MLK is turning over in his grave. His 'dream' of equal opportunity has been perverted into a demand for equal outcome.

As for cleaning up the worst projects...again and again. Maybe the people living within those 'worst' areas should clean up after themselves. They need to stop depending on the government for absolutely everything and start taking personal responsibility. Then maybe they will have something to have some self-esteem about.

The problem is not that simple. I will start with the following caveats: I am white, grew up in the south, and currently reside in Philadelphia.

Having lived here for nearly a decade, I can tell you that, despite the fact that this city is very racialy diverse, there is as much, hatred and racism here than back home! Because I am who I am, white, people from up here seem to feel comfortable expressing their racist views around me, and then seem shocked when I don't share them. "I thought you were from the south?!?" Idiots. It's not ALL white people who are like this, just like not ALL white people in the south are racist (despite what you have been told by black talk radio), but enough to make an impact.

I have worked in the corporate world since I have been here. My observation is that at the low levels of companies (entry level), there is lots of racial diversity. However, the higher up the corporate ladder you go, the less diverse it becomes. Go to the boardroom and its still a bunch of old white guys. Why?

The decision makers or their managers still have a hatred and distrust of black people. If two guys with the same qualifications, one white and the other black, apply for a job, the white guy has a better chance of getting it. A lot of black people know the deck is stacked against them, so there is not much inspiration to try in a system where you can't win. Hence, the rise of the anti-establishment counter-culture in many black communities. "The white man is going to keep you down, so if you are going to get anything in this world, you have to take it."

Of course, this gives a lot of white people an excuse to keep their racist views and the cycle continues.

The past 30 years of public policy has done little to address racial economic disparities.

That would be 8 years of Reagan; 4 years of George Bush the Old; and 8 years of George Bush the Young; altogether 20 years of Republican rule.

And if Republican Business-man Willard Romney wins the Presidency this November, the trend, most likely, will accelerate.

TomTom--- you took the words right out of my mouth!! The GOP strategy since Nixon has been to cater to the angry white male. In their attempt to create a corporatist society of have-a-lots and have nots, blacks have fared especially badly. Now they want to privatize the 2 largest and best safety nets we have in SS and Medicare!!

And the 12 years of Clinton and Carter made no difference either. The Democratic strategy has been to gain power from and cater to the angry black female. That's why they developed programs to enslave them by making them dependent on the government dole.

I blame it on jokes like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They never did anything for their race except get rich off of their backs.

Blacks need true leaders like MLK was. Not rappers and thugs and Reverends who offer false hope.

It would be great if we have a politician that would start the apprenticeship program in poor neighborhoods. Many people are tired of being poor; and even if they have the desire of going to school, many of them just drop altogether. Poverty then forces some black youth to commit dumb crimes.

The jails are full of young blacks that robbed a convenient store for 300.00, while the real crooks pocket the money in Congress, just doing nothing about poverty.

Let the vitriol begin....from both sides. This is perfect ground to observe how low people can get...as we speak, the flood gates from both the trailler parks and ghettos are not open yet; once they do, hell's breakin loose...

For those with common sense, with a nack for listening and understanding that we are all in this together, and that we are ALL Americans...get your popcorn ready and witness the shame that's been draggin this country backwards for over 300 years....

Racial injustice will never end until we end the war on drugs. Civil rights mean nothing. Everyone should have the same single right. And not because you are black, gay, or disabled. The civil rights movement has created even more racial divide because people have twisted it to try to gain advantage over others. MLK would be ashamed.

Will-1091847, excellent post!

You are correct. If not more so, the good ole liberal north is just as racist as the South is.

In the South, racist Whites will let African Americans know exactly how they feel about people of color.

In the North, there are many White hypocrites who pretend to want racial equality. However, these chameleons quietly put impediments in the way of true racial progress for America. African Americans keep hearing Caucasians clamor about personal responsibility. The loud "noise" about personal responsibility is garbage. It is a transparent veil to falsely place the blame of the ravaging effects of racism on African Americans. There is tremendous empirical evidence that documents that prejudice is widespread in employment, housing, education and health care. Studies have shown that when all factors are equal and comparing African Americans to Caucasians, the White applicant gets the job, better mortgage terms, a better start on the road to learning and the best and most advanced techniques in health care. Absurdly, a White felon has a better chance of landing employment than a African American who has never been involved in crime.

It is amazing that so many Whites stomp for more "personal responsibility" when in their hearts they know that they truly do not want racial equality. Because unequal application of the "spoils of America" assures privileged groups of continuing advantages, many folks do not want a society that has equal opportunities. This is obvious and it is not secret.

Personal Responsibility?

Years ago, when a notable African American gave a much-needed endowment to a Black college that was part of the United Negro College Fund, there were many Caucasians that telephoned in to the Larry King show to criticize the endowment - ridiculously, they called the financial aid for the college "racist."

Yet, not one caller telephoned to criticize the endowments given to non-African American colleges.

It is sad to think that there are so many people in this country that continue to incubate racial stereotypes. They harbor such damaging points of views to this country, to continue to receive selfish and unfair perks and benefits for themselves and for their generations to come. If the playing field was truly level...who knows, we may have had a cure for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many other human maladies.

Dr. King Jr. is an American legend.

25Walker,

I sort of thought that personal responsibility was pretty important. For instance, by all statistical measures, having children out of wedlock is a really bad idea. It directly leads to things like poverty and crime, which in turn, lead to more poverty and crime.

If not through personal responsibility, how would you solve that problem? In 1964 when the black illegitimacy rate was around 25%, LBJ decided that the way to do it was to throw money at it. If you were single, and explicitly not married - not even a man living under the same roof, a teenage woman could collect enough benefits to live with her babies in her own apartment. That is, the government paid young girls to have babies out of wedlock and stay unmarried. The program was a tremendous success. The illegitimacy rate is now up to 70% among blacks.

Would you prefer forced abortions? Or perhaps confiscate the babies and put them in government homes that house half the youth population?

Or perhaps we should all just sing Kumbaya.

Cool, the toms are out using standardized liberal rants of "it is all the rights fault". Interesting on how they fail to understand that US policy has been defined by bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle, at least up untill 2009.

I am thinking that the disparities are more associated with an attitude of entitlement at all levels and all races, rather than on the actual ability of the individual and what they can contribute.

Ever since the mid 60's politicians on both sides of the aisle have gradually taken their eyes of off long term results and focused rather on how best to be re-elected. We the populace have been no better as we supported them.

Think about it, from the late 40's and into the 80's it was all about stopping communism AKA USSR and their satelites with the subset of landing on the moon and shuttle missions. In general, the civil rights acts of the 60's merely corrected past injustices and left further advancements mainly to the individuals going forward. As did LBJ's war on poverty breaking down because their was little incentive for any group to move forward, other than by individual desire.

We need a national long term goal to rally around, it should be a return to fiscal sanity but that is not "fun" as everyone will have to partake.

There are no true Black leaders today. As you say, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton are in it for the publicity and keeping the poor blacks under the dependence of the government. Obama is no better.

I am a white woman married to a black man, and I tell you if looks could kill, I would be dead already with the looks I get from black women. My husband is Intelligent, well educated and successful in his field. He is a rare breed, but it's men like him that the kids today should be emulating. Not the Sports stars, but the REAL men out there doing their best and not letting anything keep them down.

Martin Luther King had a Dream. We have a nightmare.

true diverse communities do not work. period. people like to share their immediate environment with others that share common values, culture etc....socialists can only malign those that correctly point this out.

today that number is over 15 percent with miuch higher poverty raytes for blacks and Latinos,"

Seems like the education of some has been squandered.

bigbenalaska - The problem with cleaning up the impoverished areas is that the people residing there will only trash it again, and again, and again, ... It is the attitude of the residents there that the government owes it to them and that they deserve it. Neither the government nor the rich force the poor to destroy other people's property. Besides the run-down neighbourhoods, look at what the poor did to the temporary lodgings of the Katrina evacuees. Why did the government force the poor to destroy the sports arenas where they were being housed? Any time the poor dislike their plight or are displeased with a policy they destroy somebody else's property - despite the fact that it is their own neighbourhood.

Maybe if they focused as much talent and energy toward something constructive, rather than destructive, they could and would advance their causes.

if looks could kill, I would be dead already with the looks I get from black women.

The reason for the evil looks is because black women don't take kindly to another race removing one of the responsible men from their "community". Yet they still continue with the idea that if they drop their drawers for every black guy that looks at them that they will end up with a winner. Black women are one of the most racist groups in the country.

i work in a depressed part of a major city. these people live like animals and throw trash everywhere even though all of the same city services are offered here as anywhere else. i guess it makes me an uncaring bigot since i point this out.

except for the fact that i was born in this area too and it has been this way for generations. i made my own luck in life.

Pretty good chance King, a Republican, would be labeled an Uncle Tom today because he would disapprove of all the anti-American, racist blacks, including Obama.

You are correct. If not more so, the good ole liberal north is just as racist as the South is.

In the South, racist Whites will let African Americans know exactly how they feel about people of color.

In the North, there are many White hypocrites who pretend to want racial equality. However, these chameleons quietly put impediments in the way of true racial progress for America. African Americans keep hearing Caucasians clamor about personal responsibility. The loud "noise" about personal responsibility is garbage. It is a transparent veil to falsely place the blame of the ravaging effects of racism on African Americans. There is tremendous empirical evidence that documents that prejudice is widespread in employment, housing, education and health care. Studies have shown that when all factors are equal and comparing African Americans to Caucasians, the White applicant gets the job, better mortgage terms, a better start on the road to learning and the best and most advanced techniques in health care. Absurdly, a White felon has a better chance of landing employment than a African American who has never been involved in crime.

It is amazing that so many Whites stomp for more "personal responsibility" when in their hearts they know that they truly do not want racial equality. Because unequal application of the "spoils of America" assures privileged groups of continuing advantages, many folks do not want a society that has equal opportunities. This is obvious and it is not secret.

Personal Responsibility?

Years ago, when a notable African American gave a much-needed endowment to a Black college that was part of the United Negro College Fund, there were many Caucasians that telephoned in to the Larry King show to criticize the endowment - ridiculously, they called the financial aid for the college "racist."

Yet, not one caller telephoned to criticize the endowments given to non-African American colleges.

It is sad to think that there are so many people in this country that continue to incubate racial stereotypes. They harbor such damaging points of views to this country, to continue to receive selfish and unfair perks and benefits for themselves and for their generations to come. If the playing field was truly level...who knows, we may have had a cure for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many other human maladies.

Dr. King Jr. is an American legend.

Excellent analysis.

There are no true Black leaders today. As you say, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton are in it for the publicity and keeping the poor blacks under the dependence of the government. Obama is no better.

I am a white woman married to a black man, and I tell you if looks could kill, I would be dead already with the looks I get from black women. My husband is Intelligent, well educated and successful in his field. He is a rare breed, but it's men like him that the kids today should be emulating. Not the Sports stars, but the REAL men out there doing their best and not letting anything keep them down.

Martin Luther King had a Dream. We have a nightmare.

I'm almost inclined to say that this is a racist post. Although I do agree with you, that non-whites, blacks and Native Americans especially, are completely at the mercy of the white establishment (not just welfare, but employment, housing, defense, etc.).

But I take issue with the fact that you're getting angry at black women for the looks that you feel they give you. Part of the collapse of the black community is that once blacks were given more opportunites, instead of partnering with other black people, they went out and looked for white women to marry. The statistics clearly show that black folks with higher income or with higher educational attainment are way more likely to marry a white person. In my opinion (I am a non-white male), its sort of like validation "I made it. I am not like all of those other black people. I have have a white woman who loves me..." For you to take advantage of that, and then BRAG and taunt black women about your "successful" black man, who could have married you out of a sense of self hate and seeking validation is disgraceful, in my opinion. Also suspicious is the fact that in most of these marriages between non-whites and whites (i'm talking in general now), the non-white person usually has a higher degree of attainment or income than that white person they are marrying (or even dating). Its basically like trading you're earnings for the fact that you're not white.

Being white anywhere on this planet is a form of social capital. Let me ask you this: If this black male that you married was a regular dude (same person, but maybe a low-level retail manager or a manufacturing worker), would you still have married him, or even looked his way? How would your parents have thought of him if he was a "ghetto black" (as whites like to call any black person that doesn't act they way they think they should act)?

Racial division has increased exponentially during the last three years. Obama's class warfare has made things worse, not better. Even with our current president, he and his supporters are judging his opponent's reactions to his leadership by the "color of his skin" not the "content of his character." If you disagree it is only because Obama is of African heritage not because of his trend towards socialism.

"...public investments have dwindled, as the elderly do not see themselves reflected in youth of color.”

I guess, this means that the elderly tend to be more racist.

Does this mean things will get better when the elderly bigots die off?

JPSOTW

MLK is turning over in his grave. His 'dream' of equal opportunity has been perverted into a demand for equal outcome.

As for cleaning up the worst projects...again and again. Maybe the people living within those 'worst' areas should clean up after themselves. They need to stop depending on the government for absolutely everything and start taking personal responsibility. Then maybe they will have something to have some self-esteem about.

This separatist and divisive mindset is the greatest problem we have in this melting pot of a country. It is imperative we get beyond the we vs them and they vs us thinking. It only makes us alienated and makes things worst. Till we all realize that we are in this like a marriage together for better or worst, change will be slow and met with much resistance.

This story fits right in with Obama's strategy of animosity and 'Class Warfare' based on race.

When Obama talks about 'social justice' and 'wealth redistribution', he's talking about taking money from 'Whitey' and giving it to minorities.

I knew we could count on MSNBC to take their 'talking points' from the White House.

bboomer-1466467

Racial division has increased exponentially during the last three years. Obama's class warfare has made things worse, not better. Even with our current president, he and his supporters are judging his opponent's reactions to his leadership by the "color of his skin" not the "content of his character." If you disagree it is only because Obama is of African heritage not because of his trend towards socialism.

That's because division always get worse when there is economic strife. The past 3 yrs our country and the world for that matter has been on pins and needles financially.

57.23 Roy Wilson, one of your most disgusting posts ever.

We can do it

"...public investments have dwindled, as the elderly do not see themselves reflected in youth of color.”

I guess, this means that the elderly tend to be more racist.

Does this mean things will get better when the elderly bigots die off?

I'll believe it when i see it. I see no evidence that whites are ready to relinquish their power and privilege anywhere on the planet. The whites were the minority in South Africa for years, and you see what the situation is there. Whites are the minority in Latin America, and still run things (along with light skinned "mestizos and mulattos"). Show me one place where the people who say they are "white" are the of the lower classes of that country, and perhaps you would have a point.

Race relations in this country are just fine.

Yes there are people that hate other people because of their race. But they are a continually shrinking minority.

This hateful minority has no power. No matter your race, you have the chance to succeed. It doesn't matter where you come from. It doesn't matter what your upbringing is. It is your choice to dwell in the past, or move forward, and better yourself.

It doesn't matter if you're black white brown or green. Your life will be what you make it. Everyone has a chance. If you take it or not, it's on you, not the system.

Yes, Dr. Kings dream has been realized.

"The majority of minorities are living off of the government dole" - another conservative lie. You have to get past this statement before you can start a realistic dialogue.

When MLK made his speech about "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", most people took that to mean that people should be judged on the basis of their personal character and efforts.

So why do we continue to have certain groups, 'including Eric Holder, the Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department', pushing for quotas based on race?

The only thing that the government should do is provide EQUAL OPPORTUNITY based on race, not demand equal outcomes by giving preference based on the color of a person's skin.

So why do we continue to have certain groups, 'including Eric Holder, the Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department', continue to push for quotas based on race?

Can you point to any people who are pointing for "racial quotas"? I would like links please.

Janine, I find it disheartening that you call your husband a rare breed. I am a white male in my early forties and spent my younger years as a ditch digger, a mechanic, and many other blue collar jobs. The main thing that always separated me from the rest was that no matter what I was doing for work, I always tried to be the best. I enjoy a comfortable white collar job now in a technical field and love the work that I do. Back to your comment though. I grew up in a rural area where there may have been racism in the fringe of the community but it did not disrupt day to day life. I played sports and had as diverse a group of friends as possible in my home town. Like any community, I suppose, there were classmates who tried to do their best in school and those who skated by. Race did not play a factor in either of these groups because there were plenty of do nothing white kids just like achieving minorities. Here is what time has taught me though. When I go to reunions now, pretty much the achievers in high school are the successful business people now. Neither race nor sex is a factor. You called your husband a rare breed. I call him one of the successful people in the working world who took pride in themselves and chose to make the right decisions. We need more people like him, of all races, to instill that into the youth today.

Racial division has increased exponentially during the last three years

No, racial division increased exponentially when people were divided into "races" by Europeans.

Spencer-399802 "No matter your race, you have the chance to succeed. It doesn't matter where you come from. It doesn't matter what your upbringing is. It is your choice to dwell in the past, or move forward, and better yourself...It doesn't matter if you're black white brown or green. Your life will be what you make it. Everyone has a chance. If you take it or not, it's on you, not the system."

Good points. While I believe that we still have some more progress to make in 'leveling the playing field', we have pretty much made it possible for people to succeed based on their character and abilities.

What people make of their lives now has to relate to their personal efforts.

The Civil Rights movement forced great (and much needed) changes in society, but we need to make sure that the 'pendulum' does not swing too far in the opposite direction and cause more racial discord- not less.

But I take issue with the fact that you're getting angry at black women for the looks that you feel they give you. Part of the collapse of the black community is that once blacks were given more opportunites, instead of partnering with other black people, they went out and looked for white women to marry. The statistics clearly show that black folks with higher income or with higher educational attainment are way more likely to marry a white person. In my opinion (I am a non-white male), its sort of like validation "I made it. I am not like all of those other black people. I have have a white woman who loves me

TekKnowlege, do you realize how racist that sounds? You have a white woman that loves you but any other person in your position has a trophy? Get real! Your other comments aren't much better. As far as racial quotas go, what about the Rooney rule for hiring head coaches in the NFL? There are also still plenty of rules on the books that require a certain percentage of minorities as employees or the business does not qualify for this program or that one. Also, why are racial diversity numbers required by the government for companies with at least a certain number of employees. White people aren't ready to relinquish power? Get a clue, Mr. Racist, we have a non white President. If white people didn't vote for him he would still be a Senator. People like you are the source of the continuing race issues in the country. You are quick to point out and justify racist behavior from the minorities while picking appart anything that the whites do. The double standard can not continue in our country.

People of color are their own worst enemy. Let's look at what they have been "given" access to for free: Housing, Medical Care, College Educations, Job Preferences, lowering of standards so they could get ahead of more qualified individuals -

This is hilarious the dishonesty that people speak with when talking about non-whites.

"Free educations"?? Studies show that black college grads have the most student loan debt, followed by Asians.

"Job Preference"?? When twice as many black college grads are unemployed than white college grads? When a white person with a prison record is has the same chance of receivning employment than a black person without one?

"lowering of standards so they could get ahead of more qualified individuals"?? Why do you folks always assume that non-whites are "unqualified" for whatever job they may be in? Or whatever college they go to? Why is it assumed that there is a white person who is "more qualified" and that the black person doesn't deserve whatever they earned?

@TekKnowledge Post 1.19

Excellent post! That is the truth! Many black women resent white females because of the fact that they do marry successful black men. Look around:

Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, etc.

Just look at all those "important"people around us. Heck! Michael Jackson went so far as changing his whole persona just to look white. Look at his children: Do they look like the children of a black man? No Way! As long as the same blacks keep putting their own race down, the racism will continue.

This article is BUNK!!! You have an increasingly diverse youth culture, and this article is whining about rich white retirees who are NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE! And I ask, SO WHAT??? What do you want, to take all the money away from the "rich white retirees" whom you clearly HATE, and give it to this group? You REALLY think that will fix anything??? How 'bout giving that diverse youth culture a chance to earn their OWN money instead of playing Robbing Hood with someone else's retirement money? Maybe you should have a little faith in that diverse youth culture, which CAN and WILL change the world - of course they will, I have no doubt about that. Sounds like the author has plenty of doubts, though, maybe THAT'S the real problem!

Douchebag Party says: I don't want to spend money on anything, even if it could help me personally. It is my right to cut off my nose despite my face and here I go with my 'Liberty Knife' to do it!

Hufferington Post Party says: I would like to spend all someone else's money that isn't mine. Please give it to people who tell me tall tales and do nothing but pack their own wallets with it. I will not cut off my own nose, but I will totally act like a spoilt brat about things I know nothing about, and then run the other direction when push comes to shove.

So is it really a surprise that this issue hasn't been addressed for 30 years? Maybe we should be more concerned with the eroding population of THINKING in this country. That, of course, would mean to actually consider thoughts people don't initially agree with, instead of acting like an insolent jerk.

Techknowlege, do you realize how racist that sounds? You have a white woman that loves you but any other person in your position has a trophy?

lmao, read the post again. The point is that being white is social capital and that non-white people often seek validation and approval from white people (because we're always blamed for everything and made to feel defective). I am not involved with a white person, but I'm highlighting the thought process of a non-white person who understands that being with a "white" person is typically looked as a step up in society, one step closer to you being "normal". Once upon a time when a lot of white women were trying to talk to me, that was my thought process. That I was a "good black", and not a "ghetto black" that would never be accepted in this society. Dating these women cleared up a lot of my confusion, because they would make blatantly racist statements about non-whites and say things like "oh, but you're not like that" and I began to re-examine the insidious racism in this society and the pathology of my thinking.

TekKnowledge "So why do we continue to have certain groups, 'including Eric Holder, the Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department', continue to push for quotas based on race?.........Can you point to any people who are pointing for "racial quotas"? I would like links please."

Here is a link to the announcement by Holder's Justice Department that changed the previous rule that Race should not be a factor in college admissions to his new Policy of encouraging Race to be used as a criteria for admissions - in effect, saying that it will provide more admissions for Black males based on their Race because they are under-represented in college admissions.

http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Obama_Throws_Out_Bush-Era_Diversity_Guidelines_For_College_Admissions__134954588.html

I think it was Chief Justice Roberts that said "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Perhaps it really is that simple - when you really look at it and 'cut through the chafe' , any deviation from that standard is a violation of the Constitution's 'Equal Protection' clause.

The civil rights movement has created even more racial divide

You must not remember what things were like BEFORE the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks arrested for sitting down on a bus because she was tired after a long day at work. State police blocked the entrances to schools to keep children from getting the same qualiy of education as other children the same age. Fire hoses were turned on people who wanted to be able to sit at a counter and drink coffee with others. Politicians campaigned by promising NOT to allow children to attend good schools. And there were riots.

Things are MUCH better now.

But there has been a tremendous amount of backsliding over the past decade, though, led by poorly educated, drug addicted leaders of opinion like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, and better educated nut jobs like Michael Savage nee Wiener. More recently, the Republican Party has created an entirely new 'race' called "non-Hispanic White" (used on the US Census for the first time in 2010) just so that they could pander to bigots.

Excellent post! That is the truth! Many black women resent white females because of the fact that they do marry successful black men. Look around:

Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, etc.

And you wonder why Michelle Obama was upset being characterized as an angry black woman? This is black on black racism. Where does it stop? I worked for a company that had employees from almost every nation in Africa. The worst racism that I have ever seen is that from black Africans to African Americans. There is not a respectful way to describe it in a public forum so I won't try. This country isn't the race problem in the world. And it isn't because of the Europeans either. It is because people all over the world think that they are better than anyone else and they use race as a divisor for their cause. If it wasn't race, it would be fingernail length or something equally stupid. People should really be trying to improve themselves instead and let others be the judge on things that matter, like Dr. King dreamed...

People of color are their own worst enemy. Let's look at what they have been "given" access to for free:

Your premise seems to be that 'all people of color' are on the public dole, that no 'white people' are on the public dole, and that all 'white' people pay for the leeches on the public dole and all 'people of color' are leeches.

But you probably don't think of yourself as a bigot, do you?

You might even go so far as to define anyone who believes that 'people of color' have the same inherent value and rights as their 'white' brothers and sisters as a "racist".

Here is a link to the announcement by Holder's Justice Department that changed the previous rule that Race should not be a factor in college admissions to his new Policy of encouraging Race to be used as a criteria for admissions - in effect, saying that it will provide more admissions for Black males based on their Race because they are under-represented in college admissions.

I'm not sure aggressively recruiting black males is a quota, but your point is taken. But let me ask you this - it is clear black, Latino, and Native American males need the most help right now. What is wrong with giving them the help they need -- in a form of a college education? They still have to DO the work, don't they? This isn't a case of whites who would normally go to college not going to college because they are pushed aside by non-whites. So what is the problem with helping a group/groups that need help? You guys would be the same folks complaining if they didn't have the opportunities and they were on public assistance or in jail. Damned if you do, damned if you don't i guess.

Obama talks about 'social justice' and 'wealth redistribution', he's talking about taking money from 'Whitey'

Wow. And I used to respect Roy Wilson for having a thoughtful point of view.

We can do it "57.23 Roy Wilson, one of your most disgusting posts ever."

Perhaps I could have used more 'Politically Correct' language, but I do believe that Obama intends to use the 'Politics of Division' and 'Class Envy' in his reelection campaign. Time will tell.

I'll try to be more 'sensitive' in the future.

Tek, I am not going to pretend to know what it is like to grow up as a minority in this world. I am also not going to try to undermine struggles that you have had, based solely on your race. But the whole idea that you should have to marry within your race is itself racist. I still don't know if you are defending the people who do this or are pointing out how absurd it is but the fact that it happens is at the root of the problem. People date and marry who they associate with for the most part. I am not going to the ghetto to look for a potential mate (of any color), just like actresses and singers aren't trolling my neighborhood for the same. That is just the way that it is. I look for someone with similar values and goals. I hope that you do the same. From what you describe from dating those types of white women, you deserve better. Everyone does.

As for cleaning up the worst projects...again and again. Maybe the people living within those 'worst' areas should clean up after themselves. They need to stop depending on the government for absolutely everything and start taking personal responsibility. Then maybe they will have something to have some self-esteem about.

Ah yes, the ultimate excuse. If you can just believe this, not only will you be excused from having to deal with the issue of poverty, you'll also boost your own ego and reaffrim, that any success, however moderate, you've achieved has had zero to do with anything except your exceptionalism.

Truly, spoken like a person who has no idea what gripping, generational, systemic poverty is like. But wait, let me guess, a bunch of you will now jump on here and start telling personal stories about how you were so poor growing up, you had to share bread crusts with your 16 siblings, walk 8 miles to school with no shoes on, and work 19 jobs, and you made it out just fine. Bull. Every person who's anti-poor always has a story like that... Why? Perhaps because you know what a doucher you'll look like if you don't. Maybe, maybe, one of you will be telling the truth, but I doubt it.

TekKnowledge "I'm not sure aggressively recruiting black males is a quota, but your point is taken. But let me ask you this - it is clear black, Latino, and Native American males need the most help right now. What is wrong with giving them the help they need -- in a form of a college education? They still have to DO the work, don't they? "

Good points. Yes, I believe that those underrepresented should be given 'help', but is it fair to discriminate on the basis of race in college admission if it means that admitting a less qualified minority results in rejecting a more qualified White student? To me, that violates the 'Equal Protection' clause of the Constitution.

I think the answer has to start at an earlier stage, with well funded tutoring programs for some minority students (and their parents) to instill the value of a good education. Head Start was a good program, but it needs to be expanded to cover more than just the Pre-School years.

This isn't a case of whites who would normally go to college not going to college because they are pushed aside by non-whites. So what is the problem with helping a group/groups that need help? You guys would be the same folks complaining if they didn't have the opportunities and they were on public assistance or in jail. Damned if you do, damned if you don't i guess.

Tek, things are tough all over. I'm sure that I can find plenty of people of every color who have graduated recently and find their college diploma pretty insignificant. And I disagree, if you have set limits on how many admissions that you take in and want to increase a certain group of students based solely on race, yes you will be sending more rejection letters to whites who may have been more qualified. If the non whites were more qualified, the numbers would reflect it. If we truly want equality among all races, we need to take race out of the equation and analysis...

There is a clear and apparent reason for the wealth gap between blacks and whites. For 80% of the history of this country it has been legal to dfiscriminate against black on some level. Laws against discrimination certainly erased the most egregious examples, but let's face it, blacks were still at the mercy of the system, predominantly white to succeed. Competing with the system, which is exactly what blacks are measured against, after starting 80 years in the hole is a formidable if not insurmountable task.

Yes, many blacks have successfully moved into the middle class. But,the poverty class contintues to grow. In fact, the movement to the middle class is fairly stagnant at this point and any gains made there are being offset by inflation and other economic factors.

What some here call gifts to the black community are only what whites enjoyed from the begining, particularly white males. The offensive assumption that blacks are ALWAYS less qualified than whites is at the root of this problem which is deeply grounded in white supremacy.

Let's face it, blacks in the corporate world are still affected by glass ceilings and subjective evaluations. Black entrepreneurs are still affected by the reluctance those who provide venture capital or basioc loans to take a risk on their ideas. Most wealthy black americans still reside in the athletic and entertainment space. Why is that? Simple. The playing field is fairly equal in those spaces. If you are a talented athlete or entertainer it is pretty obvious. That level of objectivity does not exist in most other areas and frankly most blacks who offer services are limited to black customers primarily while white businesses can contintu to take money out of black communities. Even other ethnic groups come into the black community and thrive without putting one dime back into it.

As to personal responsibility, I am a strong supporter of that. Everyone should do the best they can from where they are to get where they need to get. On a micro level, that makes perfect sense. On a macro level, not so much. We have created a society in america where many people are not a part of the system. they have no role models for successful participation in the system. What they see for the most part is poor people working to still be poor. Believe it or not, that is not an incentive. This is a difficult cycle to break and will require a full integration of everyone with real equal opportunity to correct. Some of it is internal, and some of it is external. The reality is that a white wiht little ambition and drive can succeed far easier in this society than a black with the same levels of ambition and drive.

Beyond that, as the population becomes more and more diverse, the issue of resources rears its head. Remember, this country was founded primarily for white males. Others have demanded rights over the years and eroded that to some extent. But, clearly, this shift of wealth to the top 1% is not an accident. The top 1% is overwhelmingly white. A lack of economic resources and voter ID laws can dilute any power that increasing minority numbers might provide.

Someone here spoke of equality of results for minorities as opposed to whites. What a specious statement. Give me a break. If results means full participation in american society, they yes, I believe in equality of results. When masses of people are not participating then something is wrong with the "greatest nation on earth."

But the whole idea that you should have to marry within your race is itself racist.

"Race" = "Racism"

The whole idea of "race" is "racist", but it exists. Through my experience, I'll just say this -- white people and non-white people cannot even respect each other as human beings on a basic level. I think the evidence is quite clear on this. Just Google "racist jokes", go to the comments section on any news site, or watch the news, examine the disparities based on color in every human endeavor (Whites > Asians > "Browns" (Arabs, Mestizos, etc) > Indigenous and Black). Getting in the bedroom with each other is not going to solve the problem. As long as there is this "white" vs "minorities" or "The West" vs "third world" or "white" vs "people of color" mentality, i.e, as long as the white race exists as a power construct on this planet, getting in the bedroom with each other is not going to solve the race problem. I'm not telling people what to do, but i would advise people of color and whites to be extremely careful and examine the reasons you are getting into these relationships, and the greater context of them. Make sure you're doing it for the right reasons, and for people of color, make sure you aren't in the bedroom with a racist.

Janine-1645002

I am a white woman married to a black man, and I tell you if looks could kill, I would be dead already with the looks I get from black women. My husband is Intelligent, well educated and successful in his field. He is a rare breed,

As Much as you admire and love your husband, i must say that to call a man black or white that is well educated and successful a rare Breed is a slap in the face to all of us black, white, green or blue men that are the same way (WHICH IS THE WAY YOUR SUPPOSE TO BE). most of all my friends who i grew up with are what you describe as a rare breed. Your husband is not a rare breed, he is a good hard working loving man doing what all us good men do.

We make good money, own our homes, we pay for our kids college, attend parent teacher conference.

as far as a true black leader, i think the days of needing a black man to do the talking for other black people is long gone, lets remember what was happening 50 years ago, when it took a strong person to buck authority and back then risk life to speak our against what was going on. Today in 2012 we have equal education opportunity, schools are intergrated, no more Jim crow laws, blacks are not lynched for being black in the wrong hood. so see what i mean back in the day this is what the black leaders were speaking out against.

Today what we need is for some one to put a size 14 up the ass of some of our youth, problems are different, we have the things we did not 50 years ago including DOPE. instead of local police keeping you from the lunch counter they are dealing with the dope and its problems. i don't think MLK ever though all his and the CLC work would end up like this, loosing out to dope.

.But he was the right color. I don't blame him, he was guit funny and a nice guy. But don't tell me that he did not get his job for being Black

Lo mismo for whites in the private sector. The numbers just don't show that in general non-whites are taking white people's jobs though. I'm sorry if that happened to you, but this happens to us every day. Not considered "smart" enough because we're black. Or considered a "gang member" because we are black or latino. This is our life every day.

"Race" = "Racism"

and for people of color, make sure you aren't in the bedroom with a racist.

Thanks for the English lesson. You totally missed the point. Oh well...

So it is ok for a white person to be involved with a racist? This and the unending comments like this only attempt to justify how non whites react to racism and to minimalize their responsibility with the problem. You don't think these things and really want them to change. You don't say them and really make a difference. So, it stays the status quo and down the road we go...

TomTom-72

That would be 8 years of Reagan; 4 years of George Bush the Old; and 8 years of George Bush the Young; altogether 20 years of Republican rule.

And if Republican Business-man Willard Romney wins the Presidency this November, the trend, most likely, will accelerate.

Rob Scan

And the 12 years of Clinton and Carter made no difference either. The Democratic strategy has been to gain power from and cater to the angry black female. That's why they developed programs to enslave them by making them dependent on the government dole.

I blame it on jokes like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They never did anything for their race except get rich off of their backs.

Blacks need true leaders like MLK was. Not rappers and thugs and Reverends who offer false hope.

And, both of you left out our current joke of an administration, Obama has been one of the worst, if not the worst, in terms of civil liberties, President we've ever had.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/29/opinion/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929

President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.

Thanks for the English lesson. You totally missed the point. Oh well...

So it is ok for a white person to be involved with a racist? This and the unending comments like this only attempt to justify how non whites react to racism and to minimalize their responsibility with the problem. You don't think these things and really want them to change. You don't say them and really make a difference. So, it stays the status quo and down the road we go...

LOL, here we go....

how are non-whites responsible for racism?

also, the purpose of me saying that "Race" = "Racism" is because you said that saying you have to marry inside your own "race" is "racist", when the whole idea of "race" is "racist" in the first place.

Obama has been one of the worst, if not the worst, in terms of civil liberties, President we've ever had.

At least the worst post 1970.

It is amazing that so many Whites stomp for more "personal responsibility" when in their hearts they know that they truly do not want racial equality.

There's your assumption of good faith for you...

/sarc

You know, for all the white people that allege to idolize MLK (there are a lot of them), i simply don't believe them.

When you go to all of the monuments in DC, you will see people of all colors...but the two times i went to the MLK monument in DC, the vast majority of the visitors were non-white, of which the majority of them were black.

Its kind of funny given how big a tourist spot the DC mall is, that there were over 95% people of color from my observation at the MLK Memorial.

Also, as nice as the memorial is, I noticed the words "black", "color", or "racism" don't appear anywhere on the monument...which is also quite suspicious.

Tek,

We are finally getting through the fog. First, blacks giving other blacks who marry whites plain nastiness isn't racism? Whites are responsible for that? That was my pooint. You think that whites are the only racists? I said earlier that I would not pretend to know what it was like to be a minority but I can speak volumes about being white. I run into non whites on a regular basis my whole life who treat me with no respect, decency or trust simply because I am white. How is this any different than the racism you describe? Some talk about the whites having all of the power in this country/world. Maybe no one invited me to the meetings but you know how much power I wield? Zilch. I am not the enemy of anyone but get treated like that by some narrow minded, ignorant people. Not everyone though, probably like you experience. Sounds very similar to the trials that you go through. We both sit at the bottom of any power structure and do our best to get by. That is just the way that it is. Also, how do you think that the average white person is treated in the inner city ghettos at nights? How many random acts of kindness do you think happen there? So telling you things from the white perspective, do you think that whites are going to do any real soul searching as a group and fix all of this if the non whites are going to continue to act as I described? Heck, you have made comments as to acting the same way in your prior posts. Whites and non whites have an equal responsibility in what is going on today. For people like you to act otherwise only perpetuates the problem...

Also, as nice as the memorial is, I noticed the words "black", "color", or "racism" don't appear anywhere on the monument...which is also quite suspicious.

Maybe because King wasn't focused on the negative, his goal was equality and unity, and that's where the focus should lay. To bring those other issues into it, somehow gives it a "blacks only" kind of feel, when King would've wanted it to be inclusive of everyone.

Maybe because King wasn't focused on the negative, his goal was equality and unity, and that's where the focus should lay. To bring those other issues into it, somehow gives it a "blacks only" kind of feel, when King would've wanted it to be inclusive of everyone.

I'm not sure how mentioning racism in the monument would have been exclusive to anyone. MLK wasn't a politician or president, he was an activist. Its a removal of context for what he stood for, which was equality for all.

But he stood for equality, that's the point, he didn't simply stand for an end to racism. In fact, at the time of his assasination, he was more focused on poverty than race. It was about so much more than simply color or race. In fact, he wanted us to be color blind, ergo why bring the negativity into the monument. Yes, we should study him in context in our history books and classes. We should remember him at the memorial as one, and focus on his dream.

TekKnowledge - it's interesting to read your views on this, as I appreciate someone speaking totally from their view and sharing their thoughts and asking questions. Did you stop to think that the white lady married to the black man on here married each other because they are attracted to each other? Now, I see where you ask would she be married to a black man if he was a 'low-level' worker/retail worker/whatever...did you also think right there - would she have married a white man who was a worker who did a low level type job? While for a lot of ignorant Americans (I'm not saying you are, so please don't read that into this), things are about color all the time, it's more about economic level than anything else. My family couldn't send me to college, I had to graduate high school and go to work. I would have loved a free college education, but I knew it wasn't coming my way. Hell, if it wasn't for getting a smart women on my side, I'd probably still be where I was - but I worked and then supported myself as I went to a trade school. I raised myself up to a different economic level. The only color that matters is green - if you got it, doors open, if you don't, doors are shut - and that continues to different levels.

Tek,

As far as your comments about MLK, I am white and I admire what he did. I was born after he was gone but he did more than his part to shift our society in the right direction. And he did it without violence. As far as people visiting his statue, I have been a tourist in DC on MANY occasions through the years. I don't think that your typical tourist is even American up there, much less white. I have gone through the mall and heard literally over a dozen languages from the people that I pass. MLK means a great amount to a great number of minorities. Maybe they put it as a priority for their sight seeing. Maybe you went on non typical demographic days. Or maybe you are just lying or exaggerating to make a point. The memorial is still pretty new and I will look for it the next time I go to DC, but how comfortable do you think I will be after hearing comments from people like you about who goes there? You complain about no harmony in the world yet push away people at the same time. What does that accomplish?

We are finally getting through the fog. First, blacks giving other blacks who marry whites plain nastiness isn't racism? Whites are responsible for that? That was my pooint.

I'm not sure there are blacks that give other black people nastiness for marrying white people. More on this in a second.

You think that whites are the only racists?

How i define racism, yes. They are the only people with the societal power to act on their prejudice and hatred. That doesn't mean i don't listen to other people's definition. What do YOU mean when you say racist? Based on your definition, I'm sure non-white people probably can be racist. It all depends on definitons.

I said earlier that I would not pretend to know what it was like to be a minority but I can speak volumes about being white.

Excellent, i always enjoy talking with white folks about racism.

I run into non whites on a regular basis my whole life who treat me with no respect, decency or trust simply because I am white. How is this any different than the racism you describe?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I believe that all people should be treated with courtesy and decency, white or non-white. I do think that people who classify themselves as "white" have warranted suspicion towards them though, and here's why -- it goes back to the concept of "race" being racist. "races" have always worked as references in relation to the "white race". The "white race" is "race" in my opinion. People have known for centuries that "race" was a farce, but they still classified people as races to mistreat others. Those "whites only" signs in the 1960s meant something, and since there are white skinned non-white people I have to conclude that being a member of a "white race" is something greater than your skin color. I am not a member of a race, although I was assigned one. If the term has no anthropological or biological value, then it has to have a social one.

Some talk about the whites having all of the power in this country/world.

They do.

Maybe no one invited me to the meetings but you know how much power I wield? Zilch.

By yourself, you could be right. But with other white people, you can cause a lot of change on the planet...now that is an opinion.

I am not the enemy of anyone but get treated like that by some narrow minded, ignorant people. Not everyone though, probably like you experience. Sounds very similar to the trials that you go through. We both sit at the bottom of any power structure and do our best to get by.

My only qualm is that as individuals we do...as groups you sit at the top of the hiearchy. I would assume you receive the social capital from this association, as I receive the social stigma.

Also, how do you think that the average white person is treated in the inner city ghettos at nights? How many random acts of kindness do you think happen there?

Quite a few actually. I help white people all of the time, and I still live in the "inner city" as you would call it. I have a co-worker, white male, who told me about this black family (well i assume they were black) letting them park in front of their house in Southeast DC when they were looking for a park for a concert, for free! Also, not all, or even a majority, of non-white people live in the inner city ghettos.

So telling you things from the white perspective, do you think that whites are going to do any real soul searching as a group and fix all of this if the non whites are going to continue to act as I described?

I don't feel white folks should be offended if non-whites are suspicious towards them in a systemically racist society. We all need to start thinking in systems. And quite honestly, the vast majority of non-whites around the world, America included, WORSHIP you guys...I think sometimes you're so used to that fanfare you're taken aback when people are skeptical of you.

Heck, you have made comments as to acting the same way in your prior posts. Whites and non whites have an equal responsibility in what is going on today. For people like you to act otherwise only perpetuates the problem...

Yeah, i still reserve hope that we can work together to solve the problem. But I won't hold my breath.

But he stood for equality, that's the point, he didn't simply stand for an end to racism. In fact, at the time of his assasination, he was more focused on poverty than race. It was about so much more than simply color or race. In fact, he wanted us to be color blind, ergo why bring the negativity into the monument. Yes, we should study him in context in our history books and classes. We should remember him at the memorial as one, and focus on his dream.

I'm sorry, but poor whites houses weren't being firebombed. To counter white supremacy was a HUGE component of what he was fighting for, and I don't see how that should alienate anyone. If race, sex, and class are the 3 biggest problems on the planet, we shouldn't shy away from it.

I'm not saying we shy away from it. I'm saying study it, for sure. But the memorial is about The Dream. It should stand for he wanted the final outcome to be, and that's the effect it should have on people. They should go there color blind, and leave there even more color blind.

The ultimate end of racism and triumph of equality, will be ultimately the end of the concept of race. That's what the memorial should focus on. We achieve that end through studying it, but that should be done in the classroom, or over discussion boards.

TekKnowledge - it's interesting to read your views on this, as I appreciate someone speaking totally from their view and sharing their thoughts and asking questions. Did you stop to think that the white lady married to the black man on here married each other because they are attracted to each other?

Of course...there are a lot of attractive people of all phenotypes, but that doesn't mean that class/racial politics don't play into how you choose a mate.

Now, I see where you ask would she be married to a black man if he was a 'low-level' worker/retail worker/whatever...did you also think right there - would she have married a white man who was a worker who did a low level type job?

That could be, but the facts are that a lot of non-whites in the upper classes are more likely to marry whites - who oftentimes are of a lower educational or economic attainment level. They are trading their educational or economic status (social capital) for whiteness (social capital) in my opinion in these situations. Also, I think her parents would be more equally accepting of a white mechanic vs a black CTO than the other way around, and I could be wrong.

Hell, if it wasn't for getting a smart women on my side, I'd probably still be where I was - but I worked and then supported myself as I went to a trade school. I raised myself up to a different economic level. The only color that matters is green - if you got it, doors open, if you don't, doors are shut - and that continues to different levels.

Let me ask you...is President Obama still mistreated because he is not white?

Maybe you went on non typical demographic days. Or maybe you are just lying or exaggerating to make a point. The memorial is still pretty new and I will look for it the next time I go to DC, but how comfortable do you think I will be after hearing comments from people like you about who goes there?

Sir, I was there on 2 Sunday evenings, so this could be true. The 1st time, I also went to explicitly see the monument (I live in B-More) and there are a lot of black people in the Baltimore-DC area, so it could skew the numbers a bit (especially because the monument was new last year). So I'll concede that point.

As far as feeling uncomfortable, I'm sorry, but that is just my view. I've noticed that a lot of whites give a lot of lip service about their views on equality and racism, but their actions or anonymous words contradict what they say in public.

Also, i'm not so sure that Dr. King's dream would be to swap out a culture of violence between white and non-white people for a culture of phoniness and deception - I could be wrong.

Tek,

You did nothing in picking apart my response but try to defend you racist (that's an opinion) actions and say why you will continue them. It really is us versus them with you. Until people like you understand that everyone has more similarities than differences, society can not evolve. I wonder what Dr. King would say today if he was moderating this? We need more poeple like him today but those types of people are so very special that they are making a difference elsewhere, where it is more appreciated. Not being the voice for a group who feel they are underentitled and try to justify using the same behavior that they feel wronged for. Dr. King would have been ashamed of those types of actions (another opinion).

As far as feeling uncomfortable, I'm sorry, but that is just my view

So are you saying in one breath that you don't think that enough white people come to the monument and in another say that it is too bad that white people don't feel comfortable there because of comments like your previous ones? In Tek's world, how or when is any of this supposed to get better?

You did nothing in picking apart my response but try to defend you racist (that's an opinion) actions and say why you will continue them.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "racist". It seems to me that me suggesting that suspicion is warranted for anyone who classifies themselves a member of "the white race" is what you mean. "Race" implies competition. Why shouldn't I be skeptical until you prove me otherwise? The group I've been assigned to doesn't wield any societal power.

It really is us versus them with you. Until people like you understand that everyone has more similarities than differences, society can not evolve.

Again, why do people classify people into "races" if it is not an "US vs Them" mentality? Until someone can give me a satisfactory explanation about what good it does to classify yourself as a "race", I'll continue to be suspicious until proven otherwise by that individual(s).

I wonder what Dr. King would say today if he was moderating this?

You don't think that MLK was initially suspicious of the white people he dealt with?

We need more poeple like him today but those types of people are so very special that they are making a difference elsewhere, where it is more appreciated.

Like who? Where?

Not being the voice for a group who feel they are underentitled and try to justify using the same behavior that they feel wronged for. Dr. King would have been ashamed of those types of actions (another opinion).

Maybe if a white racist (backed by the JE Hoover and his "intelligence programs") hadn't have killed him, we wouldn't have been having this conversation right now. In any event, i'm not trying to disenfranchise you...I am trying (the best I know how) to understand the imbalance of power between people on this planet based on color, to hopefully solve the problem on day. Dr. King did not get to finish what he started.

Instead we've just replaced terrorism with tackiness and phoniness.

So are you saying in one breath that you don't think that enough white people come to the monument and in another say that it is too bad that white people don't feel comfortable there because of comments like your previous ones? In Tek's world, how or when is any of this supposed to get better?

No I don't get why it makes you uncomfortable in the first place. It was an observation on my part, which supports my opinion that a lot of whites tend to give a lot of lip service about being against racism, but do things to contradict what they say. If you are not one of these people, why are you uncomfortable? And even if you are uncomfortable, you think anyone that thinks like me is not going to have the decency to be courteous to you, especially because you visiting there would be you putting your money where your mouth is.

I know this is an internet conversation, but i'm not foaming at the mouth angry at you. If we were in the same space, we would have a courteous dialog...you can have my view, I can get yours. Why you would be afraid or uncomfortable around someone that takes my positions is quite interesting.

mAYBE I would revert to my "savage negro nature" (not quoting you, but just things I see/hear on Newsvine and such) but i seriously doubt it. lol.

Dr. King had more power than I ever will as a white person, and you know why? Because that racist's (no argument from me on that, not sure how JEH got into this. Maybe I missed that episode of Columbo) bullet did not silence him or his message. I too would like to have seen him finish his work. The world would probably be a better place.

As far as the special people doing other things, they are the doctors, clergy and others that really make a difference in people's lives. You don't have to have a big stage to be special. Just do special things.

We aren't as far apart in either of our views as it may appear. What everyone needs to remember is that people like you and I will have to stand together on this, and not on opposite sides, for it to get any better. I read something the other day that struck with me. As long as you defend bad behavior, you have no intention of changing it. I can rest easy at night with how I treat people every day. Often times, I am sleeping with people of different color in my house because my sons have them over. I treat everyone how I expect to be treated. I never have any issues. Until the whole world can do the same, these problems will not go away.

Of course...there are a lot of attractive people of all phenotypes, but that doesn't mean that class/racial politics don't play into how you choose a mate.

It doesn't for me. It may for you. It does to some, it doesn't to others. But it doesn't affect me in the least if someone does. If they can get what they want to get and it hurts no one, why should anyone care?

That could be, but the facts are that a lot of non-whites in the upper classes are more likely to marry whites - who oftentimes are of a lower educational or economic attainment level. They are trading their educational or economic status (social capital) for whiteness (social capital) in my opinion in these situations. Also, I think her parents would be more equally accepting of a white mechanic vs a black CTO than the other way around, and I could be wrong.

So, are you saying - once you go green ($$$), you never go back??? If someone feels better about themself cause they are with a certain type of person, who cares? As for trying to judge how someone's parents think on a general question, I don't waste my time with that. People for the most part are products of their environment and I don't know anyone's environment they were raised in except for mine.

Let me ask you...is President Obama still mistreated because he is not white?

Well, of course some people want to judge President Obama on his race (which is actually a mixture). But that's their own juvenile mentality - and hey, I detested a lot of President Bush's time in office, but you can't tell me it wasn't a judgement on his race when Kanye busted out that he hates black people...like black people were the only ones affected in Katrina. And I think 'mistreated' is maybe not the right word there - I don't see a lot of mistreatment, but I do see racism in some. I think the main problem is partisan politics that are part of what's destroying our country, but that's a different discussion. So, let me ask you from the other angle - was President Obama praised more before doing anything by black people cause he's black?

I agree that we could have a civil discussion about this. Everyone can use a fresh perspecive on any topic. Makes both parties the wiser for it...

..but if you have already predetermined that all whites are phony about this topic, how will you stand up with them on it?

So, let me ask you from the other angle - was President Obama praised more before doing anything by black people cause he's black?

I can answer this one right now - YES. But honestly, in a society we're were casted as thugs and baffoons, I don't see anything wrong with that. But non-whites here and around the world strongly identified with Obama on the issues, and his anti-imperialist and pro-freedom campaign. We seriously thought he could right the ship with everything that was wrong with the world BECAUSE he was a person of color and he knew what it was like to experience racism. No one says anything about Jews supporting other Jews, etc. And black people tend not to be critical of President O not touching black issues because he is black as well.

..but if you have already predetermined that all whites are phony about this topic, how will you stand up with them on it?

I haven't predetermined that. I conclude for each individual person, and I've concluded that most "moderates" and "liberals" that I've encountered are inauthentic about their views on racism. Oddly enough, some of the more overt racists have been some of the more honest people I have chatted with, and some of the anti-racist whites.

I haven't predetermined that. I conclude for each individual person, and I've concluded that most "moderates" and "liberals" that I've encountered are inauthentic about their views on racism. Oddly enough, some of the more overt racists have been some of the more honest people I have chatted with, and some of the anti-racist whites.

Fair enough. With respectful debate, these things will get better. I have seen it in my lifetime. Thank your for the insight today...

I can answer this one right now - YES. But honestly, in a society we're were casted as thugs and baffoons, I don't see anything wrong with that. But non-whites here and around the world strongly identified with Obama on the issues, and his anti-imperialist and pro-freedom campaign. We seriously thought he could right the ship with everything that was wrong with the world BECAUSE he was a person of color and he knew what it was like to experience racism. No one says anything about Jews supporting other Jews, etc. And black people tend not to be critical of President O not touching black issues because he is black as well.

And well, that's racist - if you are praised by your color just for being your color, that's racism. While you state that people are cast as thugs and buffoons, do you really think so many white people would have voted for someone they thought was a thug or a buffoon...ok, the answer to this may be yes, based on the simple fact that GWB was elected for a 2nd term (yeah, I laughed when I typed that). And see, if people of color thought he'd do something for them cause he's a person of color, that's seeing the world through race covered eyes - see, the color President Obama (and all politicians in my view) cares about the most is GREEN. If you got it, they got your back, if you don't, they don't.

And seriously, you've got to realize that racism is a 2-way street - let me give you part of my upbringing...I was a kid in the only white family in my area of Oakland, CA back in the 70s. I was jumped multiple times by groups of others, chased home multiple times, had bottles thrown at me as I walked down the street, etc...it was all because I was white. What they didn't realize is, we all lived in that neighborhood and probably any of our parents would have loved to have gotten us out - their's and mine, but they didn't see me as one of them (economically, living conditions, etc) cause I'm white. So, I'm white and have experienced racism but would you listen to me discuss it or would you just say I'm some white guy who doesn't understand?

As long as you defend bad behavior, you have no intention of changing it.

Oh, i'm not defending people being discourteous to you. I just said that suspicion is a reasonable feeling given our history. But you shouldn't be mistreated.

Fair enough. With respectful debate, these things will get better. I have seen it in my lifetime. Thank your for the insight today...

You as well. Have a good weekend.

So, I'm white and have experienced racism but would you listen to me discuss it or would you just say I'm some white guy who doesn't understand?

it all comes down to definitions IMO. What you described in my opinion is a response to systemic racism (the Obama thing i mean).

And what happened to you back in Oakland is incorrect...it shouldn't have happened. I empathize with you. Of course I would listen to you...but I don't think that makes you a victim of racism. But it all comes back to definitions. Racism = is a global system of group privilege and power to me.

it all comes down to definitions IMO. What you described in my opinion is a response to systemic racism (the Obama thing i mean).

And what happened to you back in Oakland is incorrect...it shouldn't have happened. I empathize with you. Of course I would listen to you...but I don't think that makes you a victim of racism. But it all comes back to definitions. Racism = is a global system of group privilege and power to me.

If there was true systematic racism, President Obama would never be president. There are always going to be racists and racism - it's across all races. If there was group privilege and power, I'd be way ahead of where I am today. What you see as racism with that, I see more as money/class control by those that have it against those that don't.

Man, I don't need empathy for what happened to me when I was a kid, but that was racially driven. You honestly believe that if a group of one color of people gang up on an individual of another color that it's not racism/racist? If you do believe that, how can you say President Obama is a victim of racism - he is the most powerful man in America and you state that to you, racism is group privilege and power...who in America has more power than our President? It would have been racism if he was never allowed to run because he's part black. I've never had any privilege or power, so it ain't happenin for all white people. What you are describing, to me, is more 'classism' than 'racism'.

I do think that people who classify themselves as "white" have warranted suspicion towards them though, and here's why -- it goes back to the concept of "race" being racist.

Interesting comment.

Scientifically, there is no such thing as 'race'. I've always wondered if the concept came about as the result of Europeans 'discovering' the world by ship. If you walked around the world, you would see gradations in things like degree of skin pigmentation, etc., to the extent that you would never conceive of categoreaaizing people into a small number of groups. But if you left from northern Europe, and didn't stop until you were in subsaharan Africa, set sail again and didn't stop until you were in southern India, and started out again and stopped in the Philipines and China, you might wind up thinking that there are a few 'main groups' that people can be divided into.

When I was growing up, people did not refer to themselves as being "white" unless they were bigots. These days it seems to be much more common, and on the last census form I received, all the old ethnicity and nationality qualifiers had been removed (at the insistance of Republican politicians) and replaced with choices like "Black, Negro, or African American", "Hispanic", a brand new category of "Non-Hispanic White" (just to make sure Latinos know their place?), and "Asian" (whether because Chinese, Indians, and Israelis are physically and culturally impossible to distinguish from one another or because there are so few of them collectively that we needn't fear, hate, or feel superior to them separately I won't hazard to guess). It seems there is a new movement afoot to make "non-Hispanic Whites" the "new" "race" and to spread fear, mistrust, and even hatred of anyone who is not a member of that 'new race'. Witness the unbelievably high number of people who have answered opinion polls in the last fw years by saying that President Obama is not Christian or not even American!

The point is, the definition of "race" is fluid and ever-changing. And while it's not important for us to view ourselves or each other by "race", it is important to understand what affect categorization and prejudicial treatment have on people.

It's pretty hard for someone who is a member of a 'privileged' group to understand what it means to be a member of a group that often suffers from adverse and unwarranted discrimination. In fact, it's pretty difficult for a member of a 'privileged' group to even recognize the frequency with which discriminatory acts are committed or prejudicial comments are made. We don't suffer from it, we aren't affected by it, and we don't notice it.

As to your comment about non-whites needing to worry about whether their marital partners are racists, get over yourself. No one's accusing you of the kind of institutional racism that actually causes harm to people, but you sound just a little bigoted yourself (or maybe you're just a little bit paranoid), as most of us are. Of course, it's hard for us to recognize our own bigotry, just like it's hard for us to recognize our own typographical errors.

I run into non whites on a regular basis my whole life who treat me with no respect, decency or trust simply because I am white. How is this any different than the racism you describe?

That's funny, I know and meet a lot of non-whites on a regular basis, too, and I never have that problem. I wonder what makes my experiences so radically different from yours.

Perhaps 'they' are merely reflecting the way you look at them. (And how can you tell why these people you talk about are treating you discourteously? Have you ever tried talking to any of 'them' about it?

But to answer your question, does this discourtesy you mention affect you in any tangible way? Are you unable to gain employment or are you paid less because of it? Do you have self-esteem issues because you are treated as an 'inferior' or judged wrongly on a constant or regular basis?

Or is it just annoying.

Because there really is a big difference, you know.

It has been my observation that younger people in general seem less concerned about what race a person happens to be. Why should pigmentation matter, after all?

If religious groups want to make a difference in this world, eliminating racism would be an excellent place to start.

Having said that, you only need to read the pages and pages of blatantly racist comments against Michelle Obama (under the recent article about her concern that she is viewed as an angry black woman) to know that racism lives on in this country.

There are too many people who cannot grant a black or Hispanic person any credit for achieving a better life through their intelligence and hard work. President and Mrs. Obama have come much further in their lifetimes than the average white American, and some resent them openly for it.

Those who care about the future of America, who care about what sort of place this will be for their grandchildren to live in, should face the reality that white people do not own this continent or this world and never did. The changing demographics not only of the United States but many European countries means that white people will need to overcome their prejudices and educate the poor and the minorities who will be the majority in a couple of decades.

We fail the people who are now considered minorities at our future peril.

You have raised some excellent points, commonsense.

The point is, the definition of "race" is fluid and ever-changing. And while it's not important for us to view ourselves or each other by "race", it is important to understand what affect categorization and prejudicial treatment have on people.

Perhaps one day in the distant future, we humans will have interbred and blended to the point where there are no racial distinctions. The children who are the products of racially diverse parentage tend to be the most healthy and intelligent, and certainly most tolerant, from what I have observed.

It's pretty hard for someone who is a member of a 'privileged' group to understand what it means to be a member of a group that often suffers from adverse and unwarranted discrimination. In fact, it's pretty difficult for a member of a 'privileged' group to even recognize the frequency with which discriminatory acts are committed or prejudicial comments are made. We don't suffer from it, we aren't affected by it, and we don't notice it.

That is completely true. No one in the majority can understand the perspective of a member of a minority, and the majority should accept that as reality.

I see a lot of small-minded and selfish resentment from whites over affirmative action, which I consider deplorable.

We defeat ourselves and the future of this country when we deny opportunity to anyone.

Unimpressed-4017638

Dr. King had more power than I ever will as a white person, and you know why? Because that racist's (no argument from me on that, not sure how JEH got into this. Maybe I missed that episode of Columbo) bullet did not silence him or his message. I too would like to have seen him finish his work. The world would probably be a better place.

I really appreciated your comment.

The work of Dr. King, or Gandhi, or Jesus Christ is too big to ever be completed by any one person. They come and shine a light, and then it is up to the rest of us to see things differently in that light. We all make the world a better place by being better people. We all add to the evolution of mankind by our individual personal enlightenment and by how we treat our fellow humans.

ROY WILSON-336103

This story fits right in with Obama's strategy of animosity and 'Class Warfare' based on race.

When Obama talks about 'social justice' and 'wealth redistribution', he's talking about taking money from 'Whitey' and giving it to minorities.

I am sorry to tell you that your opinion has no basis in reality.

Mr. Obama's goal is to economically strengthen the middle class, the majority of whom are white.

Blacks account for only 11 to 13% of the American population, depending on how race is categorized, and the majority of black citizens would not be considered middle class.

Even with the rapid growth of our Hispanic population, the vast majority of the middle class in this country is white.

Obama has said and done very little, actually, about minorities and the poor, and he is criticized for that too.

TekKnowledge- you said:

………….Through my experience,
I'll just say this -- white people and non-white people cannot even respect
each other as human beings on a basic level. I think the evidence is quite
clear on this. Just Google "racist jokes", go to the comments section
on any news site, or watch the news, examine the disparities based on color in
every human endeavor ……

This statement just makes me sad.

I live in an ethnically diverse neighborhood. My friends are of German, Jewish, African, Mexican, Haitian, and Filipino extraction. We are a completely mixed bag of Caucasian, African, Asian, Latino, and
indegenous American heritages. We like each other, we help each other out. We
pet-sit and house-sit and pick up mail for each other, we watch each other’s
kids in an emergency, we help out if someone is sick, and most of us show up and
mingle every so often, when someone throws a party. I respect each one of these
people on a basic level, and to the best of my knowledge, they respect me just
the same. If I believed your statement, then none of this could be true.

Believe me, I know racism still exists, and some people do make assumptions based on
physical characteristics. My best friend and I were “profiled” on a shopping
trip one day, and no one will ever convince me that it wasn’t because my friend
is black. I was “profiled” at a garage another friend sent me to, and no one
will ever convice me that it wasn’t because I am white. What makes me sad is that because SOME people
still behave this way, many people believe that ALL people behave this way. How
can we possibly ever attain a “color-blind” society, when so many people refuse
to believe that it is even possible? To put it in the simplest terms, if I am “color-blind”,
but you refuse to believe that I am, what difference does it make if I am? And if you
refuse to believe that I could be “color-blind,”, based on your perception of
my ethnicity, then you’re not color-blind either. Statements like yours make me fear the worst
about humanity, that no matter how hard we may try, we’re just doomed to
misunderstanding, hatred, and fear.

I also wanted to address something you said-- something about mistrusting people
who self-identify as “white?” Has it occurred to you that maybe people who “self-identify”
as white, do so because that’s how they’ve been identified by others for as
long as they’ve lived, the same way that some people who self-identify as “black”
do? If you asked me to self-identify on my most basic level after human and
female, I would identify as American, and if pressed for heritage, would say I
know of mostly European and Native American ancestry. But if we were supposed
to be meeting blind in a bar in Los Angeles, I’d most likely tell you to look for the 5’7” chubby white
chick with black hair. And that's got nothing to do with race, and everything to do with being practical.

First of all, biologically, race does not exist. It is a social construct designed in my opinion so that one so called race could claim superiority over another. Cultural differences do exist. But, neither should have created the rift in society that we have had since the beginning of this country. That is caused by the insistence on white supremacy. That is teh reality.

We can talk aobut blacks looking at interracial couples, or black criminals robbing whites or anything else we want to talk about, but the racial issue stems from the concept of white supremacy.

I see myself as a human being. I also see myself as culturally black and neither less or better than any other human being from any other culture.

The ignorance surrounding ideas on race is just overwhelming. We need to evolve, and quickly.

If this planet was endangered how important do you think that race and culture would be?

Economan

25Walker,

I sort of thought that personal responsibility was pretty important. For instance, by all statistical measures, having children out of wedlock is a really bad idea. It directly leads to things like poverty and crime, which in turn, lead to more poverty and crime.

If not through personal responsibility, how would you solve that problem? In 1964 when the black illegitimacy rate was around 25%, LBJ decided that the way to do it was to throw money at it. If you were single, and explicitly not married - not even a man living under the same roof, a teenage woman could collect enough benefits to live with her babies in her own apartment. That is, the government paid young girls to have babies out of wedlock and stay unmarried. The program was a tremendous success. The illegitimacy rate is now up to 70% among blacks.

Would you prefer forced abortions? Or perhaps confiscate the babies and put them in government homes that house half the youth population?

Or perhaps we should all just sing Kumbaya. 10 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:27 AM EST

Economan,

You can drop your skewed analogies.

Government statics show that the out of wedlock birth rate for Caucasians has skyrocketed:

"...the white illegitimacy rate has exploded,...the Moynihan report sounded its alarm. Moreover,
with 75 percent-plus of their babies born outside marriage, white teens
now have much higher illegitimacy rates than the black American teens..."

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/citizenship/white-families-are-in-trouble-too/

Economan,

LBJ gave us the "Great Society."

LBJ's programs that were intended to relieve the suffering and hardships that many Americans were experiencing, Black and White. Out of wedlock births are increasing in this country across all economic levels. Because Caucasians are at an advantage in employment, education, housing, etc. they have less of an excuse than African-Africans to "mess up" in life.

You are either blind or lying...or both.

Racism negatively impacts African-Americans.

Due to bias practices, there is dysfunction in the African-American community.

Racism never uplifts...it tears down.

You speak of "poverty and crime."

The U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that there is no shortage of Caucasians that commit crimes.

With respect to prosecution, it is people of non-color that receive the "Free Pass."

The lack of prosecution of the Wall Street gangs is an example of the failure to criminally prosecute.

Would you prefer forced abortions?

Sound-minded and Democratic people prefer an equal opportunity society.

If racism was eliminated, communities of color would not from the "cradle to the grave" get sunk by disruptive and biased life experiences.

Or perhaps confiscate the babies and put them in government homes that house half the youth population?

Your supposition is ridiculous.

If you want to use your above mind-boggling tactic on teenagers that become pregnant out of wedlock, there would be many White females at "your half-way house."

Bristol Palin would make a nice first resident.

Or perhaps we should all just sing Kumbaya.

If our society ever truly offers all citizens fair and equal opportunities, we can sing...and in honor of Dr. King Jr....

"We Have Overcome, this day..."

25walker,

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.

You are partially correct. The white illegitimacy rate has exploded. In the early '50s, it was roughly 2%. (Must have been a lot of "shotgun" weddings.) It's between 25 and 30 percent now. It is NOT anywhere near 75%. (Your link cites 28%.) The black illegitimacy rate is around 70%. I'd prefer not to go to the effort to cite a source, but if you insist, I'm confident that I can. Neither do I believe that it is possible that white teens have a higher illegitimacy rate than blacks.

LBJ's Great Society bought and paid for the destruction of the black family. I cite the late and famous liberal Senator (and Professor) Daniel Patrick Moynahan as my source. I stand by the rough accuracy of my stats in the post to which you respond. The government promised to pay women (girls) of any age if they had children out of wedlock (AFDC). The plan was successful beyond the wildest dreams of its supporters. Millions of young women did just exactly that. Not until the welfare reform of the 1990s were the incentives reduced. Unfortunately, it was too late. An entire culture of illegitimacy and government dependency was ingrained into society - black society in particular. The stats don't lie and they back up what I've written.

Let me upset your world view some more. You write "Caucasians are at an advantage in employment, education". It's just not so. First, I'll cite personal anecdote (which, of course, is worth practically nothing). In EVERY job I ever held (all back in the 1970s), I saw people of "Protected Classes", i.e., blacks and women, with inferior credentials, experience and talent hired, paid more, or given preferences unavailable to me, a Caucasian male. Everyone around me knew it was true. One woman in particular was mocked behind her back for working in "the broad slot". Eventually, I went into business for myself. One of the great advantages of self-employment is that one is paid exactly what one is worth - especially when one LOSES money.

My personal experience doesn't count for much, so I'll cite Charles Murray ("The Bell Curve"). He has made a career out of studying intelligence and writes regularly thereon (and about education, too). Murray has documented convincingly that blacks in America have been awarded academic credentials, hired, promoted, and paid out of proportion to their intellectual talents. In short, affirmative action has worked far better than it was ever intended to.

How can this be, you might ask? Murray cites irrefutable evidence that the average IQ of blacks in America is roughly 15 points below whites, roughly a standard deviation. That is huge!

Now, one can argue about nature vs. nurture in IQ scores. Several years ago, I was in the audience when Charles Murray debated James Flynn (he of the Flynn effect - IQ scores have risen steadily since their invention) on the proposition, "The Black/White IQ Gap - Is It Narrowing? - Will It Ever Close?". In recent years, the gap has NOT narrowed. It is perhaps widening, due both to nature and nurture.

Murray is a self-described Libertarian. Flynn is a self-described Socialist. Both agreed that the gap IS roughly 15 points. Flynn argued that if you threw sufficient resources at the problem, that the gap would narrow. Murray is skeptical.

Murray proposed a grand experiment. Murray proposed that someone (perhaps Bill Gates) should donate however many billions of dollars it would take to test any and all of the theories about how nurture could close the gap. His only provisos were that the sample size had to be big enough so that the results would be indisputable, and that every theory be tested. In short, when the experiment was completed, there would be no doubt about the results and no more excuses could be made.

One of the items upon which both Murray and Flynn agreed was that research was being done which would answer the question definitively within the next few years.

The point of all the above about Murray and Flynn is that I cite them to refute your claims that the problem is racism, opportunity, et al. Yeah, there's some of that, not nearly what there was 50 years ago, but it's just not that big a deal now. If racism, not personal responsibility, is the cause, then how would you explain that nearly twice as many black women are receiving college degrees these days than black men? (Talk about social problems - a black woman with a college degree has only about a 50% chance of finding a male peer! No wonder the illegitimacy rate is so high.)

I expect that you're skeptical. Let me suggest some reading. "The Bell Curve" by Murray and Herrnstien. Read the first 220 pages. It will paint a picture that you won't like, but the numbers and logic are compelling.

I don't believe that I've ever suggested that Caucasians don't commit crimes. I believe that it is also indisputable that blacks commit crimes out of proportion to their numbers.

The lack of prosecution of the Wall Street gangs is an example of the failure to criminally prosecute.

It's a little off the subject but, I'll bite. Just what crimes do you accuse the "Wall Street gangs" of committing. I accuse them of being stupid. I accuse them of rationally responding to the incentives of bad government. The real crimes were committed by the Federal Government when they bailed them out. (That said, the government got all it's money back, and more, except for their confiscation of "Government Motors", Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I see a trend - Obama bailed out his friends and government cronies. What do you see?)

Re confiscating babies and forced abortions: Obviously, my comments were facetious. My point was "what would you have the government do?" You could try to outlaw illegitimacy, but it wouldn't do much good, would it? I don't have a good solution. But I am convinced that bad government policy created the high illegitimacy rates that we have today.

Finally, I'll cite Justice Roberts quoting Judge Carlos Bay in 2005. "The Way to Stop Discrimination on the Basis of Race Is To Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race". Hear! Hear! Let's start with the Federal Government.

Why does this exist? Democrats! They give hand outs so there is no need to try to be better, rather than hand out they should mandate if your receiving said handout you need to be going to school. And you have x number of years to be independent.

Look at harlem, one subway stop (walking distance) to one of the largest business centers on earth. Yet they say there are no jobs in the neighborhood. My wife and father drive to another state almost every day for their jobs. hour and a half to 2 hours to work, then the same back.

Now also consider this, NY subway / train system goes to all surrounding states, A HUGE HUGE demographic area and harlem is opressed because there are no jobs in the neihborhood????

Economan,

Your reply is a twisted, non-intellectual, failed and racist attempt to refute my post.

In a narcissistic and desperately psychopathic manner, you have failed to prove the obvious lie -that Caucasians are superior and African-Americans are inferior. Your "great men of science" Dr. Murray and Herrstein, are students of Nazi Eugenics. "Drs." Murray and Herrstein are akin to modern-day Dr. Frankensteins.

You have earned the first salvo:

From the referenced article, I will give you the FULL quote.

"Yet by many of the criteria of the Moynihan report, today's white American family looks to be at least as troubled as the black family of the early 1960s. Consider trends in out-of-wedlock births. By 2002, 28.5 percent of babies of white mothers were born outside marriage in this country. Over the past generation, the white illegitimacy rate has exploded, quadrupling since 1975, when the level was 7.1 percent. The overall illegitimacy rate for whites is higher than it was for black mothers (23.6 percent) when the Moynihan report sounded its alarm. Moreover, with 75 percent-plus of their babies born outside marriage, white teens now have much higher illegitimacy rates than the black American teens of the early and mid-1960s. Indeed, in 2002, a white mother younger than 30 was more likely to have an illegitimate child than a black mother was in 1970."

Neither do I believe that it is possible that white teens have a higher illegitimacy rate than blacks.

What you believe is not important.

In empirical data, it does not surprise me that you are unable to understand "percentage increases."

The percentage of African-American teenagers who are having out of wedlock births has remained stable, while the percentage of Caucasian out of wedlock births has significantly increased. Pick up a Webster's dictionary and look up the word "percentage."

The stats don't lie.

You are right.

The above statistics about the increase of illegitimate births in Caucasian communities are not a lie.

LBJ's Great Society bought and paid for the destruction of the black family

Your statement is selective and it is more hubris from you.

The destruction of the black family began when African Americans were snatched from their homelands, separated, herded onto lofty-named "cargo" ships and sold as slaves on auction blocks. This inhumane treatment of human beings forever separated millions of family members. The institution of slavery was the beginning of the destruction of the Black family.

If you have a reservoir of accurate history, it is most certainly depleted.

An entire culture of illegitimacy and government dependency was ingrained into society

You keep harping on illegitimate births.

Therefore, lets start at the beginning of such births to African-American women.

During the years of legalized slavery, do you count the interracial master/slave rapes and births - as illegitimate births? If there is continuing illegitimacy in the Black community, at least some of this dysfunctional behavior was "born" of their years of forced servitude in this country and the beastly and lustful ways of their masters.

LBJ's programs helped the poor, White and Black - and I will leave it at that.

I will say that what glides across the TV waves and the "heroes" that too many people look up to do not foster the traditional Father/Mother and child family unit. Our icons are all wrong.

Let me upset your world view some more. You write "Caucasians are at an advantage in employment, education". It's just not so. First, I'll cite personal anecdote (which, of course, is worth practically nothing). In EVERY job I ever held (all back in the 1970s), I saw people of "Protected Classes", i.e., blacks and women, with inferior credentials

You cannot upset my world.

You do not have ANY FACTS.

On the jobs that I worked at many people of non-color picked their nails all day and did as little work as possible. These same people gave the hardest jobs to people of color. The supervisors of these lazy workers never seemed to notice their "favored" employees' lack of work productivity.

Now, one can argue about nature vs. nurture in IQ scores

You speak of IQ scores. This is strange.

Asians have performed well on many "standardized" tests. Oddly, though, they are missing from the CEO slots and on corporate boards. This is a paradox. Would this conundrum be be due to racism? Yes.

then how would you explain that nearly twice as many black women are receiving college degrees these days than black men?

The fracturing of the African-American community has forced many Black women to be the head of the household. Unfortunately, too many Black males are targeted for incarceration.

"The Bell Curve" by Murray and Herrnstien

You are submerged in junk science.

Next, you will be referring to and posting about the "scientists" who literally took tape measurements to determine the circumference of the skulls of different races to prove their flawed theories racial superiority.

It's a little off the subject but, I'll bite. Just what crimes do you accuse the "Wall Street gangs" of committing. I accuse them of being stupid. I accuse them of rationally responding to the incentives of bad government. The real crimes were committed by the Federal Government when they bailed them out.

You are an expert in dropping crap.

Wall Street and the Big Banks are begging state attorney generals for immunity. The truly innocent do not beg for immunity. These White-collar crooks are asking for "deals" to save their rumps from criminal prosecution. Their illegal activities collapsed America's economy. The state A.G.s should hold them fully accountable.

Obama bailed out his friends and government cronies

Obama saved the American auto industry and millions of jobs.

Obviously, my comments were facetious

All of your posts are ridiculous.

You referred to a jurist on the currently right-wing packed Supreme court.

I will humbly drop this quotation on you...

"In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute." Thurgood Marshall

Befittingly, I will drive you into deeper insanity with another quotation:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life for equality.

Today, January 15, 2012, there will be many wonderful ceremonies honoring this legendary great man.

Economan,

Next time you visit this forum, please come with facts.

25Walker,

Thank you for your reply, but I'm sorry civility was so difficult for you. Most of your bile is, at best, misdirected. You make it difficult to reply without being nasty, but I'll give it a shot.

you have failed to prove the obvious lie -that Caucasians are superior and African-Americans are inferior.

Nowhere, ever, in any of my posts have I suggest that Caucasians are superior or African-Americans are inferior. What I did write is that the average African-American IQ in this country is 85. That is indisputable fact. The Army has given IQ tests to all its soldiers for nearly 100 years. The stats are theirs, not mine.

By the way, one of the reasons I never use those words comparing races is that it's hard to say just exactly what does it mean to be "superior" or "inferior". I can read the OED as well as you can; what I want to know is what do YOU mean when you use those terms?

Your quote from the Moynahan report is a non-sequitor. I am aware of his stats and believe that they are essentially correct. Had you seen past the smoke coming out of your ears, you would have recalled that I am referring to TODAY's situation. Moynahan was comparing today's white teenage girls to the black teenage girls of the 1960s. Well, so what? My point is still exactly true and none of that refutes any of it. For a man who can connect his subjects and verbs, I don't understand how you can miss so simple a point.

What you believe is not important.

That's one of the few things you've gotten right. But it is also true that my belief that you refer to is correct. By Moynahan's numbers, the ones you cite, the white illegitimacy rate is around 28%. Well, the CURRENT black illegitimacy rate is around 70%. I don't have numbers for black teenagers, but common sense says it's considerably higher than that. What's your point, except that I am right about that? You should also note that my illegitimacy numbers were for the entire population, not teenagers. My numbers were correct; your bile was misdirected.

The percentage of African-American teenagers who are having out of wedlock births has remained stable, while the percentage of Caucasian out of wedlock births has significantly increased. Pick up a Webster's dictionary and look up the word "percentage."

Stable since when? Not since before the start of the "Great Society". My point was, and still is, that the Great Society was a disaster for black families. Nothing you have written provides a shred of evidence to the contrary. By the way, I don't need to be lectured about simple definitions by a guy who can't read and understand the plain prose I've written. If you should ever happen to go back to college to study math or statistics, I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to teach whatever course(s) you might take.

I don't wish to debate slavery. Let's stipulate that we're both opposed and then move on. After the Civil War, black families were intact much like white families. That remained essentially true until after WW II. People respond to economic incentives, and when the Federal Government, especially the Great Society programs, started paying women (and girls) to live without a parent or a man in the household and have babies, they responded just as anyone would expect. With that breakdown of family came huge social problems. That is my point and it is obvious to anyone who looks at the problem.

You are submerged in junk science

Hardly. Murray and Herrnstien did nothing but analyze decades of government data. If you know the difference between a first and a second moment about a mean, then you know enough to understand that they can't possibly be making up their results and that they are essentially correct in their conclusions. From your posts, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only one of the two of us who actually knows what Murray and Herrnstien wrote. (And by the way, I've read "The Mismeasure of Man", too, whence no doubt comes your head-measuring reference.)

As you apparently know little about them, you shamelessly call Murray and Herrnstien Nazis. Now, I know anyone can do a Google search, so why don't you do that and try to justify your name-calling. I've read most of Murray's books (Herrnstien died shortly before The Bell Curve was published in the 1990s), and I find him to be a much more compassionate man than your average liberal. Why don't you cite a single writing of his that would indicate otherwise? Why don't you give one bit of evidence to back up your offensive eugenics claim? You can't. If you can only be troubled to read a little of his work and can't understand statistics, try reading "Losing Ground".

Asians have performed well on many "standardized" tests. Oddly, though, they are missing from the CEO slots and on corporate boards.

I don't pay much attention to who runs (or ran) what company, but An Wang and Charles Wang come to mind.

Being in favor of affirmative action as I suspect you are, where is your outrage over the blatant discrimination against people of Asian descent in our nation's elite colleges? Ditto for Jews? Our "Nazi" friend Murray estimates that the average IQ of Americans of Asian descent is 107. For Jews, he estimates that it's 112 - 115. Jews have been persecuted for nearly 5000 years all over the world. How is it that they have been awarded Nobel Prizes by a factor of 50-1 out of proportion to their numbers in the world?

Obama saved the American auto industry and millions of jobs.

How gullible do you have to be? I realize that the average American is clueless about business. That's practically a prerequisite to vote for Obama. Had the government done NOTHING, do you think GM would have just "gone away"? Of course not. It would have done what every other similarly situated company would have done - it would have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (If no one else stepped forward, the government could have provided debtor-in-possession financing. If you don't know what that means, then we probably can't have an intelligent discussion about this.) The difference between that and what Obama inflicted upon us is that the rule of law would have prevailed. Instead, in a complete rout of law and Constitutional power, Obama seized GM and Chrysler, took assets that properly belonged to the bond-holders and gave them to his friendsa at the UAW. Just in case you don't understand, in either case, GM and Chrysler would have emerged as approximately the same companies that they are today. One has to be completely naive to think that the companies would have ceased to manufacture cars. I'd be embarrassed to make such a sophomoric claim that somehow the case would be otherwise.

You referred to a jurist on the currently right-wing packed Supreme court.

Your biases are showing. You refer to a Court that came within one vote of effectively declaring the Second Amendment to be un-Constitutional. No doubt you disapprove of the Citizens United descision, in which the Court held that when the First Amendment says "The Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...", that it means what the plain language says. If upholding the plain language of the Constitution means "right-wing", then we need lots more of that.

Wall Street and the Big Banks are begging state attorney generals for immunity. The truly innocent do not beg for immunity. These White-collar crooks are asking for "deals" to save their rumps from criminal prosecution. Their illegal activities collapsed America's economy. The state A.G.s should hold them fully accountable.

Meanwhile, the SEC (populated by government-loving bureaucrats, not publicity-seeking elected officials) has admitted that housing meltdown could not have happened absent bad-government policy demanding the actions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without which there could never have been a housing bubble. The only actions I know of against the Banks are re foreclosure procedures. I'm in favor of everyone following the law, but the accusations are small-potatoes compared to your hyperventilation. No one I know of is accusing the banks of foreclosing on anyone who has actually paid their mortgage.

I expect that your understanding of the housing bubble and its crash is about as robust as the rest of your confusion. Once again, let me say that I'm all for personal responsibility. Where's your outrage over the millions of people who took out "liar loans" - every one of them fraudulent? People who borrowed tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars on the complete fraudulent claim that they had substantial incomes with which to repay the loans. Do I hear you demanding justice from them? If not, why not? They were as much at fault as anyone. And by the way, since it probably hasn't occurred to you, or you just don't understand, they were the big winners in the housing fiasco. They got to live for years in houses that they could not/did not pay for. The victims were the Wall Street types, the Banks, the insurance companies, and the investors who ended up holding their trash paper.

"then how would you explain that nearly twice as many black women are receiving college degrees these days than black men?"

The fracturing of the African-American community has forced many Black women to be the head of the household. Unfortunately, too many Black males are targeted for incarceration.

Yet another masterpiece of illogic... The only way that your reply makes logical sense would be to suggest that the usual order is that black women become heads of single-parent households and then go to college. Surely you don't suggest that, let alone believe it. As for the "targeting" of black men for incarceration, are you suggesting that they're being sent to jail without having first committed serious crimes? Forgive the stereotype here, but are you suggesting that your average ghetto thug (of any race) would go on to engineering school were it not for his arrest record?

Next time you visit this forum, please come with facts.

Not only have I come with facts, none of which you have refuted, but they are also appropos to the subject, which many of yours are not.

Finally, I'll quote Dr. King, too. I was in D.C. the day MLK gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. I wanted to go listen, but I was an out-of-town teenager whose local host feared for my safety if I went.

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.

Today, the biggest obstacle to that dream is government-mandated, government-instituted discrimination. It goes under the name "affirmative action".

"Today, the biggest obstacle to that dream is government-mandated, government-instituted discrimination. It goes under the name "affirmative action".

Affirmative Action is simply a plan to aggressively recruit minorities, particularly for positions in which they are underrepresented. There is no evidence, save the anecdotal white candidate who feels that he/she lost their specific opportunity to someone who was black, for example. Unemployment among blacks i significantly higher than unemplyment among whites and white males still significantly dominate the category of "officials and managers" with the number for blacks remaining virtually stagnate over the last twenty years.

But, beyonf that, I can tell you that hiring practicies would revert right back to the discrimination of the past were it not for EEO legislation and affirmative action. White males still enjoy the position of most preferable when it somes to employment.

Just look at how some of the republican cnadidates are characterizing blacks as a group. They want food stamps, welfare, have no role models , have no one that gets up and goes to a job on a regular basis and thier males do not want to get married. With this type of characterization coming from the potential leader of this country, how do you think employers will view blacks, in particular, when they apply for positions? I can tell you how-with suspicion.

I am black. I can tell you that no one in my family has ever been on welfare. They have all had jobs. My parents both worked. My father would sometimes work 7 days a week and any overtime he could get to make it better for his family. He also served his country honorably in the armed forces. He believed in a country that did not believe in him, but his patriotism never wavered.

So, when you quote MLK's famous speech, done't forget the part about america giving the negro a check that was marked insufficient funds. Most right wing conservatives conveniently leave that part out. Additinally, when he talked about people being judged by the content of their character rather than their skin color, do you really think that he was not referring primarily to blacks? Give me a break. Do you know the history of discrimination in thie country. Whites didn't need a King speech. They were not being judged by their color. Come on, think.

Affirmative action has done a couple of things-one, created tremendous advancement for white females and two, allowed qualified blacks to be considered for positions that they had been excluded form in the past. But, for those who believe in the white supremacy model that permeates this society, you and those who think like you would always assume that if a black is hired over a white, the white was more qualified.

No, my friend, the biggest obstacle to that dream is the cumulative effect of racism over the years , particularly economically, that has limited the black community's ability to progress at the same rate as whites. Have you seen the average income disparity?

By the way, before you point out that there are many black professionals and highly educated individuals out there who are successful, I will agree with that. But the true measure of equality will be when the average black, non-college graduate, working class individual matches their white counterpart on the standards of success in this country. By the way, highly educated and qualified blacks certainly will do better, but on the whole they are not doing as well as their white counterparts.

Al,

There is no evidence, save the anecdotal white candidate who feels that he/she lost their specific opportunity to someone who was black, for example

Your statement is, unfortunately, wrong. Yes, I have cited personal anecdote (and noted its irrelevance). I would dare say that nearly everyone belonging to any of the "unprotected classes" can tell similar stories. Do you think that's good for society and racial harmony?

But let me cite Charles Murray again. The issue is complicated and is not convincingly boiled down into just a few sentences. I would cite "The Bell Curve", particularly chapters 19 and 20 for a detailed explaination and summary of the work done by those in the field. There's a lot there. I believe numbers are valid and the conclusions justified.

You are obviously sensitive to negative stereotypes about work, welfare, et al. Who could blame you? But I would invite you to read anything I've ever written and you won't find a single word from me subscribing to any of them. Not even a hint.

Additinally, when he talked about people being judged by the content of their character rather than their skin color, do you really think that he was not referring primarily to blacks?

Interesting question, that. It had never occurred to me that he wasn't speaking to everyone about everyone. Let us both hope that my take on the speech is correct. If it's not, MLK loses the great moral authority that he commanded. I think it dangerous to his legacy to posit that he didn't mean for his words to be taken literally and universally.

Humans have survived over the millenia in part because they can sort through huge amounts of trivial events and then organize and generalize their knowlege. That trait also causes us to make associations in our minds that we call "prejudices". Everyone has them. Those without them are probably defective.

I'm going to name two of mine here and suggest that they are widely held among Caucasian males of a certain age. First, let me tell you what is NOT a prejudice of mine. I live in a pretty white, upscale neighborhood. I don't care a bit what color people move in next door. If they have the wherewith-all to buy the house, then I'm confident that they're substantial people of good character. That said, here are two of my "race-based prejudices".

First, I'm impressed by any black man (or woman) who is competent and successful in the professional world. I figure that for whatever level of accomplishment they've achieved, it's probably required a little more talent and hard work than it might have for guys like me. I enjoy seeing such people living successful lives.

My other prejudice is not so happy. When I see people of protected/favored classes in positions where the largest challenge is to gain entry into the position (e.g. entrance to elite colleges), I can't help but wonder if that person would have been there were he/she a white male. How awful is that? I've even wondered about our President. Were he a white man, could he have gotten into Harvard Law School? No one will ever know, and that's the damage done by affirmative action. As long as we have the EEO demanding quotas, that stigma will never go away. Is that really what you want?

I don't dispute anything you've written about past discrimination. The Civil Right Act(s) have truly changed our society, and for the better. I hope you'll believe me when I tell you that I am completely in favor of the MLK standard that I quoted - and I mean that for one and all. Reasonable men can differ about where to go from here, but as I've said above, I believe that we're stuck here as long as there is government-sponsored discrimination.

"When I see people of protected/favored classes in positions where the largest challenge is to gain entry into the position (e.g. entrance to elite colleges), I can't help but wonder if that person would have been there were he/she a white male. How awful is that? I've even wondered about our President. Were he a white man, could he have gotten into Harvard Law School? No one will ever know, and that's the damage done by affirmative action."

This comment proves my point. Obama did not just graduate from Harvard Law. He graduated as editor of the Law Review and Magna Cum Laude. Given that, why would you question his qualifications? I guarantee that you would not question them were he white.

By the way, when candidates apply for admission to a law school there are several criteria. Clearly, academic record and scores on the LSAT are paramount. But, the admissions committees usually have the leeway to take other students who may not have scored as high, but who show potential and promise on other levels. This could include white students as well.

But here is the important thing. It is important to have diversity in these elite institutions. That does not mean that clearly unqualified students should be admitted. That means that other criteria can be taken into ccount whne deciding admissions. Why is this important? It is important because often those with degrees from the elite universities get preferential treatment as a result of their attendance at those universities. However, believe it or not, there are many blacks who have high GPA's and score high on Standardized tests. When you wonder about their admission, you are simply confirming the race prejudice that exists in yourself because the only reason you are questioning their admittance is skin color. You have no other information to go on.

By the way, George Bush has an MBA from Yale. He is a self prroclaimed C student. How do you think he got in. It is called a legacy program. Daddy Bush got him in. This is white male affirmative action, if you will.

Additionally, if someone gets inot an elite university with an application that is overall lower than most of those admitted and they do exceptionally well don't you have to question the admissions requirements in teh first place?

This is always a fascinating discussion to me. I always wonder how people like you know whether the white person who got the job was the best qualified or not. But, I guess then it doesn't matter because they have the ultimate qualification-white skin.

Al,

I was previously aware of every fact you listed above. None of them change my thinking on the subject. I'll explain later, but first I'd like to make a point that I find very interesting.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't think you meant any offense, so I'll take none, but you've made prejudiced, stereotypical (and incorrect) statements about me all through your post.

I guarantee that you would not question them were he white.

You're exactly right. Forty-five years ago, I wouldn't have questioned them either. You accuse me of racial prejudice. That's not it at all. I accuse college admissions officers of racial prejudice. When you live in my world, you see it all the time, just as you've no doubt seen different prejudices in your world. Would you like to hear about the black doctor's son down the street from me who had his choice of nearly any elite school he wanted to attend? Intellectually, he couldn't carry my daughter's pencils, but he had much better access to the elite schools. Unlike my daughter, his class standing and SAT scores were mediocre. Just like my daughter, he grew up with "every advantage". In short, his big advantage was his race. Period. And he was no doubt accepted in lieu of the disadvantaged white and Asian children from the other side of town, too. Now, my daughters have done just fine and I wish the young man well, but I see race-based discrimination. I think it's ugly.

You cite the usual "diversity" rhetoric. Colleges don't want diversity. If they did, they wouldn't have favored the doctor's son who is just like every other YUPPIE's kid around here. All the kids around here, white, black, Asian, polka-dot, or whatever, all dress alike, speak alike, and act alike. You don't see any of the elite colleges favoring Evangelical Christians, or even Republicans, do you? How about gang members? Do you get any points for that? How about kids with criminal records? No points for that? They don't much want the poor white kids from the run-down neighborhoods who only scored 2300 on their SATs, either. They want the "right" mix of races so the EEO bureaucrats and the Al Sharpton race-hustler wannabees won't bother them.

A few years ago, the citizens of Michigan felt a need to pass an amendment to their state constitution banning racial discrimination by the government. You might wonder why such an amendment would be necessary (or how its passage might change existing law), but one of the reasons was the blatant discrimination in their college admissions. What was really sad was listening to the supporters of state-sponsored discrimination tie themselves in knots trying to justify themselves. You almost had to feel sorry for them.

You wrote about George W. Bush as though I approved of his situation at Yale. Except for your prejudices, why would you think that? I don't believe I've ever written a word except to support a meritocracy. Can you show me an example to the contrary?

However, believe it or not, there are many blacks who have high GPA's and score high on Standardized tests

Well, of course. Why would anyone think otherwise? What prejudices do you have that make you think I don't already know that?

I always wonder how people like you know whether the white person who got the job was the best qualified or not.

People like me? Sounds like stereotyping again. To answer the implied question, I don't know if companies hire the most qualified people for jobs or not. To be charitable, HR is at best an inexact art. Most likely they don't do a very efficient job at hiring the best possible applicant. But I can tell you this, when you use race as one of the criteria, you are less likely to make the best hire. In my world (math/statistics/engineering), that is a statistical fact. Once doesn't have to like it, but neither can one deny it.

Getting back to the issue of President Obama and Harvard. Your defense of him illustrates my point. Why did you feel it necessary to mention the Law Review and Magna Cum Laude? Were he a WASP male from a middle- or lower- class family, one would assume that he must have gotten in based on talent. But you didn't make an argument like that, and that's what I lament. Affirmative action has become a detriment, a stigma, to those it means to favor.

Once again, reasonable men can debate the best solutions to social problems. I don't doubt that you sincerely believe your ideas/solutions are better than mine, but I would ask you to understand that mine are sincerely held beliefs, too. Even if you don't agree that they would be better public policy, I hope you will at least consider their benefits before you reject them as thoughtless prejudice.

Al,

Additinally, when he talked about people being judged by the content of their character rather than their skin color, do you really think that he was not referring primarily to blacks?

Thinking more about this, I'm even more convinced that MLK surely meant everyone. If not, then is it OK to just assume that white people are superior because of their skin color?

Dr. King surely meant everyone. Without that, the quote is hollow.

" In short, his big advantage was his race. Period. And he was no doubt accepted in lieu of the disadvantaged white and Asian children from the other side of town, too."

What were his scores? What other activities did he engage in that might be appealing to an admissions officer? How many other blacks were going to be admitted to the class? Now, I am sure that you think the last question here is irrelevant, but it isn't. Again, access to these elite schools gives graduates preferential treatment in the job market or profession they choose to follow. Most of the US Presidents have attended Ivy League schools, for example. Harvard on your resume looks a lot better than Podunk State. It is about access. The fact is that the white student who has the grades to get inot Harvard and doesn't will no doubt get into Yale, Princeton, Brown or some other elite institution. But, this society does not have an issue with whites attending these schools. It does have an issue with black economic power on a macro scale though. Universities that have sought to create diverse environments by including qualified minorities as students are doing the country a service long term. We need more successful people across the board if we are to succeed as a country.

But, here is the interesting thing. No one questions a blacks admittance to say Georgetown if they are a basketball player. I wonder why?

A few years ago, the citizens of Michigan felt a need to pass an amendment to their state constitution banning racial discrimination by the government

I am sure that they did. The University of Michigan is considered the Harvard of the Big Ten. Once again, a presitigious university whose appearance on a resume enhances it considerably. Add to that the competition for admission because of in state tuition, and suddenly some people are feeling disadvantaged. But, I would argue that a state school has more of an obligation to attempt to reflect the demographics of its population because everyone pays taxes in the state and should be entitled to the same benefits.

You wrote about George W. Bush as though I approved of his situation at Yale. Except for your prejudices, why would you think that? I don't believe I've ever written a word except to support a meritocracy. Can you show me an example to the contrary?

No, but you didn't question Bush's admission to an elite university with an admitted C average.

But I can tell you this, when you use race as one of the criteria, you are less likely to make the best hire. In my world (math/statistics/engineering), that is a statistical fact

Cite the statistics. Hereis the thing that you are missing. For 80% of this country's existence it has been legal in one way or another to discriminate against blacks. Now imagine starting a ten hour race, eight hours behind. How are you ever able to catch up? So, if you really believe the Constitution and everything the flag stands for, you have to do something to right those wrongs. So, the first thing you do is make sure that qualified people who have historically been discriminated against are given opportunities that they should have had in the first place. The only displacement of whites occurs through the normal evaluation process. Affirmative action does not require people to hire unqualified individuals. It doesn't. The only times that companies, for example, have been forced to hire minorities is when they have been convicted of egregious discrimination and it is a part of a court decree. Affirmative action and federal contractor programs require definite action towards meeting the goals of parity with every position. What that simply means is that if 20% of the available workforce in the area is black, they should have at least 80% of that to achieve parity. If they canot achieve it and can demonstrate an effort to achieve it, they are fine. In fact, unless you are a federal contractor, you are not required to have an affirmative action program. So, much of the railing against affirmative action and the myth of reverse discrimnation is specious at best.

Getting back to the issue of President Obama and Harvard. Your defense of him illustrates my point. Why did you feel it necessary to mention the Law Review and Magna Cum Laude? Were he a WASP male from a middle- or lower- class family, one would assume that he must have gotten in based on talent.

The fact that I cited President Obama's achievements is not a defense, it is a statement of fact. Your assertion that you wondered how he got into Harvard prompted my response. Since we both probably became aware of Obama's existence at roughly the same time, I woould assume that we became aware of his educational background similarly as well. What we know is that he went to Occidental College and transferred to Columbia. He graduated from Columbia and went on to Harvard Law where he distinguished himself academically. That is all that you or I know about it. What, in that narrative, would prompt you to question his admission to Harvard Law? He attended an elite undergraduate school and went on to an elite law school.

You are correct. If he were white there would not be a question. Seemingly, academic excellence is not always a prerequisite for white candidates. Look at Rick Perry. He has mediocre grades from Texas A&M, yet many think the would make a great president. Amazing. If he were elected, would you say that he was the best qualified for the position?

Reasonable men can agree on many things. I can agree on this. I do not know what is in your heart or if you are a racist. What I do know is that there are certain ideas that tend to be racist.

I work in HR in corporate america. I can tell you that they hire who they want to hire. I ran the rescruitment function of a major corporation and can tell you categorically that we had no mandate to hire blacks for any positions. We had a mandate not to discriminate and to make sure that our recruitment efforts included minorities. But, on any given job there was no expectation that a black candidate had to be hired over a white. Generally speaking we would present three final candidates for every postion. In the vast majority of cases, any one of the three would be capable of doing the job. Often there wasn't a dimes worth of difference among them. In those cases, if one was black and the other two were white, and there were no other tie breakers, and that organization had no blacks, for example, the black candidate would have an edge. So, was this an egregious use of race. Perhaps you would see it that way. But, remember you are often talking aobut lilly white departments. Were they discriminating in the past? Are you equally as concerned aobut that?

Are things getting better? Sure. But remember we are trying to counter years of systemic discrimination in housing, education, employment, mortgage lending and virtually everything else. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is 48 years old. That is a blip on the screen historically. We are not there yet.

Just one last thought on Obama. Here is a guy who did the right thing. He went to school, was a model citizen, distinguished himself, got married and had a family, and was extremely successful in his career. Right wing conservatives rant and rave about following a certain model of responsibilty if you are going to succeed in this country. Essentially they say that high unemployment and poverty in the black community is cultural, not economic. Yet, here is a man who has done all of the right things, even according to the right wing, and they still find it necessary to belittle his educational achievement for example. Sean Hannity once said in reference to Obama and Harvard that "Harvard isn't what it used to be."

When I see that, I do question their motivation. You certainly have righ to disagree with his policies or anyone's policies. But, what I am seeing with Obama is going far beyond that. What I feel that I am seeing with some parts of white america is going far beyond that. It is beginning to look like a rush to the past.

Economan;

MLK's comment about "content of character" would not have beennecessary had blacks been evaluated by that standard. Certainly,he meant it for everyone, but he was saying it because it had not been applied to blacks. That is my point. That speech contained a lot. Most of which is never quoted. That part is very convenient when soem are trying to derail corrective actions because of discrimination. I am sure that King did not have that in mind.

Al,

First, thanks for a thoughtful (and polite!) reply.

access to these elite schools gives graduates preferential treatment in the job market or profession they choose to follow.

Of all the things you wrote, I would judge that one to be the most "on-point" and valid. I have no doubt that it is true, and it's relevant to the subject. Let me cite personal anecdote. In my business career, I worked closely for a while with a man who had a degree from Harvard. Without knowing anything else about him, I figured that he had to be a smart guy. Why is that? Because white males pretty much needed to have perfect SAT scores, and be valedictorian of their high school class to have a mere 10% chance of being admitted to Harvard.

Now, here's the problem, and I think you should be concerned even more than I. For blacks, those qualifications would pretty much guarantee acceptance. Perfect SAT scores are not necessary. A lot of people know that nearly all the elite colleges reach farther down into the SAT scores to admit favored minorities than for white males. (If one is of Asian descent, the standards are higher at many schools!) The instant (and perhaps undeserved) respect my colleague gained from me isn't so readily gained by someone in a favored group. It's not because I'm "racist", it's because I know how admissions work. The value of a Harvard sheepskin is devalued for certain minorities by their admissions policies. Let me re-iterate: It's not my fault; it's the universities' admission standards' fault. It's Bayes Law at work.

Cite the statistics

It's not a matter of citing explicit statistics. It's a mathematical fact that if you add irrelevant variance into a statistical population that your selection process will be degraded. If you've taken a college level statistics course, surely you understand. I'm going to guess that you haven't, or it just wasn't your cup of tea, so I'll try to make a simplified analogy. If I'm "talking down" to you, I apologize. In any case, we can hope 25Walker reads this because I'm pretty sure he could learn something from it.

Here goes: Suppose you have, say, 100 candidates for a job, and each one has a rating from 1 to 100. The higher the number the better candidate he is. Furthermore, let's suppose that those numbers are perfect predictors of the candidates' job performances. (The real world's not that perfect, but please bear with me.) Now, if that were so, the HR guy could just select the candidate(s )with the highest number(s) and he'd absolutely have picked the very best candidate(s) for the job, right?

OK, now suppose that the HR guy decides that he's going to muddle the numbers by adding the candidates birth date (just the day of the month) to each score. That is, he's going to add a more or less random number that has nothing to do with job performance to each of the scores. This is exactly analogous to considering race when hiring for a job. (Do you agree that race is irrelevant? I think it's irrelevant.) Suddenly, the HR guy is no longer able to know which the best candidates are. He almost certainly will not pick the very best candidates for the job. Once the sample size is more than a few dozen, it's a near statistical certainty. When the sample size is millions, the likelihood of picking the best is infinitessimally small. Economically, affirmative action is a loser.

I would argue that a state school has more of an obligation to attempt to reflect the demographics of its population because everyone pays taxes in the state and should be entitled to the same benefits.

Another good argument. Let me digress. I've thought for many years that one way you can roughly place people on the left-right, liberal-conservative scale is by the following test. Consider two important values: One I'll call social justice - roughly meaning that society should be fair and that there is some minimum standard of living available to all. The other I'll call economic efficiency. That is, we need to run things so that the economic pie (that is divided among us all) is as large as possible. Very often, those two ideals compete with each other. I believe that you can sort out people's left-right political leanings by sorting out the relative importance they assign to those two values. The left tends to favor social justice more; the right tends to favor economic efficiency more. You've probably figured out that I'm over on the right where we believe that without economic efficiency, social justice is impossible.

I wrote all that because your quote raises the issue of competing values. I would say, however, that all the competition is in the social justice side of the equation. I understand your point - it's a good one. But I would also point out two downsides to it. As I've said, I'm opposed to governments, in particular, discriminating by race. It's just wrong, even if there are good reasons to do it. The other downside is that the beneficiaries are stigmatized, just as I've tried to explain. Reasonable men can argue which values are more important. It appears that we will continue to disagree.

We had a mandate not to discriminate and to make sure that our recruitment efforts included minorities

That's a benign sounding statement, but I just can't see how it's consistent with itself. Suppose you run an ad requesting people to apply for a job (or however it is you do that these days) and only white males respond. Then what? I think one has to wink just a little to claim your next step isn't discriminatory.

Affirmative action does not require people to hire unqualified individuals.

Actually, it would appear that it does. I don't have an explicit link to cite, but over the years, we've all read in the papers where courts have ordered cities to dumb down their police and fire tests so that they could find enough minority candidates to hire. We've all read of cases where the white applicants' scores were separated from the black applicants' scores and the "correct" number of applicants were selected from each. To your claim that unqualified people were not hired, one need only look at the D.C. police force. A once respected police force has been made incompetent and corrupt by affirmative action. QED

Regarding your section on "goals" and "parity": Now, it's a private business and I happen to believe that private businessmen should be able to waste their own money however they want, but...

I'll facetiously tell you that I'm concerned about racism in the NBA. Even though blacks constitute roughly 20% of the population, the NBA appears to be perhaps 70-80% black. (I don't have exact numbers, but when was the last time you saw an all-white lineup in the NBA? You see all-black lineups on many teams.) Shouldn't we have an affirmative action basketball program for white males? There must be terrible discrimination going on there. What would you propose? And how is that situation any different from other businesses?

Moving to a less facetious issue: How about the armed forces? Do you favor quotas there? If not, why not? I mention these, not to pick an argument over them, but to challenge you to test your own consistency. My position is consistent. It's easy. No government discrimination. Period. And to my knowlege, the armed forces are among the best meritocracies in the country - certainly at the government level, but various ethnic groups are represented way out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.

Getting back to President Obama: You correctly described the history of my knowlege of him. There are lots of brilliant people, some of whom apply to Harvard. Harvard rejects most of them every year. It is well-known that Harvard (and nearly every other selective college) lowers its academic standards for favored minorities. And that is the problem. The most brilliant guy in the world will be suspect if all people know is that he was a favored type of minority admitted to Harvard. I think we can agree that we both think that quite unfortunate, and it's caused by affirmative action. Regardless of whether or not you think affirmative action is worthwhile, it's important to consider the downside, too.

Re Sean Hannity: I think he's an intellectual lightweight loudmouth who is an embarrassment to conservatives everywhere. I disclaim any responsibility for him or anyone who thinks highly of him.

One of your themes has been the historical treatment of blacks in this country. I'm old enough to remember the 1950s. Times were very different, especially in the South. But I'm failing to see what that has to do with today's youth. I'm sure you can expound on that, but my real question is:

The schools I attended as a boy have turned into crummy inner-city schools with a mix of ethnic groups, none a majority, but who all have the common background that they're poor. The schools are lousy, discipline is poor, not a lot of education happens there. My question is how does the white child's experience differ from the black or Hispanic child's experience? I think the real problem is that they are poor, and their parents are uneducated. Expectations are low and the children meet the expectations in every way. The fact that some of them had ancestors that they never met who were slaves seems incredibly irrelevant to me. Why not to you?

It's been a pleasure reading your posts.

Of all the things you wrote, I would judge that one to be the most "on-point" and valid. I have no doubt that it is true, and it's relevant to the subject. Let me cite personal anecdote. In my business career, I worked closely for a while with a man who had a degree from Harvard. Without knowing anything else about him, I figured that he had to be a smart guy. Why is that? Because white males pretty much needed to have perfect SAT scores, and be valedictorian of their high school class to have a mere 10% chance of being admitted to Harvard.

Let's be honest. There is never an assumption of ignorance for white guys. They have to prove that they are ignorant. You were impressed with his Harvard credentials, but you probably did not have a negative opinion of his intellectual abilities anyway.

Now, here's the problem, and I think you should be concerned even more than I. For blacks, those qualifications would pretty much guarantee acceptance. Perfect SAT scores are not necessary. A lot of people know that nearly all the elite colleges reach farther down into the SAT scores to admit favored minorities than for white males. (If one is of Asian descent, the standards are higher at many schools!) The instant (and perhaps undeserved) respect my colleague gained from me isn't so readily gained by someone in a favored group. It's not because I'm "racist", it's because I know how admissions work. The value of a Harvard sheepskin is devalued for certain minorities by their admissions policies. Let me re-iterate: It's not my fault; it's the universities' admission standards' fault. It's Bayes Law at work.

So, let me get this straight. I get into Harvard with very good scores, do ell and graduate, and because there were some with higher scores than me, my degree is devalued? On what basis? I did the work and earned the degree. I would submit that it is not my degree that is devalued, it is me.By the way, would the same hold true for a white that gets into Harvard with lower scores than some other whites who might have been rejected?

Cite the statistics

It's not a matter of citing explicit statistics. It's a mathematical fact that if you add irrelevant variance into a statistical population that your selection process will be degraded. If you've taken a college level statistics course, surely you understand. I'm going to guess that you haven't, or it just wasn't your cup of tea, so I'll try to make a simplified analogy. If I'm "talking down" to you, I apologize. In any case, we can hope 25Walker reads this because I'm pretty sure he could learn something from it.

Here goes: Suppose you have, say, 100 candidates for a job, and each one has a rating from 1 to 100. The higher the number the better candidate he is. Furthermore, let's suppose that those numbers are perfect predictors of the candidates' job performances. (The real world's not that perfect, but please bear with me.) Now, if that were so, the HR guy could just select the candidate(s )with the highest number(s) and he'd absolutely have picked the very best candidate(s) for the job, right?

OK, now suppose that the HR guy decides that he's going to muddle the numbers by adding the candidates birth date (just the day of the month) to each score. That is, he's going to add a more or less random number that has nothing to do with job performance to each of the scores. This is exactly analogous to considering race when hiring for a job. (Do you agree that race is irrelevant? I think it's irrelevant.) Suddenly, the HR guy is no longer able to know which the best candidates are. He almost certainly will not pick the very best candidates for the job. Once the sample size is more than a few dozen, it's a near statistical certainty. When the sample size is millions, the likelihood of picking the best is infinitessimally small. Economically, affirmative action is a loser.

A few years back, USA Today did a survey of whites across the country. What they found was that 80% of whites felt that blacks were less intelligent, less hard working and less patriotic than whites. These are the same people who set up the 100 point scale and evaluste candidates against it. In other words, with blacks competence and intelligence is never asumed, with whites it is. So, you may have a black who scores 80 on the criteria that is set up, but maybe that 80 was acquired with significant effort in a situation with limited resources. Add to that, the normal devaluation of blacks generally, and that 80 may be equivalent to a 90. These things are not an exact science, as I believe you have already stated.

I would argue that a state school has more of an obligation to attempt to reflect the demographics of its population because everyone pays taxes in the state and should be entitled to the same benefits.

Another good argument. Let me digress. I've thought for many years that one way you can roughly place people on the left-right, liberal-conservative scale is by the following test. Consider two important values: One I'll call social justice - roughly meaning that society should be fair and that there is some minimum standard of living available to all. The other I'll call economic efficiency. That is, we need to run things so that the economic pie (that is divided among us all) is as large as possible. Very often, those two ideals compete with each other. I believe that you can sort out people's left-right political leanings by sorting out the relative importance they assign to those two values. The left tends to favor social justice more; the right tends to favor economic efficiency more. You've probably figured out that I'm over on the right where we believe that without economic efficiency, social justice is impossible.

I wrote all that because your quote raises the issue of competing values. I would say, however, that all the competition is in the social justice side of the equation. I understand your point - it's a good one. But I would also point out two downsides to it. As I've said, I'm opposed to governments, in particular, discriminating by race. It's just wrong, even if there are good reasons to do it. The other downside is that the beneficiaries are stigmatized, just as I've tried to explain. Reasonable men can argue which values are more important. It appears that we will continue to disagree.

The government is the people. all of the people. I believe that it is the government's job to a reasonable extent to make sure that as many people as possible are successful in this society. Not to make them successful, but to guarantee that they have the opportunity. A daewinian approach to opportunity will create a permanent chasm between the haves and the have nots. We are already seeing it economically.

We had a mandate not to discriminate and to make sure that our recruitment efforts included minorities

That's a benign sounding statement, but I just can't see how it's consistent with itself. Suppose you run an ad requesting people to apply for a job (or however it is you do that these days) and only white males respond. Then what? I think one has to wink just a little to claim your next step isn't discriminatory.

Not at all. There were numerous instances where all of the candidates for a particular position were white. Obviously regional differences impact this considerably. In those situations whites were hired. The point is that the effort is made to attract minorities, not guarantee them employment. Remember, affirmative action was basically started to combat the chilling effect that might have prevented minorities from applying for positions and to companies where they had previously been excluded.

Affirmative action does not require people to hire unqualified individuals.

Actually, it would appear that it does. I don't have an explicit link to cite, but over the years, we've all read in the papers where courts have ordered cities to dumb down their police and fire tests so that they could find enough minority candidates to hire. We've all read of cases where the white applicants' scores were separated from the black applicants' scores and the "correct" number of applicants were selected from each. To your claim that unqualified people were not hired, one need only look at the D.C. police force. A once respected police force has been made incompetent and corrupt by affirmative action. QED

I would suggest that the quality of applicants for the DC police force has more to do with the perception of the qulity of the job than some dumbing down of standards. They are probably just not attracting the sharpest knives in the drawer. The reality is that many paper and pencil tests were designed to exclude minorities and females. In many cases it was found that these tests had little relation to the jobs in question.

Regarding your section on "goals" and "parity": Now, it's a private business and I happen to believe that private businessmen should be able to waste their own money however they want, but...

If the company is a federal contractor, they are using federal money directly, and that money is available because of taxes that everyone pays, black and white.

I'll facetiously tell you that I'm concerned about racism in the NBA. Even though blacks constitute roughly 20% of the population, the NBA appears to be perhaps 70-80% black. (I don't have exact numbers, but when was the last time you saw an all-white lineup in the NBA? You see all-black lineups on many teams.) Shouldn't we have an affirmative action basketball program for white males? There must be terrible discrimination going on there. What would you propose? And how is that situation any different from other businesses?

Good example. The evaluation of players in the NBA is fairly objective. Blacks and other minorities fair much better in situations where the evaluation criteria is objective. By the way, there are no bad black basketball players in the NBA either and good white players are able to get in.

Moving to a less facetious issue: How about the armed forces? Do you favor quotas there? If not, why not? I mention these, not to pick an argument over them, but to challenge you to test your own consistency. My position is consistent. It's easy. No government discrimination. Period. And to my knowlege, the armed forces are among the best meritocracies in the country - certainly at the government level, but various ethnic groups are represented way out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.

The armed forces is voluntary and generally objective in its assessment of performance. When these conditions exist, there is no need for additional action. By the way, I never said that I favored quotas. I favor outreach to all groups.

Getting back to President Obama: You correctly described the history of my knowlege of him. There are lots of brilliant people, some of whom apply to Harvard. Harvard rejects most of them every year. It is well-known that Harvard (and nearly every other selective college) lowers its academic standards for favored minorities. And that is the problem. The most brilliant guy in the world will be suspect if all people know is that he was a favored type of minority admitted to Harvard. I think we can agree that we both think that quite unfortunate, and it's caused by affirmative action. Regardless of whether or not you think affirmative action is worthwhile, it's important to consider the downside, too.

But, unlike you, I did not question President Obama's credentials for admission to Harvard. I questioned George Bush's credentials for admission to Yale.And, we really do not know how President Obama got into Harvard. He could have had a 4.0 GPA and the highest score on the LSAT's. you dont really know, do you? So, why assume something different?

By the way, I commend Harvard for their outreach to poor and minority students. They have a program for poor students that will allow them to attend Harvard for free if they can get in. This is good. This kind of program helps to some extent to correct for the economic differences in life that might preclude a student from getting a first class Ivy League education.

Re Sean Hannity: I think he's an intellectual lightweight loudmouth who is an embarrassment to conservatives everywhere. I disclaim any responsibility for him or anyone who thinks highly of him.

He is also a racist in my view.

One of your themes has been the historical treatment of blacks in this country. I'm old enough to remember the 1950s. Times were very different, especially in the South. But I'm failing to see what that has to do with today's youth. I'm sure you can expound on that, but my real question is:

The schools I attended as a boy have turned into crummy inner-city schools with a mix of ethnic groups, none a majority, but who all have the common background that they're poor. The schools are lousy, discipline is poor, not a lot of education happens there. My question is how does the white child's experience differ from the black or Hispanic child's experience? I think the real problem is that they are poor, and their parents are uneducated. Expectations are low and the children meet the expectations in every way. The fact that some of them had ancestors that they never met who were slaves seems incredibly irrelevant to me. Why not to you?

Again, it wasn't just slavery. For 80% of this country's existence it has been legal to discriminate against blacks in this country. This has resulted in systemic discrimination in housing, education, employment and other economic areas. That has a cumulative and macro effect. Now, I am not saying that any individual should not do as much as she or he can to improve their own situation, but certain negative overlays can effect groups negatively.No other group in the US has had that history. To act as if everything is absolutely equal now, and that somehow negates the negative past is myopic at best.

Are there some lazy black people-absolutely. Just like there are lazy white people, asian people etc. But when you have the kind of economic disparities that exist between whites and blacks in this country, I have to attribute it to something more than personal ambition.

Al,

Thanks for your (once again) considered reply. I think we could go back and forth forever and never have a meeting of the minds, and I think we've both made our points pretty well, so I'm going to just let it go here.

My very best wishes to you,

"Economan"

TekKnowledge "You think that whites are the only racists?............How i define racism, yes."

I suppose you don't even realize what a 'racist' statement that is. Racism is discriminating on the basis of race, and it doesn't matter whether a person is White, Black, Brown, Purple or Pink. People of every race and ethnic group can be racist with equal vigor.

kaybeetoys "ROY WILSON-336103 I am sorry to tell you that your opinion has no basis in reality. Mr. Obama's goal is to economically strengthen the middle class, the majority of whom are white."

You need to look up the difference between 'rhetoric' and 'reality'. With a little effort I could find dozens of government programs designed to benefit the 'poor', but I would challenge you to find 2 that are specifically designed for the 'Middle Class'.

Obama is demonizing those who are successful, paying lip service to the 'middle class', and focusing all of his attention on getting more benefits for the 'poor'.

Al-2739446 "we believe that without economic efficiency, social justice is impossible."

Excellent comment. It's only because of the success of the few that we are able to afford benefits for the 'poor', since the top 10% of income earners provide over 70% of the Federal income taxes that fund welfare programs.

In a similar discussion about 'preferences' based on race, I still remember a discussion with my university professor during the height of the 'Affirmative Action' debate, and he was in favor of giving preferential treatment to minorities to 'level the playing field', and his point was that, as long as a job candidate meets the 'minimum' standards for the job, they should be given preferential consideration if they were an underrepresented minority. I maintained that such an action would result in a mediocre business, which would be outperformed consistently by a similar company that awarded jobs based on the 'best' qualifications. The vast majority of the other students favored my position, but the professor's position is pretty common among teachers, the vast majority of whom are liberal - especially at the university level.

In the field of science there is no mediocre. Either you know it or you don't hence a level playing field with no discrimination.

Al,

I had "signed off" on this thread, but after more thought I want to return to what started our long exchange. You took issue with my not questioning Barack Obama's talents, but with my asking how did he get admitted to Harvard? I expect you think it racist thought on my part. Absolutely not. It's a rational application of Bayes Law.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a mathematician/statistician/engineer. I'm retired from a successful career that would not have been possible without massive use of Bayesian logic. If you know what Bayes Law is then I don't have to explain it. If you don't know it, it would be hard to explain it briefly. Instead, I'm going to show how you and I use it every day.

Having read your posts, I can conclude with near certainty that you are both intelligent and educated (i.e., at least a bachelors degree). How can I know that? It's not stereotyping (whatever that means) or "racist" thinking. It's Bayes Law at work.

First, you write well. Stupid people cannot write well, so reasoning backwards I can conclude that you must be a pretty smart guy. I can't be absolutely certain (someone could have written your posts for you, or some other highly improbable circumstance), but it's pretty safe to bet the wife and dog on it. I can also conclude that you have at least a bachelors degree. Your posts indicate that you're in HR. You're obviously knowledgeable and experienced at it. Well, it's very difficult to land a job like yours without a bachelors degree, right? So, once again reasoning backwards - just logic, nothing else - I figured out a lot about you.

OK, now let's make up a thought problem. Suppose you know that college XYZ's student body is made up of students, 95% of whom had perfect SAT scores. If you chose a student at random, you could be 95% sure that he had a perfect score on the SAT without knowing anything else about him, right?

OK, now suppose you also knew that there were two subgroups of that student body, those born in the first 11 months of the year, and those born in December. Furthermore, you just happen to know that in the first group, for whatever reason, everyone is required to have a perfect SAT score to be admitted to the school, but if you're born in December, a perfect SAT score is not necessary. Rounding the numbers a little, that means that the students born in December have roughly a 50% likelihood of having a perfect SAT score.

So, what can we think we know about the students? Well, if we know a student attended XYZ, then we know he's 95% likely to have had a perfect SAT score. But, if we know a student attended XYZ and was not born in December, then we know that he had a perfect SAT score with absolute certainty.

Now, suppose we learn that an XYZ student was born in December. Then how certain can we be that the student had a perfect SAT? The answer is "not very". It's about a coin toss, 50-50, that he did. Notice, that there is nothing here but pure logic. No racism, no prejudice, no whatever. Just logic. People, especially smart ones, think like that every day because it works.

Substitute "protected class" for "born in December" and you see just exactly why people like me think differently about protected classes. A rational person who knows the facts cannot make the same conclusions about protected classes that they can about the general population, and it's exactly because they're favored by the government. If you read my post again, you'll see that I was lamenting that fact. There was nothing, nada, racist about my post(s).

Al-2739446: ...Whites didn't need a King speech. They were not being judged by their color...

Yet in your posts you are consistently judging people by the color of their skin...

Also, you should know that King's comment about judging people by the content of their character WAS meant to apply to everyone. He wanted people to see each other for who they are, not a color or demographic.

Yet in your posts you are consistently judging people by the color of their skin...

In what way?

Also, you should know that King's comment about judging people by the content of their character WAS meant to apply to everyone. He wanted people to see each other for who they are, not a color or demographic.

No doubt, but the statement was made because that standard was NOT being applied to black people in particular.

Ecocnoman:

There is a book called "The Ultimate Guide to Law Schools". It is an excellent resource for anyone considering law school as it provides significant information on all of the top schools. That information includes, but is not limited to admissions statistics, financial aid, academic programs, demographics for the student body, and employment and salary information for graduates.

The copy that I have is a couple of years old, so the the data is not current. What it indicates is that for the Fall 2007 class, Harvard Law had 6,928 applicants. They accepted 817 which was at a rate of 12%. Out of those, 555 were actually enrolled. The GPA for the 25th to 75th percentile was 3.75-3.95. The Law School Admnissions Test for the 25th to 75th percentile was 170-175. 11.5% of those enrolled were black . 52.1% were white. The rest were obviosly distributed among other racial categories. Only Unknown and whites had higher rates of acceptance than blacks.

So, what this means is that for GPA's, 25% were over 3.95 and 25% were under 3.75. For LSAT's, 25% were over 175 and 25% were under 170. 180 is the highest score possible on the LSAT.

What this additionally means is that for those enrolled, the scores could vary for GPA's from probably 4.00 to something under 3.75, and for LSAT's from probably 180 to something under 170.

What this suggests is that the school did not simply pick off the highest scores, but looked at other variables for all applicants. So, let's accept your argument that blacks scored lower than anyone else. Let's say, hypothetically, that they had on average 3.7 GPA's and 168 on the LSAT's. Do you really think that that small difference in scores is a valid indication of ability to do the work? On the LSAT's for example, the difference could be as simple as someone guessing right and someone else guessing wrong.

Let's add another variable. Let's say that some of those admittted who did not have at least a 3.75GPA or 170 LSAT were products of inferior schools and worked extremely hard to get those scores. Does exceptional effort count for anything?

Now, let's be clear. I am not suggesting that every black who was enrolled had lower scores than the 50th percentile. I know too many who have blown those tests and GPA's away. Since you like anecdotes, here is one. My niece attended a major public university. She was in a Honors Program and graduated with a 3.8 in biological science I bleieve it was called. She scored extremely high on the medical school admissions test and was accepted by every school to which she applied. A couple were elite. She was offerred a full scholarship to one and an has decided to enroll there. For anyone to question this exceptional young lady's achievements on the basis of race and some notion of affirmative action would be criminal.

Jackie Robinson was the first black to play in Major League Baseball. Prior to his arrival, it was commonly believed by the white powers that be that blacks would be unable to compete in the Majors. However, Branch Rickey, the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, decided to recruit and hire Robinson. Was this affirmative action according to your definition of it. Keep in mind, there were many black plyers who were better than Robinson and white ones as well. Was Robinson taking some white player's job? Was Branch Rickey racist to pick Robinson on the basis, to a large degree, because of his blackness?

Now, let's take it a step further. Once Robinson succeeded, and actually excelled, othe black players were brought into the league who also excelled. Now, given your penchant for always tkaing the best, would it be safe to say that the exclusion of blacks calls into question all records set by whites in the Major Leagues?

I worked for a major corporation and could walk around that campus all day without seeing anothe black. They had some, but they were few and far in between. One day one of the managers there asked me how did I know that I was the best qualified person for my job. I replied that since I was not hiring myself, there was no way that I could know. Then I asked him if he knew whether he was the most qualified person for his postion. He said that he did not understand the question. Is this becoming clearer to you now? How could I possibly question him, a white man about qualifications? But, with me, without him knowing anything about my education or background, there was a question.

The issue Economan, is that the problem is always with the minority. One more example. While working at that same company. I was having lunch with my peers, my boss and his boss. Now, I was fairly hungry and just wanted to dive into my food when suddenly the ranking guy at the table asks me-"Why is it that ALL of the blacks always sit together in the cafeteria?" At that point, not even an extra strength Tums would have improved my digestion. Anyway, the cafeteria hed about 500 people. There were two tables of two blacks each sitting together. After resisting the urge to regurgitate, I collected myself and responded. I said-"Larry, some might ask that, but others might ask why 496 people are sitting together." There was dead silence and my boss changed the subject. Once again, what is wrong with these minorities.

Economan, I have seen all manner of racism and discrimination. While I am not consumed with it, I will never stop recognizing that exists. No black should feel guilty about that recognition, or as to why they got into a school or were hired. They should take advantage of the opportunity and move on. This idea that legions of deserving white people have been cast aside for undeserving black people just isn't true-period. Unfortunately, some whites just do not want to accept their own limitations and problems.

By the way, this is a good discussion and people can judge for themselves how they view it. But, I doubt that you would ever be able to see it from the perspective of a black man. Granted, I cannot see it from your perspective either, but I guarantee that it has not been as big of an issue in your life as it has in mine and other blacks.

Al, (I liked your idea of embedding comments into my text, so I'll do the same),

There is a book called "The Ultimate Guide to Law Schools". It is an excellent resource for anyone considering law school as it provides significant information on all of the top schools. That information includes, but is not limited to admissions statistics, financial aid, academic programs, demographics for the student body, and employment and salary information for graduates.

The copy that I have is a couple of years old, so the the data is not current. What it indicates is that for the Fall 2007 class, Harvard Law had 6,928 applicants. They accepted 817 which was at a rate of 12%. Out of those, 555 were actually enrolled. The GPA for the 25th to 75th percentile was 3.75-3.95. The Law School Admnissions Test for the 25th to 75th percentile was 170-175. 11.5% of those enrolled were black . 52.1% were white. The rest were obviosly distributed among other racial categories. Only Unknown and whites had higher rates of acceptance than blacks.

So, what this means is that for GPA's, 25% were over 3.95 and 25% were under 3.75. For LSAT's, 25% were over 175 and 25% were under 170. 180 is the highest score possible on the LSAT.

What this additionally means is that for those enrolled, the scores could vary for GPA's from probably 4.00 to something under 3.75, and for LSAT's from probably 180 to something under 170.

What this suggests is that the school did not simply pick off the highest scores, but looked at other variables for all applicants. So, let's accept your argument that blacks scored lower than anyone else. Let's say, hypothetically, that they had on average 3.7 GPA's and 168 on the LSAT's. Do you really think that that small difference in scores is a valid indication of ability to do the work? On the LSAT's for example, the difference could be as simple as someone guessing right and someone else guessing wrong.

If the LSATs are a useful predictor of performance or aptitude, then yes, I believe there is something there. Talent varies. It varies a lot, including at the top. Just because there is some randomness in the scores (guessing, etc.) doesn't mean that you can't conclude anything from the differences. There's an entire branch of mathematics (statistics) that says you can draw conclusions, and the conclusion is that higher scores likely are better, unless you have some way to know otherwise. Those who bet against that lose over the long run.

Let's add another variable. Let's say that some of those admittted who did not have at least a 3.75GPA or 170 LSAT were products of inferior schools and worked extremely hard to get those scores. Does exceptional effort count for anything?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If it takes exceptionally hard work at an inferior school to get into an elite school, the student might find that he is in over his head in the elite school.

Now, let's be clear. I am not suggesting that every black who was enrolled had lower scores than the 50th percentile. I know too many who have blown those tests and GPA's away. Since you like anecdotes, here is one. My niece attended a major public university. She was in a Honors Program and graduated with a 3.8 in biological science I bleieve it was called. She scored extremely high on the medical school admissions test and was accepted by every school to which she applied. A couple were elite. She was offerred a full scholarship to one and an has decided to enroll there. For anyone to question this exceptional young lady's achievements on the basis of race and some notion of affirmative action would be criminal.

I would divide your niece's story into two parts. The first part is the undeniable part - 3.8 in an Honors Program. That's a certainty. (Congratulations!) The second part (and I don't mean to offend) is that if I happen to know that the scholarship offering school has an "affirmative action" scholarship program, then Bayes Law cheapens the meaning of that accomplishment. Sorry, it's just plain math. That's exactly the problem I was lamenting when this exchange started. It's not your niece's fault; it's the college's fault, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Jackie Robinson was the first black to play in Major League Baseball. Prior to his arrival, it was commonly believed by the white powers that be that blacks would be unable to compete in the Majors. However, Branch Rickey, the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, decided to recruit and hire Robinson. Was this affirmative action according to your definition of it. Keep in mind, there were many black plyers who were better than Robinson and white ones as well. Was Robinson taking some white player's job? Was Branch Rickey racist to pick Robinson on the basis, to a large degree, because of his blackness?

I believe that Branch Rickey made a decision NOT to discriminate. I have no reason to believe that he chose Robinson because he was black. Every account I've ever heard was that Robinson was a fabulous ballplayer, perhaps not the very best in the league, but easily better than hoards of bench-warmers, one of whom lost his job to Robinson.

In those days, all the rest of the owners were committing a sort of "white affirmative action" wherein they favored whites over blacks (completely). Knowing that they were picking on some basis besides merit (i.e., race) lets us know that they fielded inferior teams compared to what they could have had. Now, in sports, we tend to remember the stars, who were no doubt big-league talent regardless. But if one looked at the bench-warmers, one could apply Bayes Law again and wonder "would they have made the big-leagues without 'white affirmative action'?"

Now, let's take it a step further. Once Robinson succeeded, and actually excelled, othe black players were brought into the league who also excelled. Now, given your penchant for always tkaing the best, would it be safe to say that the exclusion of blacks calls into question all records set by whites in the Major Leagues?

Yes. (Just like steroids have tainted some modern records.)

I worked for a major corporation and could walk around that campus all day without seeing anothe black. They had some, but they were few and far in between. One day one of the managers there asked me how did I know that I was the best qualified person for my job. I replied that since I was not hiring myself, there was no way that I could know. Then I asked him if he knew whether he was the most qualified person for his postion. He said that he did not understand the question. Is this becoming clearer to you now? How could I possibly question him, a white man about qualifications? But, with me, without him knowing anything about my education or background, there was a question.

The manager wasn't very bright, was he?

The issue Economan, is that the problem is always with the minority. One more example. While working at that same company. I was having lunch with my peers, my boss and his boss. Now, I was fairly hungry and just wanted to dive into my food when suddenly the ranking guy at the table asks me-"Why is it that ALL of the blacks always sit together in the cafeteria?" At that point, not even an extra strength Tums would have improved my digestion. Anyway, the cafeteria hed about 500 people. There were two tables of two blacks each sitting together. After resisting the urge to regurgitate, I collected myself and responded. I said-"Larry, some might ask that, but others might ask why 496 people are sitting together." There was dead silence and my boss changed the subject. Once again, what is wrong with these minorities.

With probably the exact same thought behind it, I might have answered wryly with mathematical precision, "I see a symmetry here...", and wait for Larry to figure it out.

Economan, I have seen all manner of racism and discrimination. While I am not consumed with it, I will never stop recognizing that exists. No black should feel guilty about that recognition, or as to why they got into a school or were hired. They should take advantage of the opportunity and move on. This idea that legions of deserving white people have been cast aside for undeserving black people just isn't true-period. Unfortunately, some whites just do not want to accept their own limitations and problems.

By the way, this is a good discussion and people can judge for themselves how they view it. But, I doubt that you would ever be able to see it from the perspective of a black man. Granted, I cannot see it from your perspective either, but I guarantee that it has not been as big of an issue in your life as it has in mine and other blacks.

Good summary, that last paragraph. And good day to you.

Economan:

First, in my niece's case, the scholarship she obtained was available to anyone and based solely on academic merit. Dismissing her accomplishments because of Bayes theory or any other theory is ludicrous.

Second, yes, scores can be useful predictors of success. However, when you are taliking about differentiating scores at Harvard, you are talking about high scores generally. In other words, there are no slouches in the group, some are just a little higher than others.

Third, even using Bayes Law, you have no way of knowing the academic record or test scores of the black applicant pool at Harvard. The one thing that you have not considered is that Harvard is going to attract teh cream of the crop as far as black applicants as well. That fact alone could throw Bayes Law, which you indicated only had a probability of 50% accuracy in the related example right ou to f the window.

Fourth, yes, a part of the reason Branch Rickey chose Jackie Robinson was because he was black. He was selected to be the first black in Major League Baseball. He was also selected because he had a college education and it was assumed that his demeanor would enable him to deal with horrendous racism he would face as the first black. Blackness was a significant part of his selection. Now, Rickey's ultimate goal may have been to prove that color had no bearing on baseball ability, but at the time Robinson was selected, that was not the belief. Incredibly, that foolish myth was held in the face of black barnstorming baseball teams beating white teams simply because of racism.

No, the owners were not engaging in "affirmative action" because there had been no discrimination against white players in the past. The owners were perpetuating a system of white supremacy that had existed in this country since it began.

Just a quick closing thought. Let's say that I have a son or daughter, black, who doesn't get into the elite school, works hard at another school, does well and has thier education entirely funded by me. Following your line of reasoning, I can expect my son or daughter's efforts to be totally devalued simply because they are black, and at the same time have my contribution as a parent similarly devalued. That, to me, makes racism a perfect system. Inferior if you do, inferior if you don't. I know that you did not use the words inferior, but I wonder what Bayes Law would say aboout the probability of them beinterpreted that way by most.

Anyway, I have never asked anyone white or black to give me any specials consideration because of my blackness. I simply don't want to be devalued because of it. Therefore, I have taken advantage of every opportunity presented to me to the best of my ability. I can say that I have never held a professional position that was beyond my ability or one in which I did not excel. Was I the "best" candidate for all of those positions? I don't know, and I don't care. I know enough about the selection process to know that it is not a perfect system, and that people often use whatever advantage they can to manipulate it. So, whether you or others would look at me and say there goes a black man who doesn't deserve his job, and who took that job from deserving white man is of no consequence to me, and should not be to any other black person out there. These ways of devaluing the accomplishments of black people have be going on since this country was established.

The assault goes on. The Welfare Queen, Willie Horton, no role models and undeserved preferential treatment, and who knows what else that is being said privately , continue to attempt to frame the box in which minorities, particularly blacks reside. Even a democrat was astounded that the Harvard Law graduate POTUS was well spoken.It never stops.

Al,

First, in my niece's case, the scholarship she obtained was available to anyone and based solely on academic merit. Dismissing her accomplishments because of Bayes theory or any other theory is ludicrous.

I think you're being a little too sensitive here. Note that I wrote "if I know that the scholarship...". It was a hypothetical to illustrate my point, not a suggestion that that was the case. I'm pleased to hear that it wasn't. I'll repeat again that this is the result of the affirmative action poison. This is the colleges and governments creating a stigma where there should be none. The only way to eliminate it is to "judge ... by the content of their character".

Second, yes, scores can be useful predictors of success. However, when you are taliking about differentiating scores at Harvard, you are talking about high scores generally. In other words, there are no slouches in the group, some are just a little higher than others.

That's only half true. Yes, there are no slouches, but you can expect a large variation anyway. Intellegence isn't capped at the top. Harvard no doubt has some very intellegent students, and some INCREDIBLY intellegent students, too.

Third, even using Bayes Law, you have no way of knowing the academic record or test scores of the black applicant pool at Harvard. The one thing that you have not considered is that Harvard is going to attract teh cream of the crop as far as black applicants as well. That fact alone could throw Bayes Law, which you indicated only had a probability of 50% accuracy in the related example right ou to f the window.

I made up the thought problem with numbers chosen to illustrate the concept. I did not mean to suggest that the proportions applied to any particular school, including Harvard.

I notice that in many of your arguments you tell me that the actual "affirmative actions" are de minimus, that is, with only the slightest discrimination and that you'd see nearly the same outcomes without it. OK, so why not just get rid of it?

Fourth, yes, a part of the reason Branch Rickey chose Jackie Robinson was because he was black. He was selected to be the first black in Major League Baseball. He was also selected because he had a college education and it was assumed that his demeanor would enable him to deal with horrendous racism he would face as the first black. Blackness was a significant part of his selection. Now, Rickey's ultimate goal may have been to prove that color had no bearing on baseball ability, but at the time Robinson was selected, that was not the belief. Incredibly, that foolish myth was held in the face of black barnstorming baseball teams beating white teams simply because of racism.

I didn't write it in my post, but I should also have said that I thought it was a great business decision. He must have made a fortune off all the extra tickets he sold. I wouldn't know what Rickey's motives were, but the business case (if one could stand the ostracism) was a no-brainer.

No, the owners were not engaging in "affirmative action" because there had been no discrimination against white players in the past. The owners were perpetuating a system of white supremacy that had existed in this country since it began.

I don't think you understood what I meant re "white affirmative action". I was referring to the fact that whites were ALWAYS favored over blacks (i.e., no blacks were allowed, period). It wasn't just "affirmative action", it was complete discrimination - even dumber from an efficiency standpoint.

Just a quick closing thought. Let's say that I have a son or daughter, black, who doesn't get into the elite school, works hard at another school, does well and has thier education entirely funded by me. Following your line of reasoning, I can expect my son or daughter's efforts to be totally devalued simply because they are black, and at the same time have my contribution as a parent similarly devalued. That, to me, makes racism a perfect system. Inferior if you do, inferior if you don't. I know that you did not use the words inferior, but I wonder what Bayes Law would say aboout the probability of them beinterpreted that way by most.

Bayes Law comes into play when one knows something "special" about a member of a group, after the fact. The mathematic definition is a little dry and it's hard to write with plain text, or to say succinctly in English, but I'm going to try one more time to present the essence of the concept. If you know the probability of a member of a large population having a certain trait, then if you pick a member at random, then your best guess is that he'll have that same probability of having the trait. But if you look at a special subset of the population, and discover that the trait exists at a different frequency, then when you determine that a member of the large population is also a member of the smaller population, then you know that the probability is that of the subset, not the large population.

In the case of your children, I wouldn't know anything special about them (i.e., I wouldn't know of any special subgroup that they belonged to that I knew anything special about).

But as it turns out, I have an unsubstantiated opinion about them, one completely unsupported by any study I know of - what you might call a racist prejudice. Remember what I wrote in the very first post, that I had two biases? Well, the one that would apply here would be the first one where I figure that, ceteris paribus, a successfull black professional is probably a little more talented and worked a little harder to get where he is. It's based solely upon my personal experience - anecdotes, but I believe it to be true.

Back before the Civil Rights days, Bayes Law would have made that obvious. Knowing of all the blatant discrimination against blacks, one could easily conclude my belief. It would be yet another simple application of Bayes Law. Unfortunately, affirmative action has turned the situation on it's head.

Al, I can understand that there are benefits to affirmative action. Decades ago, it was quite useful, and for all the reasons you name. Some of us think that times have progressed to where it does more harm (of the type I've mentioned) than it does good.

Reasonable men can differ (as you and I apparently do) about how to weigh the trade-offs. I certainly don't demand that you agree with me, but I think everyone should understand the downside as well as the benefits.

Anyway, I have never asked anyone white or black to give me any specials consideration because of my blackness. I simply don't want to be devalued because of it. Therefore, I have taken advantage of every opportunity presented to me to the best of my ability. I can say that I have never held a professional position that was beyond my ability or one in which I did not excel. Was I the "best" candidate for all of those positions? I don't know, and I don't care. I know enough about the selection process to know that it is not a perfect system, and that people often use whatever advantage they can to manipulate it. So, whether you or others would look at me and say there goes a black man who doesn't deserve his job, and who took that job from deserving white man is of no consequence to me, and should not be to any other black person out there. These ways of devaluing the accomplishments of black people have be going on since this country was established.

The assault goes on. The Welfare Queen, Willie Horton, no role models and undeserved preferential treatment, and who knows what else that is being said privately , continue to attempt to frame the box in which minorities, particularly blacks reside. Even a democrat was astounded that the Harvard Law graduate POTUS was well spoken.It never stops.

You revealed a lot in your last two paragraphs. I want to suggest a challenge to you. Read everything I've written - very carefully. Try to find just one demeaning sentence in any of it. Just one suggestion by me that there is anything inferior about you. I'm hoping that you'll be surprised that when read carefully, there's no such thing in any of my posts. But just in case I'm wrong, let me say that you've been the most interesting and stimulating man I've ever posted with on Newsvine. Thanks.

I am not accusing you of all of the things I cited in the last paragraph of my response. But, it does seem that there is a zeitgeist among certain political types with regard to their perception of minorities, particularly blacks. I am referencing the cumulative effect of years of racism. Frankly, it is hard to separate that from contemporary commentary and opinion. I am simply saying that I am against anything that depicts me as "less than" either throught inference or direct statement. The idea that my accomplishments might be tainted because soemone feels that affirmative action has afforded me an undeserved opportunity falls into that category in my opinion.

I can tell you this. Certainly, within the corporate world, affirmative action did more for white females than anyone. It has always been interesting to me that most of the commentary against affirmative action has been directed towards blacks, not white women.

Companies now are struggling with the concept of diversity and inclusion. Amazing. Here we are in 2012 and we are having difficulty integrating americans into the workplace with other americans. Well, not much of a surprise. Social diversity in society in general is still at a relatively early stage of development. People, to a large extent still cling to perceptions of others handed down from generation to generation. And, unlike the discrimination against any other group in america, there has been a depiction of blacks that has been indelibly etched in all of our brains. It is not a good one.

So, given that backdrop, I am sensitive to anything that may diminish, intentionally or not, the value of balckness and therefore dinminish the black individual. If 50% of the blacks in a particular school drop out, that should have no bearing on the 50% that did not drop out. In your Bayes theory example, you would assume that there is at least a 50% chance that I dropped out without knowing anything more than I am black and attended that particular school. But, you could also take the positive side of that probability and decide to state it as there is 50% chance that I did not drop out, and assume that I could be in that group.

It is like the syllogism:

Some of the students who dropped out are black.

Bob is black.

Therefore, Bob dropped out.

It doesn't work. So, once you say that something is reasonable to assume based on certain probabilities, and that something is negative about people in my grouping. and that negative is applied to me, I am being unfairly diminished. That kind of statistical analysis might be great for studying macro issues, but loses some validity when it is brought to the micro level.

Now, you did not say all of these things, but comments that suggest that all blacks are on welfare, all blacks are criminals, etc. are extrapolating data on a subset of the larger set and applying it to the larger set. Maybe you do not do that, but I think that you would have to admit that this is the way it has played out in society.

No, I am not suggesting that you said anything demeaning about me. But, that is my point. You have some information about me based on my posts and you have drawn what appears to be a postive conclusion. However, if you just saw me on the street and knew nothing about me, I suspect your Bayes theory would become operational and other assumptions made. However, if you saw a white person on the street and knew nothing about them, I would imagine that your assumptions would be different. That doesn't necessarily make you a racist, but it does reflect on what you have been conditioined to believe.

The man does have something about hiring women as minorities in the work place and uplifting them to management positions in many instances without equal competition. The federal workplace is wrought with this practice.

Until the black community puts serious value on education nothing will change. Education is not a white thing, every child can learn, but parents have to put value on it. Also, if 75% of children to African-Americans are born in a single parent household the future is not bright. Government, and all the money in the world will not solve those problems. Look in the mirror folks, your the answer to all your problems, not someone else, and certainly not the federal government. Why do Koreans own / operate the grocery stores in most black communities? Because they have the tenaciousness, will and desire to do it, no matter what it takes, that's why.

Gee, who knew that 4 generations now of whites who work hard to own a home in a safe neighborhood and send their kids to college would resent 4 generations of youth of color who've produced little more than one-way insipid political correctness, a 70% illegitimate birth rate, subterranean cultural standards and exploding prison populations. Rinse, repeat for 48 million latinos now following the same expensive social experiment dead end. There is so very little of the United States of America left to highjack.

I am sick and tired of the media and the minority communities trying to make whites feel bad because they are successful and the minorities are not. And this comes predominantly from the black and latino communities, you do not hear the same from the asian or other minority groups. The biggest differentiator has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with the emphasis each of these communities places on things like education. It take education to get ahead in this world. Decades of special programs to help minorities have not change the attitude of these communities. College admission preference did not help.

Minority leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that do nothing but promote the entitlement mentality are doing more harm to their community than any white. They instill an attitude that those in their community are entitled to things instead of one that they need to get off their backsides and work for things. So long as these leaders promote this everyone owes you mentality, nothing will really change. You do not get ahead in this life by looking for handouts. The government is also partly to blame for this. Decades of government programs that gave handouts and preferences to minorities did nothing to instill a culture of self reliance or work ethic. It has only served to keep the minority community dependent. We will only see a real change when we stop all of the preferences and special programs and treat all people equally. No more quotas, no more special programs for minorities only. What was originally sold as a helping hand to correct past discrimination the help even the playing field has morphed into a way of life. I have no problem with giving someone a temporary helping hand when they need it, but it can not be allowed to become a permanent way of life. We need to break the entitlement mentality and the everyone owes me mentality and instill one where everyone is taught that they need to work for things if they want to get ahead.

In addition, those in the minority community need to realize that if they want others to respect them, they need to respect themselves first. The rap culture that glorifies crime, bad behavior, vulgar language, drug use, calling each other ni---er, etc. does nothing to help the community, it only brings it down and perpetuates negative stereotypes. It is time for the leaders in the minority community to step up and speak out against this.

It is time for the minority community to stop blaming "whitey" for all of their problems and start taking a hard look internally. They need to start placing emphasis on positive thing like education, self respect, hard work, etc. if they ever want to see real change and real economic equality.

In addition, those in the minority community need to realize that if they want others to respect them, they need to respect themselves first. The rap culture that glorifies crime, bad behavior, vulgar language, drug use, calling each other ni---er, etc. does nothing to help the community, it only brings it down and perpetuates negative stereotypes. It is time for the leaders in the minority community to step up and speak out against this.

Right.....And other ethnicity's dont participate in the use? or Accociate with "rap culture" ?

Cause every black person that lives poorly listens to rap, while white (others) people who are are in the same situation dont? LOL.

Please go jump in a ditch somewhere.

What is this monolithic black community that you speak of. I know countless black college graduates ad employed tax paying solid citizens in the black community. This broad characterization of blacks as seeking the dole is not only insulting, but a lie.

It is much like the drug problem. 80% of durg use occurs among whites, yet the preponderance of areests and incarcerations because of drugs rests with blacks and hispanics. Why is that?

Blacks have fought for recognition of their success ever since they hit these shores. Countless hard working black americans have gone unsung in favor of the heralding of drug dealers and pimps. Were the Italians so villified as a group because of the mafia? Or the Irish because of crooked cops and politicians?

No, for some, blacks will always be defined by the the dysfunction in a segment of their community. This is why there is so much angst about the election of Barack Obama as President. What a role model. A highly educated, very successful family man who is black has been villified, criticized, and accused of things no other president has had to endure. I wonder why?

More white people are on food stamps than blacks and Obama is called the "food stamp President" by a republican candidate because he thinks Obama wants food stamps for blacks. Anotehr republican candidate says there are no role models in the black community and black males do not want to get married. Wow. This came as quite a surprise to many of may friends and associates who are black males with degrees and professional jobs who also happen to be married.

No, what is happneing here is the the powers that be want middle and working class whites to see minorities as the enemy while the top 1% continues to make off with the preponderance of wealth in this country.

Blacks have fought for recognition of their success ever since they hit these shores. Countless hard working black americans have gone unsung in favor of the heralding of drug dealers and pimps. Were the Italians so villified as a group because of the mafia? Or the Irish because of crooked cops and politicians?

What a role model. A highly educated, very successful family man who is black has been villified, criticized, and accused of things no other president has had to endure. I wonder why?

Perfect, Prefect. Post.

Remember when Obama had to address his race speech? GAH, we have a long way to go still....

Al-2739446: ...This is why there is so much angst about the election of Barack Obama as President. What a role model. A highly educated, very successful family man who is black has been villified, criticized, and accused of things no other president has had to endure. I wonder why?...

OMG, there is so much wrong with that post it just makes me cringe to read it. You must have somehow missed all the years of the left going after G.W. Bush (still are!) if you think "no president" has had to endure vilification, criticism, and accusations.

But hey, your lack of historical perspective and blindness to valid criticisms of Obama must be Bush's fault too, right?

Here's a clue: The numerous valid criticisms of Obama have nothing to do with his color and everything to do with his actions. Maybe if you paid attention to actions and stopped worrying about the color of people's skin, you might learn something.

Al-2739446: ...Were the Italians so villified as a group because of the mafia? Or the Irish because of crooked cops and politicians?...

Again with the ignorance of history? Assuming that you are speaking about the late 19th and early 20th century, when LEGAL immigration was high, then yes, the Italians and the Irish have both had to deal with harsh discrimination (including violence and killings). I'm not going to bother expounding on this further, as there is ample material available to you to read. Go do some research and learn something before spouting your racist garbage.

While you're at it, you might want to look at how Chinese immigrants were treated too.

Al-2739446: ...Ano[ther] [R]epublican candidate says there are no role models in the black community and black males do not want to get married...

I'd like to see you start putting some names and dates with these "quotes" as I'm pretty sure you're taking things out of context. That any of the candidates would claim there are no role models in the black community while competing against one of those role models for the nomination (what, everyone forget about Herman Cain already?) is a bit hard to believe without further details.

What program is being demanded? To my knowledge, black leadership is requesting, like the rest of the nation, MORE JOBS.

Jim5679:

Yes, Bush was villified. But, Bush was villified for things that he actually did.

He was the one that allowed us to be attacked on 9/11. You will never admit it, but if that had happened on Obama's watch he would have been run out on a rail. Bush, however, in a classic bit of white male affirmative action, becomes a hero and model for the war on terror. Huh?

He was the one who got us into a useless war where 4500 amerian soldiers were killed with 35,000 additional casualties, not to mention the trillions spent. This could not even be described at its best as a pyrhicc victory. What have we gained?????

Of course the crowning glory of the Bush years was the fact that he left office with the economy of the US on the brink of disaster.

You are right. There was nothing to vilify him about. You better take a look at history.

Conversely,what has Obama done to deserve villification?

He passed a healthcare bill that is going to guarantee that everyone is insured and that those costs are directed to private insurance companies who will have to compete in the open marketplace for customers thus providing a free market control on spiraling healthcare costs. Parents can now keep their children who may be unemployed or still in school on their healthcare plans until they are 26.

He got rid of bin Laden and Khaddafy with no loss of life and nominal expense. Republicans who considered these two the arch enemies of America became suddenly mute when Obama did what Bush did not.

As promised Obama ended the war in Iraq and brought our troops home, some of whom were on third and fourth tours.

Obama saved the economy by making strategic bailouts that would have doomed our economy had companied like General Motors and Chrysler folded.

Oh yes, Obama should be skewered.

By the way, tell the last time a President was called a liar in teh middle of a State of the Union speech? Tell me the last time a President had his citizenship questioned. Tell me the last time a President was being held accountable for things OTHER people said simply because he had some association with them?

No, my friend, you need to review history. But, you won't get on FOX news.

America has made great strides toward achieving the social and political components of King’s dream of a colorblind society .... But he says the nation still has a way to go toward eliminating racial economic inequality.

Economic equality cannot be legislated. It takes the kind of hard work and determination that was displayed, for example, in making Motown a music Powerhouse for black people. In other words, minorities and blacks have to find a way, in this free economic society, to make their fortune. It will not be handed to them.

Equality in my city would be whites killing more whites . 90% of the killings and crime are by black youth. It is just the way it is. I am not seeing any progress in the children that are being raised. I do not know what the answer is. The parents are the bangers now their children will be the next. I do not know how we can change the current trend. Speaking the truth seems to offend everyone but the obituary every day does not lie. Help!!

You have to have self respect and get out of teaching your children how to survive on Gov Assistance. Maybe requiring a GED of every child will help. More mentoring is not a bad idea.

I think the disenfranchising and marginalization started before Barack Obama became president, Liberty....

I think, "liberty&freedom LuVr" that you are one of those people responsible for the economic divide in this country. Your words speak volumes in this regard.

What a ridiculous comment. You simply don't like Mr. Obama and will jump at any chance to disparage him. If he HAD focused on the plights of the black community, you'd be castigating him for doing THAT, and for not be a president for ALL Americans. What exactly do YOU do for your community, besides wear a little tricorn hat, spout rhetoric, and tote a tiny gun? (That is you in the photo, yes? Life size?)

The great dividers: Faux(lying) news, Rush, Beck, Dick Army,Koch Brothers, the grand old party, teabaggers Wall Street,Oil Companies, Chamber of Commerce and the pea brain followers that vote against their own best interest....................................................

You forgot to add Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to that list.

Obama has poisoned the atmosphere in our country and he needs to apologize to the American people! reuters:''Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word 'enemy' for fellow Americans ... fellow citizens. He uses it for people who disagree with his agenda of bigger government ... people speaking out for a smaller, more accountable government that respects freedom and allows small businesses to create jobs," John Boehner .

President Obama did bring us together for a minute, then you appeared to "take YOUR country back". You treat our president with disrespect and claim that he is not an American. You are trying to strip Americans born on this soil of their birth rights (one parent must already be a citizen). After 400 years you are still making segments of the population feel like they do not belong.

Evelyn-

Respect has to be earned. MLK knew this. That's why his dream was to be judged on the content of his character. I know liberals think that character doesn't matter in our political leaders but that's just rationalization. It doesn't matter who you are. Just getting elected to an office (even president) does not automatically grant you respect. A person like Obama with bad or no character deserves zero respect.

Evelyn-518247 '' After 400 years you are still making segments of the population feel like they do not belong.'' HEY LADY who in the hell do you think you are talking to? Not me I hope as you don't know me to make such accusations? Maybe the {ENEMY}?

Too many fox fed fools here. Stupid Republicans and racists.

takenaka, and your comments help don't they.You think only a Republican can be racist Prejudice has always been here, even if we were all the same color we would find a way to segregate . Working at a University I see it everyday. Education though is the answer. Instead of giving welfare and I'm talking about all people, give them an education

Wlee, the problem with giving away anything is it is not earned nor respected and often a waste of time.

You cant give away an education, it has to be EARNED, even if it is free. And people expecting handouts are not willing to WORK for achievement.

Anything worth anything in life requires a ton of EFFORT!!! Or it is not worth anything.

The people complaining are not working hard, they are making excuses and expecting an easy way out of poverty........and guess what, they are idiots, there are no easy ways to make yourself a success.

Fake, a lot of people can't afford to go to College. So tell me would you rather give them money for welfare and be considered a burden on the economy or education and be a benefit to the economy.

Why do people deny reality? Look at any community, town, city, state or country that has black leadership and you will find some common threads... FAILURE, CORRUPTION AND CRIME! All available evidence shows that the majority of black people simply do not have the mental capacity nor the moral fortitude to lead or govern. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong.

If living in America, as Americans, is not good enough for "African", "Mexican", "Asian" and the rest of the hyphenated Americans, they are free to repatriate themselves to their "home" countries/continents. As long as they equate being a successful, non-hyphenated American with being white... and being white with being evil... there is no hope for improving racial relations in the U.S.

To be pro-active towards the coming storm of charges of racism I will say this... If telling the truth in regard to easily observed facts and evidence makes me a racist... so be it...

you can take the child out of the africa, but you can't take the africa out of the child !!

moveforward2012: ...The great dividers: Faux(lying) news...

You must be referring to the leftist main-stream media that ignores news stories that would undermine their position or damage their political darlings. Not to mention "creating" stories to undermine politicians and candidates that oppose their position.

As an example: Wasn't it CBS that aired a false story about Bush based on fake documents after they REFUSED TO VET the documents??!?? And that story was all over the leftist networks (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc.) Then, when the conservative news media (i.e. Fox News, etc.) started poking holes in that story with actual facts...hmmm....didn't CBS anchor Dan Rather have to resign because of it? Yup.

Really want to move forward in 2012? Open your eyes, open your mind, look at both sides of a story, and THINK!

takenaka

Too many fox fed fools here. Stupid Republicans and racists.

#4.10 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:38 AM EST

That post is racist and ignorant on its face, takenaka.

Fox News is for thinking individuals who are sick of the tripe being served by the leftist, heavily-biased, "mainstream" media networks. Perhaps you should try watching it and see how many actual news stories the other networks are deliberately not showing you because of their leftist bias.

TomTOm:

I love your example of Motown as a guide to black folks on how to succeed economicaly in this country.

There were two reasons for the success of MOTOWN. One was the genius of Berry Gordy, and the other was racism. The artists that MOTOWN had in its stable were all performing on what was then called the "chilin circuit." What that meant was black venues. These artists started out relatively unknown with air play limited to black radio stations which were also limited in volume and airtime during the day.

What the power structure did not anticipate was the tremendous crossover appeal that some of teh artists would enjoy. Mary Wells was first, and of course the Supremes and Temptations carried it to another level. Gordy was able to amass the talent, come up with a strategy for production, all under the radar of the major white record companies because they never realized the potential for crossover appeal.

MOTOWN was a major success story, but if you think that racism was not a part of it, I suggest that you GOOGLE some of the interviews with the artists of that time.

Thank you for your comments. I am afraid that they will be lost on those who don't think and analyze much. History and human behavior is not one of their strong suits.

Yank, do you know why poor folks have more kids? Uncle SAM is their DADDY now!!!

The government PAYS poor single women a good wage to have kids out of wedlock, and they get BONUSES for having additional kids....WIC, section 8, medicaid, food stamps, planned parent hood, and right now they are ADVERTISING these services trying to ENROLL MORE APPLICANTS. They use bill boards and I think sales reps are visitin 16 yearold girls in high schools so they know what they can get if they get prego's .......The babys daddy might stay with her sometimes but he dont live there......

This country is DOOMED because of liberal vote buying policies and the results of their social engineering fiascoes.

For any interested in the truth about the economic plight of minorities, only 1 politician stands with you and it is NOT Obama!

www.therightperspective.org/2012/01/01/ron-paul-no-racist-walter-williams/

MLK king would roll over in his grave if he knew what Obama has done, how dare you. MLK was about freedom moron, not taking away rights. Open a book for gods sake, it goes way beyond two guys of color.

moveforward2012,

The Billionaire has been putting the squeeze on the middle class for 30 years.

Except for left-wing demagoguery, you have absolutely no evidence to support that. You can't name a single way in which "The Billionaire" squeezes the middle class. If you opened your eyes, you'd see just the opposite all around you. Start by thinking "Bill Gates" or "Steve Jobs".

Move Forward- MLK would NOT be marching with the Occupy Wall street folks because of two reasons. He was a REPUBLICAN not a democrat and he believed that ALL people should be trying to better themselves NOT leech off the Fed Government TIT.

Martin Luther King was about Freedom for ALL, and everyone working together for a better future. Obama is about the 1% paying for it all, and the poor doing nothing to receive more than they have before.

People need to stop being jealous of those who have more than they do. This class warfare game is the reason why we are where we are now. The KEEPING UP with the Jones' is what caused many to buy buy buy, and then not having the money to pay for it.

If you want a better life, WORK for it. Get an Education. Spend your time bettering yourself rather than producing child after child for the government to support. Give your children a chance for a better life.

MLK would be disgusted at what his dream has been sold OUT for. He would be disgusted with the results.

Obama is no MLK.

Economan

moveforward2012,

The Billionaire has been putting the squeeze on the middle class for 30 years.

Except for left-wing demagoguery, you have absolutely no evidence to support that. You can't name a single way in which "The Billionaire" squeezes the middle class. If you opened your eyes, you'd see just the opposite all around you. Start by thinking "Bill Gates" or "Steve Jobs".

Economan,

Your statement is false and inaccurate.

The 1% and the very rich through tax loopholes, have drained the U.S. Treasury of trillions of dollars; in their favor, they have used their money to influence our government; they have used Wall Street to gamble away American citizens' retirement, pension and investment funds; they have used the banking system to churn out predatory loans; they have caused millions of foreclosures; they have outsourced American jobs; they have increased our unemployment rate; and their ilk has curbed union benefits and the right of collective bargaining.

On August 15, 2011, in The New York Times, Warren Buffet spoke of how our system "coddles" the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the populace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

I do not think that Dr. King Jr. would have advocated the Republican "Trickle-Down" economic theory.

This Civil Rights Activist was brilliant to buy the "snake oil" that people willingly share their wealth and power. Thus, he gave his life for human and equal rights...

Correction:

This Civil Rights Activist was too brilliant to buy the "snake oil" that people willingly share their wealth and power. Thus, he gave his life for human and equal rights...

usa is great

Move Forward- MLK would NOT be marching with the Occupy Wall street folks because of two reasons. He was a REPUBLICAN not a democrat and he believed that ALL people should be trying to better themselves NOT leech off the Fed Government TIT.

#183.4 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:43 AM EST

YES! Excellent post. The idea is having the freedom to succeed (or fail) on your own merits and efforts.

25Walker: ...they have used the banking system to churn out predatory loans; they have caused millions of foreclosures...

Apparently you believe that the people taking out those loans and then not making the payments bear none of the responsibility in that equation? Last I checked, people cannot FORCE one to take out a loan. The people that took out loans that they could not afford are JUST AS MUCH, IF NOT MORE, TO BLAME as the unscrupulous lenders that approved and gave them the loan.

You want to affix blame? At least be fair and consistent about it. Of course, that undermines the premise of the whole "1% vs 99%" thing...you might want to find a stronger (and valid) argument if you want to engage in class warfare.

25Walker: ...I do not think that Dr. King Jr. would have advocated the Republican "Trickle-Down" economic theory....

Based on what information?

"I do not think that Dr. King Jr. would have advocated the Republican "Trickle-Down" economic theory.... "

Based on what information?

The fact that it doesn't work. The objective forthose who make a profit is to make more of a profit. The purpose of a company is to make a profit, not to create jobs. If so, we would kill automation that has eliminated jobs, and we would have never shipped jobs offshore. Ever show up for dinner after everyone else has eaten? That is what "trickle down" means.

You should know that actual facts don't matter to much of the left or the right, they hear something that is absurd and they run with it. They only stop to pick up the next outragious thing and run with that. They stay distracted and keep the same kind of people in power then blame someone for keeping them in power. Its a circle of stupidity and I wish I knew how to break.

I still suspect Ron Paul is a racist, but his policies I think would do a lot of good for America in general, and particularly the black community.

Tek, i like reading your comments ,they seem well thought out and educated, my problem is what appears to be a defeatist attitude. It appears you seem that there is no hope for the future. With that attitude there can never be. In your opinion ,are there any non racist white people?

In your opinion ,are there any non racist white people?

Well, there are infants...lol.

But seriously, I do not think all white people are racist. Infants would be the only surefire white folks that I could point to that havent' been socialized to be racists.

Other than infants, I haven't met many whites who I could say with certainty are NOT racist, but I'm sure they exist. Also, there are white people I know who I have not concluded that they are racist, but I still think they could be one.

There are 3 types of people in my opinion

-White

-non-white

-White Supremacist (racist)

I also don't think its an inherent genetic evil or anything, just a product of a system of thought that has controlled the world in the last 500 years.

We need to transform our thinking.

simply my opinion, but you can't label "ALL" or "EVERY" for anything.

speaking in absolutes leaves you always incorrect.

Tek, couldn't agree with you more, I've always enjoyed reading your comments even when I disagreed

Tek, couldn't agree with you more, I've always enjoyed reading your comments even when I disagreed

of course sir, have a good weekend.

TekKnowledge,

Your posts are excellent...they are factually dissecting and completely true and accurate!

It is difficult to "educate" people who have the mindset of "I've already made my mind up...don't confuse me with the facts."

TekKnowledge

In your opinion ,are there any non racist white people?

Well, there are infants...lol.

But seriously, I do not think all white people are racist. Infants would be the only surefire white folks that I could point to that havent' been socialized to be racists.

Other than infants, I haven't met many whites who I could say with certainty are NOT racist, but I'm sure they exist. Also, there are white people I know who I have not concluded that they are racist, but I still think they could be one.

There are 3 types of people in my opinion

-White

-non-white

-White Supremacist (racist)

I also don't think its an inherent genetic evil or anything, just a product of a system of thought that has controlled the world in the last 500 years.

We need to transform our thinking.

#7.4 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:04 PM EST

The train of thought reflected in this post is itself racist. BTW, racists come in every color and nationality--you seem to overlook that entirely.

In a capitalist system there will always be winners and losers. As such, there will always be people on the bottom of the economic scale. Some will be there for reasons beyond their control and others for easons they can control. The question is what does the governement, which is the people, want to do for them. In a country with the opulence of America, do we want to have an unattended underclass?

America has been decieved by Barack. No candidate save Ron Paul has even addressed racial injustices, they establishment calls him dangerous and crazy for wanting to end the wars. Whats dangerous is all the Americans buying that lie. Research Dr.Ron Paul for freedom and stop being fed media lies.

God forbid anyone should say anything about single family parenting. That would create quite an uproar even though it is one of the biggest reasons for irresponsible behavior. I worked with a particular street monkey who let me know real quick that his daddy (and he didn't know where he was) never got married and he didn't see any reason to do so himself. He has 6 kids spread around town. Another co worker just found out at age 45 about 2 half brothers and a half sister right in this small town. Both of these guys are on food stamps and other assistance although they work next to me who makes it on my own. They are teaching their kids how to work the system that was put in place for them and laugh at me because I do not. Yes, I am ashamed to say that these are my brothers in the community. Just a small chunk of what goes on all over this country.

Ed Coles

Under Barack Obama the economic conditions of the black community has declined putting more black Americans in , and at the poverty level! the econmic data is revealing

How the hell can you say that this is Obama fault, your stupid, the black community has been in decline for years because of the dope in those hoods. Black that don't have to live in the hood don't. most blacks don't live in the hood.

I'm black and i grew up in a middle class hood in chicago, before the drug corners started popping up and i have not lived in the hood since, like most of my friends.

blame Obama, your stupid, its the parents, blame the parents. the only difference between my kids who are college educated and kids in the hood are the parents, parents turn a blind eye to there kids dealing dope, the don't get involved in school, the mothers and fathers are not involved with there kids to keep there girls from getting pregnant, are not there to keep there sons from dealing dope, making sure home work is done.

BLAME PARENTS, its like charles barkley said 15 years ago, sports stars should not be role models your parents are, but its looks like parents don't want to be.

What most of U fools is overlooking is that most of the "worst" people and neighborhoods are created by a society that places value on some and no value on others. You , the privileged, claim U want "The worst" to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and take advantage of all America has to offer but when these people do, all U do is set about to destroy them , beacuse in truth U need an underclass to blame for all the ills of this society, stop playing tha blame game, stop the hypocrisy and allow AMERICA to help AMERICANS not just ur racist asses.. thank U.

Nonsense. The economic conditions of blacks have suffered ever since they were brought to these shores.

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. The first people on this continent have suffered since the first boat hit the shores of this continent and continue to. Minorities and majorities have been used to eliminate and kill these first people ever since the beginnings of this country. We cannot forget the Buffalo Soldiers who actually murdered these first people on this continent.

I agree, but its not the governments role to force you to do anything! If the governemnt tells you how to think and act you will never know who is racist or merely "playing the game and spitting in your food". If someone puts up a whites only sign, so be it. Is that a place you would want to spend your money? Not me. Better to have it in the open and make your own decisons. FREEDOM FREEDOM.

I agree, but its not the governments role to force you to do anything! If the governemnt tells you how to think and act you will never know who is racist or merely "playing the game and spitting in your food".

Actually it IS the government's role to coerce you to NOT act in certain ways.

To paraphrase MLK: "I am not trying to get you to love me, I am trying to get you stop lynching me."

And your freedom is directly tied to your neighbor's freedom. Personal independence, except in the most trivial aspects of living in a culture, is a complete illusion and the obsessive pursuit of it a generally frustrating and socially damaging habit of mind.

Individuals do not arise but way of the collective action of other people. The reality is that we are far more interdependent than we are independent.

To quote Einstein:

When we survey our lives and endeavors, we soon observe that almost the whole of our actions and desires is bound up with the existence of other human beings. We notice that our whole nature resembles that of the social animals. We eat food that others have produced, wear clothes that others have made, live in houses that others have built. The greater part of our knowledge and beliefs has been communicated to us by other people through the medium of a language which others have created. Without language our mental capacities would be poor indeed, comparable to those of the higher animals; we have, therefore, to admit that we owe our principal advantage over the beasts to the fact of living in human society. The individual, if left alone from birth, would remain primitive and beastlike in his thoughts and feelings to a degree that we can hardly conceive. (Albert Einstein, 1934)

quit crying get off your sorry black or white fat ass get a job quit begging we are tired of feeding your sorry fat ass we have free school and you dont have the balls to go starve,

I hope if you read your rant you can see it makes no sense. You can get help earning a GED.

wrong. government is not the expression of our collective will, it is the expression of a momentary majority of will ie mob rule. our founders specifically warned against this. these debates are false because they assume the govt has some right or responsibilty to do anything more than ensure fairness. it does not. the constitution is not a foundation of rights upon which to build more and more specific targeted rights, it is a cage with the explicit meaning clearly stated, goal of redtricting the govts ability to abridge those rights given to us by a higher power whatever you choose to call it. dr king never asked for a handout or for special treatment. if youwant economic equality drive north till you hit montreal. if you want fairness and prosperity vote against anyone dem or repub (because their policies are identical) who believes more bankruptcy because we are already bankrupt is the answer. the trillion spent at war coukd have paid to eliminate all student debt. think about that. which woukd have made america more secure for the future?

Your statement is so true. All of the money spent for these ridiculous wars in the past 60 years could have rebuilt our entire infrastructure, paid all or made a college education a norm for Americans and then we would have evolved into an economic powerhouse and a wiser society. All one needs to do is look at Portland, OR where there are more people per capita with Bachelor degrees than any other city in the United States. You will find a highly civilized society of people, low crime rate and a healthy economy. Now we have a weak economy, more people in prison that any other developed nation in the world and an infrastructure that is so dilapidated it is destroying our economy while the division of wealth continues to widen. The wealthy get wealthier while the middle class disappears into the homeless.

culheath

It is NOT *my* responsibility as a taxpayer to help everyone out

No, it's your responsibility as a human being to do that. Your government, which is the collective expression of your fellow human beings, should reflect your compassion and desire to act for the common good.

#12 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:43 AM EST

Wow, thank you Karl Marx! Maybe if you lived in the USSR, that would be the role of government, but we're talking about the USA. People are supposed to be free to fail or succeed on their own merits here. Perhaps you should read the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the writings of our founding fathers on their intent to learn about the role of the federal government?

Kudos to that, your words speaks volumes.

My thoughts as well. Good job!

Sherrie-299765

Lecia Brooks, director of outreach for the Southern Poverty Law Center, agrees the country has made enormous progress since King was killed and says people of color hold elective and appointment positions "in far greater numbers than King could have imagined."

When minority families limit their size, commit to fostering education for their children, and emphasize responsibility, they will see the income gap diminish. The reason white retirees don't identify with minority kids today is that those white retirees, in many cases, were children or grandchildren of immigrants who arrived on our shores with nothing. Yet they managed to build a thriving middle class in America through self-funded education and a strict work ethic. We had no easy way, no government programs, no affirmative action. We had no alternative but to tug on our own bootstraps and build our own nest eggs. Minorities must do the same and stop looking to others. I went to a big-city high school with no frills and no special facilities that still stands today. Now it is a magnet school in a mixed minority neighborhood. We didn't carry guns or knives, get free lunches, use or sell drugs, get pregnant, tatoo or pierce ourselves, deface the neighborhood with grafitti, or go AWOL from school. Our parents let us know what was expected of us, including impeccable English skills. That's why we don't identify with today's kids.

#14 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:47 AM EST

Hallelujah and AMEN to that!

Most black people have ancestry going back more than 5 generations. It speaks volumes when white immigrants can come to the country, often with language barriers, and be welcomed to participate in its prosperity

The constant refrain of some whites with regard to how their grandparents worked hard here and made someothing of themselves rings hollow. I am black. What do you think my grandparents did. They were farmers in the state of Mississippi. The worked hard everyday and raised law abiding, country serving, and tax paying citizens. They did this in a country and state that had little regard for them as individuals. In the meantime, these same white immigrants that are often referred to by people like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reelly et al came to this country for the most part welcomed and heralded as being icons of the work ethic.

The joke of this work ethic BS is that black people worked for free in the beginning of this country and have been referred to as lazy ever since.

No, thinking people know what is going on here. It is the systematic and relentless devaluation of blacks, while at the same time elevating whites. In other words, blacks are judged by the dysfunction in their communities and whites are judged by the success in theirs, as if either is absolute.

Al have you looked at the American Indian community? Everyone has taken from them, murdered them and to this day ignore them as the true minority that still gets the shaft even in hiring preference due to race.

Intellect:

I cannot disagree with what you have said. I am responding to the anti-black sentiment that has been expressed here.

when the majority of blacks stop behaving like animals

News flash: the majority of black people DON'T. But then again I wouldn't expect a stupid f#%34ing bigot like yourself to understand that.