This is awfully rich coming from a guy who would literally be dead, but for the beneficience of the liberals in his state who demanded healthcare reform.

Not only have you demonstrated that you are impervious to facts, you’ve now demonstrated that you also are not capable of thinking critically.

First of all, I never alleged that you, your family or any particular whites were guilty of discrimination. In fact, I described my analogy as “crude” expressly because the white businesses who may suffer very well may have never committed any discrimination.

Affirmative action was never based on the concept that the inidividuals involved were the actual perpetrators or victims of past discrimination. Affirmative action was always a class-based remedy to reverse the effects of class-based discrimination. Consequently, membership in the class is, alone, sufficient to subject a person to the effects of affirmative action irrespective of whether or not the particular person was either a perpetrator or victim of discrimination.

These are not MY arguments, these are THE arguments regarding affirmative action. No one really cares if you personally don’t like affirmative action or think it’s unfair to you. Your particular circumstance is not relevant when formulating policy on a national level.

You cry crocodile tears over black people, then I suggest YOU take YOUR life savings and donate most of it to charities to help black people.

Leave me out of it. My family was always poor. They worked very hard, holding two jobs, to send me to college. Yet here you are demanding that we must pay a price for what other people did.

Go to hell.

The problem is, that you’ve replaced discrimination against blacks as a group, with discrimination against whites as a group.

You’re not just punishing the one runner who broke the leg of the second runner. You are punishing ALL future runners of every race that is ever run, ever again. Any time that second runner competes, you’re demanding that other runners give him a special break.

I keep trying to explain to you: There are a lot of us who weren’t around in the antebellum South. My ancestors immigrated to America in the first third of the 20th century. They were poor themselves, lived in New York City’s slums. I’m the first generation of my family who went to college. We owned no slaves. We had no KKK members. We didn’t own any businesses at all, so how could we discriminate against blacks or anybody else?

Yet to you, my family and I are just lumped into “white people,” and you demand that MY FAMILY, and many others like mine, must pay the price for what some OTHER white people may have done to some OTHER black people years ago. The absurdity of rich black businessmen being able to send their kids to college on affirmative-action, whereas some impoverished white kid in West Virginia gets no such favorable treatment, is something you just ignore.

You insist on seeing the world as WHITES oppressed BLACKS, thus WHITES must pay a price. A racial guilt trip on all white people, regardless of their own personal history or personal conduct.

You tried that argument on white folks in the 1960s and 1970s. They fled. Literally. White flight, and a political flight to the GOP, was the result.

Now, deluded that Obama represents a turn to social liberalism, you’re trying to resurrect that same argument.

And white folks are going to reject it. Again.

“Sorry for the lengthy post, but I wanted to address each of our main points.”

Nothing to be sorry for, Spart. (*SMILE*) I enjoyed reading your response.

In any case, I leave to you the last (substantive) word.

(*BOW*)

If Sinz wants to rejoin the “battle” (which I wouldn’t bet on) I’ll read anything he writes as well.

Re: Dacookson // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm –

“Well Bill, other readers can judge for themselves…”

EXACTLY…!

(*WINK*)

Glad it’s finally sunk in.

BILL

“Well Bill, other readers can judge for themselves…”

EXACTLY…!

(*WINK*)

Glad it’s finally sunk in.

BILL

Not so at all. A fair reading of Sinz’s intial post was that the government had granted SPECIAL benefits to minorities by way of the “protected class” concept. This, of course, is consistent with what appears to be a consistent theme of his that minorities are a favored class in society and that whites are really the group that is disadvantaged and discriminated against. He is wrong, dead wrong, on both points.

The purpose of the “protected class” concept was never to grant SPECIAL benefits to minorities; it was to prevent discrimination based on race – any race. The fact that pervasive discrimination against blacks was the triggering event in no way implies that minorities received a SPECIAL benefit – unless you believe the natural order of things is to permit discrimination against blacks. If the govt had intended to grant special benefits to minorities it would not have granted whites the right to file discrimination claims based on race. So, on Sinz’s initial point about a govt intention to grant special benefits to minorities, he is wrong and Frank Ricci is only the most recent and prominent example of whites successfully obtaining protected class protection under the Civil Rights Act.

As for the 5-4 decision in the Ricci case, that in no way substantiates Sinz’s claim that the “protected class” concept was intended to protect only minorities from race discrimination. None of the 4 dissenting justices claimed that Ricci did not have the right to file a race discrimination claim under the Act because he was white, nor did any of them argue that race is not a protected class as far as whites are concerned. The Court has long acknowledged the right of whites to obtain protected class protections, and the Bakke case of 1978 is proof of that.

The 4 dissenting justices’ main argument in the Ricci case was that the City of New Haven had the right to throw out the test on the belief that the test results may have indicated racial bias against blacks. Look, reasonable people can disagree on whether the test results indicated racial bias, or whether set asides or even affirmative action are good public policy, but it is an indisputable fact that the concept of a “protected class” was never intended to exclude whites. It is also an indisputable fact that whites have successfully brought protected class lawsuits for decades.

As for your contention that in the real world an affirmative action policy requires quotas, I can only relay my personal experience as well as general observations. I’ve had the occassion to work for and/or with at least 3 government contractors as well as their outside consulting firms and outside legal counsel who developed affirmative action plans. In none of those cases did any of those entities engage in the kind of quota-based conduct Sinz has alleged. It simply is not the practice of corporations, in large part, because it’s illegal, but also because it is rather easy to comply with an affirmative action plan without resorting to that kind of conduct. Are you able to provide a link to a reliable source that shows that companies are using quotas on a pervasive basis?

As for set-asides for white owned businesses, I don’t think any policy-maker over the last 5 decades has alleged that white-owned businesses were the victims of the kind of discrimination that women, minority, disabled or veteran owned businesses historically suffered. Have whites ever been discriminated against? Of course, but that was not the point Sinz was making, nor is it a point that I ever denied.

As I implied earlier, once you acknowledge the long-standing discrimination in procurement that benefited whites and hurt minorities, you then have to decide whether there should be any remedy for that. It seems that most conservatives think that it is sufficient to merely stop discrimination from happening on a going forward basis. However, many other people think that if you simply stop it on a going forward basis without doing anything to reverse the effect of the just-ended discrimination, you unintentionally perpetuate the injustice because those minority businesses will not have gained the experience and expertise to now compete on a fair basis.

Crudely speaking, it’s as if one runner in a race breaks a leg of another runner. The judge can issue a ruling to prevent him from breaking the second leg, but it would still be unfair to force the runner with one broken leg to run against the guy who broke his leg. I say this is a crude analogy because I am not accusing those white-owned businesses who win contracts of “breaking the leg” of minority owned businesses, but white-owned businesses, as a class, did benefit from the historical discrimination suffered by minority owned businesses. So, if you’re going to have a remedy to reverse the effects of this discrimination, it seems to me that set-asides, while imperfect, are probably better than any of the other alternatives.

Should these set-asides end at some point? Should they end today? If we believe a remedy is still needed, should we develop something completely different? Have some white businesses been denied contracts that went to minority businesses despite the fact that those white businesses never discriminated? I think the answer to each of these questions is “possibly or probably so,” but that doesn’t undermine the fact that there was large-scale discrimination that, absent some remedy for reversing its effects, probably would have been permanently enshrined in this society.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I wanted to address each of our main points.

“Have you ever heard of set-sides for WHITE-run businesses???”

Yeah. (*SHRUG*) White WOMEN-run businesses.

(*SHRUG*) Sorry… but as I tried to explain to Dacook… I actually DO READ what other posters WRITE.

(But, hey, Sinz… I get your point and obviously I agree with it; in other words, I acknowledge reality.)

Re: Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm –

“Frank Ricci is the perfect example of this…”

(*CHUCKLE*)

Spart. Com’on. Be serious. If Sinz was wrong and you were right there never would have been a Ricci case in the first place! (*AMUSED SMIRK*)

Yes. The High Court held 5-4 that New Haven’s decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(*SMILE*)… but let’s reiterate… 5-4!

Please. The fact that Ricci only “won” by one vote in the USSC after getting screwed time and again is if anything further proof of the basic correctness of Sinz’s read on reality in this debate.

“No, I’m not really clear on the difference between a government demand and a government requirement.”

(*FALLING TO THE FLOOR LAUGHING*)

Yes. Yes you are, Spart – admit it. (*CHUCKLE*)

Again… as with our fellow poster Dragonchick on the Right… I have far too much respect for you to believe for a second that “you’re not clear” on the differences Sinz pointed to. (*SMILE*)

“…I do know the government neither demands nor requires private companies to hire a specific number of minorities.”

(*STILL LAUGHING*) (*WIPING TEARS OF MIRTH FROM MY EYES*)

“…specific…” (*SNORT*) Cute, Spart. While you “win” a debating point on style, as for substance… com’on… you know you’re making a bullshit argument and I know you’re making a bullshit argument.

(Hey… nice try, though!) (*HIGH FIVE*) (Gold star for effort!)

“The government does, however, require private companies with whom it contracts to enact affirmative action policies…”

…which in the real world often degenerate into reverse discrimination.

(Hey… you’re the one who brought up Ricci!) (*GRIN*)

Anyway… interesting exchange between you and Sinz. Too bad Richard Ivory couldn’t be bothered to join the dialog.

BILL

“As for Bill. Being contentious again?”

Hey… let’s start a cheer – you know, like “Let’s Go Mets!” I humbly suggest..

“YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”

Com’on… let’s practice…

Dacook writes… “Am I noticing a pattern? The first bit of mud being slung my way…”

Reply: “YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”

Dacook writes… “The latest bit of mud…”

Reply: “YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”

(*WINK*) (See how this works, Dacook?) (*CHUCKLE*)

Dacook… seriously… you’re boring me. Worse… you’re disappointing me. I truly expected better.

(*SHRUG*)

“So what’s the deal Bill?”

Re-read the thread. (*SHRUG*) My “deal” is pretty clear. I respond to what others actually write in addition to sharing my own personal views.

(*SHRUG*)

Again… Dacook… is this REALLY the way you wanna go…??? I get my fair amount of criticism, but certainly even those (who are honest) who tend not to share my ideological/policy views and prescriptions note that I’m a straight shooter who tries to make his positions as clear and precise (specific) as possible; a guy who to ask direct questions and who gives direct answers.

Anyway… at this point the horse is dead and we’re both way off topic.

Furthermore… STILL NO RICHARD IVORY…! (*SNORT*)

Yep… so much for “dialog” and “renewal of the Republican party.” (*SHRUG*)

BILL