Racism - A Sanity Check

quote:

---

...and there's nothing in the world that discourages calm, rational responses to you than your tendency to be flippant, sarcastic, and really just nasty, mean, and pissy.

---

Oh, you poor things...

you've certainly never frustrated anyone in a thread. nope. not dear, perfect, rational scraf.

While we are engaging in a "calm" and "rational" discussion, let me remind you folks that we need to focus on the topic and not on petty dialogues directed against each other!If we don't quit calling each other names, I or another Admin will have to shut er down. Thanks.

---

Since a number of people have been asking for alternatives to race-based policies, I am going to link to a report out this month by the US Commission of Civil Rights. Federal Procurement After Aderand.This document names a few, and faults the Federal government for not upholding their Judicial mandate (from Adarand) requiring that they use preferentially non-racial standards in procurement programs.http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/080505_fedprocadarand.pdf

quote:

---

The United States Commission on Civil Rights transmits this report, Federal Procurement After
Adarand, pursuant to Public Law 103-419. The Supreme Court’s 1995 decision in Adarand
Contractor, Inc. v. Pena (Adarand), held that federal programs using racial and ethnic bases in
decisionmaking must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet
that interest. Under this standard, federal agencies must seriously consider race-neutral
alternatives to race-conscious procurement programs. This report considers federal agencies’
compliance with this constitutional requirement. The Commission reviewed relevant aspects of
seven agencies’ procurement programs: the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Education,
Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and State, and the Small Business Administration.

​

Ten years after the Adarand decision, the Commission has found that federal agencies still
largely fail to consider race-neutral alternatives as the Constitution requires. Although the
Commission identified some race-neutral programming efforts, agencies do not engage in the
activities that constitute serious consideration, such as program evaluation, outcomes
measurement, empirical research and data collection, and periodic review. Significantly, the
agencies under review neither provide clear recourse for contractors who are the victim of
discrimination nor guidelines for enforcement.

---

There are also about forty or so pages devoted to race-neutral practices and examples in contracting.From page 67:

quote:

---

Despite reliance on these common strategies, the Commission found that federal agencies do not
seriously consider, much less implement, basic elements of race-neutral contracting systems. For
example, the Clinton Justice Department directed agencies to regularly review race-conscious
programs to determine their continued need, but agencies do not do so in a consistent or
systematic manner. Instead, agencies rely upon congressional analysis, legislation, and
regulation to justify the existence of race-conscious programs. In addition, DOJ stated that
agencies should consider race-neutral alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. However,
agencies offer no evidence that they examine the viability of a wide range of alternatives. Rather,
they utilize many of the same race-neutral strategies, without measuring their impact and without
rigorously exploring the prospect that existing race-conscious programs could be replaced with
an expanded array of race-neutral initiatives.

---

From page 71:

quote:

---

Finding: Most agencies could not demonstrate that they consider race-neutral alternatives before
resorting to race-conscious programs. Although DOJ offered post-Adarand guidance, agencies
generally do not adhere to it. Moreover, DOJ has not provided specific guidance regarding what
actions constitute serious consideration of race-neutral alternatives. As a result, agencies appear
to give little thought to their legal obligations and disagree both about what the law requires and
about the legal ramifications of their actions. One agency, the Department of Education (DOEd),
has provided useful guidance regarding serious consideration of race-neutral alternatives in the
context of higher education.

---

Also interesting in the report is that the agencies studied didn't have a consistent means of enforcing against discrimination. Instead, they simply dealt with the paperwork once complaints were filed.It looks to me like there are alternatives out there to race-based AA. Even more interesting is that the Courts have ruled that those alternatives must be explored before race-based practices should be used.This message has been edited by gene90, 09-22-2005 05:07 PM

AA is not a threat to your american dream. Capitalism is. If everyone in the US was blue, the American dream would still be crap for todays worker. Working hard and honest does not get you ahead. It does not assure you a pension.Blaming one racial group or another for abuse of power exhibited by the fiscally elite is exactly what keeps them in their possitions.

First off, please quote what you are replying to so we don't have to keep scrolling up and down to follow the conversation.Second, capitalism is about selling goods or services for more money than it cost to produce them. If you have workers, you are therefore paying them less than they are worth, by either a little or a lot. If a company pays it's workers very little and gets more profits, it's better able to drive out the competition, thus reducing the amount of choices workers have for employment. As a result, the company can offer less and less money to it's workers.Don't believe me? Find out how much they pay at your local WalMart, then go apply for work at one of the other stores in your... oh, that's right, most of them closed once WalMart openned.

Gene, you were being an asshole long before we called you on it, so don't go crying home now. Either suck it up, or stop being an asshole. Either is fine. What discrimination against whites? No one is saying you "can't hire" white people. They are saying, you "must hire some" black people. Going back to the original model office, there are 100 white people already working there. That's hardly discrimination against whites. Well, if it's elaborate mental gymnastics for you to realize that the law is enforced differently for you than it is for African Americans, then that explains why we haven't been able to get our points through.Additionally, you keep saying invisible like that's support to mean it's magical or something. It's invisible because you expect it and feel you deserve it. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there, it just means you're blind. He was wrong, not about it, but about you. You will never find it, because you are looking to blame any minority you can for why your life hasn't turned out exactly like you expect it to. Blame anyone you want, but until you get your shit in order, you're gonna keep screwing up, AA or no AA. You'll have to provide quotes here. I didn't see Crash write that, but we are 200 posts in, so who friggin knows at this point. You don't think that Paris Hilton has led a priviledged life? I think we need to go back and figure out just what the hell you think "privlidge" is. Wow! You really are living in Candy Land which Rush Limbaugh's ass cheeks planted firmly on either side of your ears.There's no convincing you. You're simply a bigotted racist, end of story.Much like the creationists, no amount of data will ever get the point across. You have a belief system grounded in your own self absorbed fantasy life. Enjoy it. I hope for your sake you aren't foolish enough to ever mention any of this stuff in front of people who have felt the real brunt of racism. But then again, why would they be at your Klan meetings.

quote:

---

Gene, you were being an asshole long before we called you on it, so don't go crying home now. Either suck it up, or stop being an asshole. Either is fine.

---

The mods have requested that we cease this sort of dialogue.I'm not "crying home" at all, I frankly don't care. But the anger from some circles does amuse me.

quote:

---

What discrimination against whites? No one is saying you "can't hire" white people. They are saying, you "must hire some" black people. Going back to the original model office, there are 100 white people already working there. That's hardly discrimination against whites.

---

More minorities than whites if you're the Federal government.And it gives minority applicants an unfair advantage over whites.It doesn't matter how many whites are already working for a company when you don't get a job because you're the wrong skin color. Therefore that part of the analogy is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Well, if it's elaborate mental gymnastics for you to realize that the law is enforced differently

---

We aren't talking about 'the law', we're talking about hiring practices.

quote:

---

Additionally, you keep saying invisible like that's support to mean it's magical or something. It's invisible because you expect it and feel you deserve it. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there, it just means you're blind.

---

It's a faith based construct.Nuggin, the emperor has no clothes.

quote:

---

You will never find it, because you are looking to blame any minority you can for why your life hasn't turned out exactly like you expect it to.

---

I'll never find it because it does not exist.

quote:

---

You'll have to provide quotes here. I didn't see Crash write that, but we are 200 posts in, so who friggin knows at this point.

---

Message 155.[Quoting Crashfrog]

quote:

---

Why is it so hard for you to believe that you enjoy invisible priviledges? Don't you ever watch those ridiculous celebrity reality shows? Isn't it a huge joke in our culture, in fact, that so many of the wealthy and famous enjoy privileges that they take for granted?

---

[Quoting Nuggin]

quote:

---

There's no convincing you. You're simply a bigotted racist, end of story.

---

Hey AdminPhat, you still around?This message has been edited by gene90, 09-22-2005 07:37 PM

quote:

---

Oh, you poor things...

---

This response is flip, sarcastic, and non-substantive.Maybe you really are just an asshole and a prick.Well, if you can't debate any other way, don't complain when you get a "string of insults" headed your way.

quote:

---

If you have workers, you are therefore paying them less than they are worth, by either a little or a lot.

---

Then they can go into business for themselves and see if they do better.I bet they can't. That isn't exploitation, that's reality.

quote:

---

This response is flip, sarcastic, and non-substantive.

​

Maybe you really are just an asshole and a prick.

​

Well, if you can't debate any other way, don't complain when you get a "string of insults" headed your way.

---

Hey, MODERATORS...If you don't like this dialogue...why don't you do something about it?

quote:

---

you've certainly never frustrated anyone in a thread. nope. not dear, perfect, rational scraf.

---

I never said I never frustrated anyone in a thread, brekanimmy.I am well aware that I have.But I don't think I generally come across as nasty and mean and flippant in nearly every message as gene90 seems to manage to.He wasn't always like this, you know. I know him from WAY back in the day when EvC was still in Yahoo Clubs. He used to be a pretty kind guy without this apparent hatred and resentment of the entire rest of the world.He has said some really creepy, scary stalker-like things about what he's like to do to women who get abortions, so I have just about written him off as kind of a psycho.

quote:

---

Then they can go into business for themselves and see if they do better.

​

I bet they can't. That isn't exploitation, that's reality.

---

Do you want to live in that reality?

quote:

---

Do you want to live in that reality?

---

Well, this doesn't look like more hatred...so I think I'll answer.Yes. I do. I do live in that reality (we all do) and I would like to continue living in that reality.Wal-Mart, for all the hatred it garners, some of it well earned, is where it is because it sells products for lower prices than what the local guys used to charge before they went out of business. That's why people shop there.If the employees who work there for low wages could make their startup and outcompete Wal-Mart, either by selling cheap stuff cheaper, or through the supeior goods and better service niche, they can do so. Nobody is holding them back.Do you remember a little thing called the Sears Catalog? It was a mail-order retail giant of its day. Why isn't it still here? The locals found out that they could offer personal service that the Catalog simply couldn't. So Sears got edged out of their niche.It could happen to Wal-Mart, if that's what the buying public want.But the fact that it hasn't happened, and that Wal-Mart now comprises a significant percentage of the GDP, means that isn't what the public want.Capitalism is democracy, in the sense that if people stopped "voting" for Wal-Mart by shopping there, it would die.This message has been edited by gene90, 09-22-2005 08:03 PM

So, why don't we allow monopolies?