can still not hire a vet based on the qualities that you list. Also to compare vets and the incentive practice in lieu of payment to affirmative action is an apples to oranges comparison.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 04:11 PM (RJMhd)

358 If poverty = racial tension, why won't Kanye et al chill out ? There's obviously more below the surface than take-home pay.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 13, 2014 04:11 PM (il1Hy)

359 Merit plays a large part in hiring. It's not the only factor to be sure and it varies. Thing is in the business world actual ability matters. It is the difference between being successful and going out of business.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 13, 2014 04:12 PM (dvRYt)

360 I believe the only reason Obama got elected/re-elected is because he's black. Discuss.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 04:13 PM (38LLM)

361 "I concede diversity is, all other things being equal, a laudable thing to strive for."

Comical. This is a good example of the uselessness of "conservatives," most of whom are thoughtless right-liberals.

Posted by: Scrutineer at February 13, 2014 04:15 PM (Ow1TJ)

362 Ok, Warden. Black women have a higher unemployment rate than white men. Clearly fictional. And that's held across multiple presidencies.

Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 04:15 PM (Ar0Ju)

363 I know, I know, I'm just someone who spent 20 years living in a mostly black neighborhood. What would I know about children left to play in the streets unsupervised until 11:00 at night on school nights or parents who made fun of their own kids for 'talking white," huh? What would I know about a group of little girls who asked "What's a husband?" upon being introduced to my better half? What would I know about intellectual promise being blighted by bitterness and learned victimization being passed on from mother - because it usually IS a mother - to child? Doesn't every employer want to hire someone with a scowl on their face and a visible chip on their shoulder? But please, Unreal, keep beating up those strawmen of "all white workplaces" and "internal postings." You do it so well.

Posted by: ChicagoRefugee who is, in fact, a Real Woman at February 13, 2014 04:15 PM (a3DHl)

364 "Black Americans still have to face racism in hiring and firing." So do other races, including whites, depending on the context. We have no way to quantify the impact of racism separate from other merit-based criteria (e.g. how do we define "equally qualified" candidates). Without any idea of the scope of the problem, we'll never know when the racial balance in every company is "just right" and we can declare victory. AA is a road to perdition. Even Europe bases its educational; admissions and employment less on race than we do. They're backpedaling from the multi-culti abyss while we're still hell bent on plunging in head first.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 13, 2014 04:19 PM (il1Hy)

365

Ok, Warden. Black women have a higher unemployment rate than white men.

******************

Which proves what, exactly? Doesn't mean it's due to discrimination. If you want to find the source of the problem, look to the 70% black illegitmacy rate.

And of course hiring, firing and promotion are not pure meritocracies. It's often based on who kisses the most ass, steals the most credit, interviews the best, tells the most believable lies, and has the best family connections.

Usually, the smaller the company, the less politics, simply because a small company can't afford to have a lot of dead weight. The exception to this is with nepotism.

At the end of the day, all you can do is work hard and have some sense of integrity. I've seen all kinds of people "get over" in my company, but I wouldn't trade places with 'em. I may not be a hotshot living in a big house and driving a fancy car, but my coworkers like and respect me, and I sleep pretty well at night.

Posted by: Warden at February 13, 2014 04:19 PM (HzhBE)

366 Has Ann Althouse apologized for voting for Obama yet?

Posted by: breda at February 13, 2014 04:19 PM (DRUr5)

367 361 Black women have a 100% higher pregnancy rate than white men and much greater demands for child-rearing afterward. Apple/orange.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 13, 2014 04:20 PM (il1Hy)

368 First principles. 1. You own your body. What you do with your body is your business, so long as no non-consenting second party is harmed (and the definition of "harm" determines the extent of government intrusion). 2. What two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, office, factory, or the great outdoors is their business so long as no non-consenting parties are harmed. I oppose anti-discrimination laws. If a restaurant owner (say) determines to hire only gay vegetarian left-handed Chinese Methodists to work in his establishment and to serve only straight black male acoustic jazz saxophonists, that is, quite literally, his business. Not yours. Not mine. A legal regime that protects freedom of association and freedom of contract will minimize enforcement costs and maximize individual freedom. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation expresses an individual's taste in people. You like fat chicks or blondes? None of my business. Literally.

Posted by: Malcolm Kirkpatrick at February 13, 2014 04:21 PM (uHUBu)

369

"Black Americans still have to face racism in hiring and firing."

As do whites, due to "affirmative action". And in promotions, and in college entry.

I watched my father, a decorated hero in the San Francisco Fire Dept, study like a madman for the Captain's exam. (This is going back to the mid 80's, but has gotten much much worse, mind you.) He scored in the top 3%, but was denied promotion to Captain so that blacks and women could be promoted, even though they had 2 years in a profession in which he had over 20, and had been awarded the American Legion annual valor award as Firefighter of the year (nationally), and other meritorious awards.

We all realize what blacks have faced in our nation, but do not continue to tell me that "affirmative action" is any kind of remedy in this day and age. Until blacks wake up and see that they have traded post-plantation life (and successful families and businesses) for the new, democrat plantation, they will be locked in the same cycle of single parent (mom) government housing, men dying or imprisoned lifestyle that the "Great Society" gave them in the 60's.

Content of character, not color of skin.

I was raised to believe it, but have experienced the opposite.

Barack Obama and the 98% black vote tell you anything about that?

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at February 13, 2014 04:22 PM (25KoS)

370 361 Ok, Warden. Black women have a higher unemployment rate than white men. Clearly fictional. And that's held across multiple presidencies. Posted by: The Unreal Woman

You can do better than that, come on.

Did you know most automobile accidents occur within a mile of the home? Or that the 2nd leading cause of death for teenagers is suicide? Those statistics mean nothing and are in fact misleading.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that discrimination doesn't exist and I assume when blacks are discriminated against it pisses you off, so why discriminate against another racial group to make it all better? How do you think it makes whites feel and what do you think are the repercussions?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 04:23 PM (38LLM)

371 When you concede that affirmative action has a place, you open the door to unending grievance mongering based on anecdote and supposition (Internal postings ? Really ?). Ace, your kindness enables Unreal Woman to make her demands in perpetuity so long as she feels aggrieved. I know you don't support her position, but yours is the stalking horse for it.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 13, 2014 04:25 PM (il1Hy)

372 Comical. This is a good example of the uselessness of "conservatives," most of whom are thoughtless right-liberals.

I second that. This quote was particularly stupid: "Our goal should be a color blind society"

No; our goal should be a safe and prosperous society, with neighbours you can trust. This is entirely incompatible with "color blindness", at least until certain races bring themselves up to our level.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 13, 2014 04:28 PM (30eLQ)

373

Althouse: yep, sort of a head-shaker to link to her, for any reason. But hey lots of people here watch O'Reilly, and the like, so ...... no non-invidious comment really being possible .... "no comment"

What is really disappointing is ace's analytical flabbiness on this. He seems to be saying that "a little bit" of blatantly unconstitutional social engineering is OK (e.g. the "soft" kind). Pretty astonishing.

Unlike affirmative action, which besides its unconstitutional repugnance also of course has uniformly disastrous practical consequences, it's easy to think of ways to shred the constitution while actually delivering massive social benefits. Preventive detention of known criminals (most crime is committed by a very small group of habitual offenders), disregarding 4th Amend. protections (OK, they're fairly battered as it is, but you know what I mean) to get evidence when there's little doubt about guilt, aggressively breaking up dysfunctional families and separating kids from the toxic influence of awful parents.

All these things would produce spectacular social gains. But none of them would conform to a system that produces the greatest individual freedom by establishing rule of law.

Affirmative action as state policy, not a corporate marketing strategy, or an internal decision of a private entity, inc. schools etc., is simply and obviously an indefensible destruction of the very concept of equal protection and hence of the rule of law. This is not even a serious debate. And that the country has degraded and damaged itself and its legal foundation by indulging this idiotic sop to ignorant moral narcissism is incredibly damning. Justice O'Connor's ruling was the perfect unwitting self-parody: "ya know, thinking about it, probably 20 years or more of this official racial discrimination will be enough, but it hasn't been going long enough as of this moment".

These days there's no shortage of absurd "rulings" by the courts that effectively remove the presumption of seriousness or legitimacy from the judicial branch. Affirmative action, from the outset, has been one of the most devastating departures from the constitution and common sense. A nearly perfect inversion of the philosophical basis of the system of government (equal protection) and a breath-taking demonstration of the pernicious idiocy of social engineering and "enlightened" racism.

Posted by: non-purist at February 13, 2014 04:28 PM (afQnV)

374 I'm heading home.

Unreal, you come off as bitter(I hope your not), but you come off as that way to me. I hope you find happiness in this world, if you haven't found it already, otherwise it's a tough, hard slog.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 04:29 PM (38LLM)

375 The only way I can attempt to explain this is that if you believe this kind of crap is fair to anyone, you're kidding yourself.

Posted by: MJ at February 13, 2014 04:36 PM (oari7)

376 367 I oppose anti-discrimination laws. If a restaurant owner (say) determines to hire only gay vegetarian left-handed Chinese Methodists to work in his establishment and to serve only straight black male acoustic jazz saxophonists, that is, quite literally, his business. Not yours. Not mine. Posted by: Malcolm Kirkpatrick at February 13, 2014 08:21 PM (uHUBu) Amen. The Jim Crow laws were wrong, since government is supposed to serve all of the people, not a racial subset. It was good and right that they were overturned. But antidiscrimination laws went too far when they banned private discrimination. A private business is private property and the owner should have the final say in who he hires or serves, not the government. Antidiscrimination laws opened the door to all kinds of tyranny, including the government dictating smoking policies in private businesses. If a couple of lesbians opened a restaurant and wanted to serve only wymyn, what business is that of mine, as a man? Should I march in there, bang my fist on the table, and demand to be served? Why? What would be the point of that? There are plenty of other restaurants I can patronize.

Posted by: rickl at February 13, 2014 04:41 PM (sdi6R)

377 There's a little backstory on the postal veteran preference, it emulates a German practice that stems from the restrictions placed on the Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. The Bundespost was reorganized in a military hierarchy, without guns, and staffed with lots of WWI combat veterans. Then it was given lots of jobs beyond delivering the mail - like manning the explosives on bridges, observation of roads and trains, maintaining a national communications networks, being in place to manage a mass mobilization, maintaining tabs on foreigners, etc.

Post-WW2, someone here liked the idea. The post office also picks up the tab for veteran pensions, I don't think anyone else does that - and that may be a remnant of the deeper relationship.

Posted by: Jean at February 13, 2014 04:50 PM (4JkHl)

378 If a couple of lesbians opened a restaurant and wanted to serve only wymyn, what business is that of mine, as a man? Should I march in there, bang my fist on the table, and demand to be served? Why? What would be the point of that? There are plenty of other restaurants I can patronize.

Posted by: rickl

We deliberately held a post March of Life lunch at a lesbian restaurant in old town a few years ago. Good times. I didn't order anything they could have spit in.

Posted by: Jean at February 13, 2014 04:53 PM (4JkHl)

379 363 "Black Americans still have to face racism in hiring and firing." try firing a black employee

Posted by: avi at February 13, 2014 04:58 PM (p/izY)

380 There's no such thing as a 'tie' between individuals.

Posted by: MlR at February 13, 2014 05:09 PM (BYsxT)

381 352 I posted to this thread because I think the meritocracy myth is a huge problem. Conservatives don't hire on merit. Nobody does. Black Americans still have to face racism in hiring and firing. Posted by: The Unreal Woman at February 13, 2014 08:08 PM (Ar0Ju) do they? how about Caribbean of african immigrants or WASP -Kenyans

Posted by: avi at February 13, 2014 05:10 PM (p/izY)

382 Similarly, 'economic equality' - is a meaningless metric. Just as much as it is to speak of economic equality between French and Germans and Belgians and Russians, or between other amorphous or random groupings within the United States. Inequality of results, at all times, is the natural result of liberty.

Posted by: MlR at February 13, 2014 05:14 PM (BYsxT)

383 134:
"I am not sure why you promote Ann Althouse, I don't recall her ever linking to Ace of Spades."

Ann Althouse actually has an 'Ace of Spades' tag, attached to eight posts over the last 3 1/2 years: http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/search/label/Ace%20of%20Spades

That's not a huge number, given that she posts more than eight posts most days, but it's a lot more than zero. She's certainly not boycotting this site.

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at February 13, 2014 05:18 PM (2jD3D)

384 "Affirmative action" was also established by Nixon, for the record, via executive order. Obama-style. It is utterly illegal and unconstitutional.

Posted by: MlR at February 13, 2014 05:21 PM (BYsxT)

385 The rate of black-on-black murder is, in a way, a color-blind signal that something is very, very wrong in the lives of black males as they grow up. The easiest factor is the rate at which young black women are conceiving children with a man who will not be in the home to help raise the child and give him a role model. In a different context, Eric Holder recently announced that he was starting to lobby for states to relax their laws that forbid felons from voting. The author of one article noted that this may be far more about votes and power than about justice because in several states, over 20% of black males have felony convictions and thus have been removed from the voting roles.

Posted by: theBuckWheat at February 13, 2014 05:35 PM (nmcha)

386 I don't understand the point of this post. I'm not for "Diversity" as a goal. I'm for making a lot of money. Diversity is not a business goal and never should be one. If your workforce is diverse with no special effort on your part, then so be it. But to put special effort into diversity is a waste of time, effort, and money.

Let's assume I have several positions open. Tell me "why" I should post those openings in minority newpapers as a "special activity" on my part, vs posting in regular newspapers. Do minorities not read regular newspapers? Is the a Black.Monster.com website that caters to minorities that I need to post to in addition to monster.com and if so, why do I need to go out of my way to do this?

Even agreeing to the principle in 2014, that blacks are less capable at finding opportunities than whites, asians, etc, strikes me as paternalistic at best, and something that our lost liberal brethren would ascribe to.

It is not my responsibility to look for minority candidates. It is their responsibility to prepare themselves for the work world and find those opportunities, just like anyone should.

If you want to argue that they are less prepared due to poor schools, poor role models, etc, I won't disagree. But as someone upthread mentioned, you fix that on the front-end, not the back-end.

Interestingly, this always only seems to apply to blacks. Do you also seek to advertise your openings in transgendered publications? I mean, if you value diversity as a laudable goal, then surely you value it across the entire spectrum of diversity, right?

Posted by: Lionel Joseph aka Jon in TX at February 13, 2014 05:38 PM (K8ws3)

387 Um drumwaster that's because any time there is a tie he's called safe.

Posted by: tennvols87 at February 13, 2014 06:04 PM (eYLgD)

388 AA is evil. No ifs ands or buts.

Posted by: Baldy at February 13, 2014 06:24 PM (2bql3)

389 I read 90 posts. I wish I had the time to read 300 more. All I will say, in a comment that may or may not add anything to the discussion, is that I am just totally disappointed in the post by Ace. If the fucking Ace of Spades blog can't maintain a conservative enough position for me, then holy hell I just give the fuck up and I'll just drink quietly until it's time to take me to the work camp. I'm not voting RINO and I'm not compromising basic conservative principles, such as....

Affirmative action is OK but only if it's done in just the right way--- porridge not too hot, porridge not too cold? Jesus, I thought that when I was 20. The tie doesn't go to the runner based on his goddamned skin color. I hate that analogy more than words can express. The runner's goddamned skin color should be left out of the goddamned equation!

Posted by: Head Football Coach Howard Schnellenberger at February 13, 2014 07:00 PM (T+Zre)

390 256 I find your argument very persuasive, but I guess it's one of those things where I'd rather eliminate most of the discrimination first and deal with the last part of it later. The problem with affirmative action isn't the tie going to the runner. I'm actually fine with that (though, like I said, you make a great case against that mentality). The problem is that there are guys who are out by five feet who are being called safe. It is so blatantly discriminatory as to be sickening. But I'd settle for the ties if we start ruling the clearly out guys out.

Posted by: John at February 13, 2014 07:10 PM (uOytx)

391 "384 The rate of black-on-black murder is, in a way, a color-blind signal that something is very, very wrong in the lives of black males as they grow up."

You be raciss' to notice that.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at February 13, 2014 08:29 PM (XO6WW)

392 I really disagree with your wishy-washy position on affirmative action. My husband is a Naval Officer (caucasian), and in his 25 years in the military he has seen more than his fare share of very unqualified, affirmative action promotes, which at the end of the day hurts readiness and is at its core unfair and immoral. He has been extremely fair to all of the people that have worked for him, and he doesn't have a racist bone in his body, but he has commented more than a few times about the plethora of benefits available to affirmative action types.

Posted by: conservativechick at February 13, 2014 10:26 PM (v4IVI)

393 "Black women are untouchable at my company and they know it. Some just do their jobs like everyone else. The ones who weren't raised right are nothing but loudmouthed, troublemaking shitbirds. They get away with things that any white man would get promptly fired over."

Its even worse in the federal gov. Every criticism of poor performance by blacks results in an EEO complaint. Get three of them and forget about your career, even if they were bogus complaints. Its why supervisors no longer bother to manage their black employees.

Follow through the system, give the black female warnings, even put her on PIP for a year, and the worst that happens is she get transferred to another dept. Usually with a bump in pay,

You want to know one of the major reasons the government is so dysfunctional? Imagine having these shitbirds as 25% of your staff.

Posted by: Fen at February 14, 2014 01:17 AM (a422o)

394 America needs new affirmative action. Black girls should be denied welfare benefits unless they are actively trying to find a white or white-hispanic boyfriend. Documentation required. Affirmative taxation: anyone self-identifying as liberal should be taxed an extra 10%, with the proceeds going to Catholic Charities. A WIC program for single men living alone, for free cheap rum or vodka. Certainly getting drunk is more important than free healthcare.

Posted by: dustydog at February 14, 2014 03:05 AM (Rqd+i)

395 I clicked on ace.mu.nu and got www.msnbc.com. Must be a serious DNS problem somewhere. Very sad.

Posted by: Whitey99 at February 14, 2014 03:45 AM (TRkgs)

396 As far as affirmative action goes, I can support it when someone can square this with it: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You can not at once oppose discrimination but use it to achieve certain "societal goals". Fruit of a poison tree is still poisonous.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 14, 2014 05:14 AM (1hM1d)

397 A WIC program for single men living alone, for free cheap rum or vodka. Certainly getting drunk is more important than free healthcare. Damn, were do I sign up? and more importantly, will good bourbon be covered?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 14, 2014 05:37 AM (1hM1d)

398 But affirmative action gave us Obama!

Posted by: burt at February 14, 2014 05:40 AM (1+kJ5)

399 " I concede diversity is, all other things being equal, a laudable thing to strive for." Why? based upon what evidence?

Posted by: CTD at February 14, 2014 07:35 AM (Tl68Q)

400

You can not at once oppose discrimination but use it to achieve certain "societal goals". Fruit of a poison tree is still poisonous.

100000+

Posted by: jimbobpinkflamingo at February 14, 2014 07:39 AM (52h7T)

401

<I>Interestingly, this always only seems to apply to blacks. Do you also seek to advertise your openings in transgendered publications? I mean, if you value diversity as a laudable goal, then surely you value it across the entire spectrum of diversity, right?</I>

It is coming babycakes....just you wait and see.

Posted by: jimbobpinkflamingo at February 14, 2014 07:41 AM (52h7T)

402 Confirmed::Ace loves lazy negroes.

Posted by: RedRover at February 14, 2014 07:54 AM (6Lolh)

403 During my Navy days I worked out of an all black office in DC (an accounting shop). My boss was tough as nails and rode her people hard (but not me, probably more to do with my uniform and less to do with my race). She was the kind of manager that could succeed anywhere. During my Kraft days I worked well below a VP that hardly came in and when she did stayed in the background. Her deputy ran the division. The division lost her when she got promoted out of the division into a corporate role. I also got wait listed at Wharton despite SATs well over the incoming class average. The school accepted the exact percentage of AAs in the overall population into the freshman program. So it's 2-1, AA loses.

Posted by: East Bay Jay at February 14, 2014 03:09 PM (7v8o1)

404 Wow. A little bit of discrimination against whitey is OK as long as it is not to obvious and we can pretend that the non-white was just as qualified. Equal protection under the law is a right which is not subject to approval by the State; anything else is a gross violation of the Constitution.

Posted by: DrEvil007 at February 15, 2014 04:53 AM (YIriA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

340kb generated in CPU 0.556, elapsed 0.7235 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.5019 seconds, 532 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.