Chi Matt --

Quote Chi Matt:With that in mind, doesn't that lead some people to want to vote for the party that promises to keep government out of your life?

The main people behind get government out of your life are the billionaires. The want government out of your life, so they can run it. The libertarian party was started by the 0.1% back in the 40's.

You do realize that government is just a tool. Do you realize also that another word for government is America? When people say I do not want government in my life, they are saying I do not want America in my life; just ask Clive Bundy.

I knew I was opening a can of worms by responding to Matt's initial complaint about Affirmative Action. Oh well... frankly, I am sick of arguing with other whites over this issue. I think that to this very day, we as whites are enjoying a certain amount of unearned privilege in this society that we're so accustomed to, we hardly even notice it... but we only make fools of ourselves when we conveniently deny it exists.

Matt's case against Affirmative Action is that "committing a wrong to correct a wrong is wrong". That might make a compelling argument against capital punishment, but not Affirmative Action, which I don't consider to be a "wrong".

And Marc, I disagree with your remark that Affirmative Action "did no permanent good for anyone". There are literally thousands of black professionals in this country who would still be stuck in low-paid menial grunt jobs were it not for Affirmative Action. Recently Randi Rhodes pointed out that at least two justices of the Supreme Court would probably not be there, had it not been for Affirmative Action. (One of them we would be better off without… but that's beside the point.)

How is availing someone an opportunity for higher education a "hand-out"? When you sign up for college, you're taking on a boatload of work; unpaid work, I might add. How is education not "teaching how to fish?" Chuck got it right when he said "It seems to me admitting an underprivileged black person in to a university with a lower score is the definition of teaching someone to fish."

The fact remains that if those Affirmative Action students had lower scores prior to admission, it wasn't because they were dumber than the rest or didn't try hard enough. It was because they lived in the poorest neighborhoods and went to the crappiest schools, which didn't prepare them as well as those from better neighborhoods & schools. This is simply the result of economic policies that benefitted whites while maliciously excluding blacks, giving generations of whites a head start academically as well as financially. Affirmative Action's purpose was to help compensate for a socio-economic handicap blacks and other minorities were not to blame for, due to conditions beyond their control. So what in the hell is wrong with that?! Of those multitudes of white complainers who think Affirmative Action was "racist", I have not heard anyone suggest a better approach to leveling the proverbial playing field; just a lot of bitching & whining.

Even if Affirmative Action students had somewhat lower test scores prior to admission, they had to do the same work as everyone else, and jump through the same hoops and pass the same tests. Hardly a free ride. - Aliceinwonderland

DAM -- Thanks again for the info. The HP 03A is a laserjet cartridge. I took it out, turned it over, lifted the flap and there was green roller. I think I only get 8K copies per cartridge. Does it depend on the size of the cartridge? I have had the HP 5P laser printer for about 19 years. In that time I have printed 68,511 copies.

DAM --

Quote DAnneMarc:Because you and I both know it was nothing more than another hand out.

I do not know that. It seems to me admitting an underprivileged black person in to a university with a lower score is the definition of teaching someone to fish.

Quote chuckle8:Why do you say it was a brief economic justice?

chuckle8 ~ Because you and I both know it was nothing more than another hand out. Another "fish" instead of "teaching how to fish." Do you really think any "injustice" could ever lead to "justice?" Do you really think any judgement by the color of someones skin alone is going to lead to equality? Affirmative action was a slap in the face to equality.

ChicagoMatt ~ You can also add, "...where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Yeah, I too would doubt Dr. King would have been a big fan of "affirmative action." Other than some brief economic justice it did no permanent good for anyone and only fanned the flames of racial discontent. I'm so glad that nonsense is behind us and we can focus on real equal opportunity reforms; which, of course, begin with education, equal opportunity laws, and equal employment practices.

You simply cannot reverse the damage of four centuries of human rights abuses and inequality in a decade or two, all you do is postpone the real recovery. It is time we take equal rights and justice for all seriously.

Never mind that prior to Affirmative Action, white people got preference because of THEIR color! Nobody was whining then.

Again, a policy of "THEY STARTED IT..." is immature and something I don't accept from my 13-year-old students, much less politicians.

And white people were whining then. Dr. King referenced it in his same "Dream" speech - all of the whites in the crowd:

"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."

and:

"In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds."

Or, in other words, even Dr. King realized committing a wrong to correct a wrong was wrong.

And it's not just minorites. Here in Illinois, the state still has an official policy of preferential treatment/hiring of female-owned businesses, particularly for things like road construction. Some men just "sold" their companies to their wives, in order to get government contracts.

Sometimes I think third party is the way to go. I'm going to have to read up more on the Green Party's platform, to see if it fits my world view.

Am I wrong for being defeatist when it comes to these things? I know my vote doesn't matter here - the winner of Illinois is never in doubt. But even people who live in swing states, doesn't voting for a third party have the same affect as throwing rocks at a moving train that's about to run you over? It may make you feel better, but it doesn't change the outcome.

In general, the powerful most always collude and conspire against the powerless, simply because they can. There is a saying I heard Norman Goldman say, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."

I think there's a fine line between people looking out for themselves - the elites or anyone else - and people actively trying to keep other people down. The desire to keep the status quo, even by people on the low end of the economic ladder, just seems normal to me. Like greed, fear of change is a normal human emotion. How many people are willing to give up the little they have for the promise of having a little more, but at the risk of losing what they already have? Not many.

Marc, what policies of Jerry Brown's turned you off? Not having lived in California for over twenty years, I'm not as "up" on California politics as I used to be. But wasn't Jerry Brown a huge improvement after "The Hollywood Hulk"? (tsk tsk) - AIW

Quote ChicagoMatt:

Thom often calls "right to work" states "right to work for less" states. Many of those states are in the South and less-populated areas of the MidWest and Rockies. For the both areas, a lot of the desire for individualism can be traced back to the actual geography and population of the area. That is, it's a whole lot easier to want to be on your own if you're literally living on your own. And the the South, there is also an element of backlash against the Civil Rights movement that is still present. Note that I am not saying racism. I am from the South, and I can tell you that all races got along just fine. The resentment came from outsiders telling us what to do. Thom has said many times that LBJ knew he would lose the South when he signed the Civil Rights Act. But I don't think LBJ realized just how long the effects would last. "Yankee go home" doesn't just mean the person should go home, but the pro-union ideas should go too.

The South has values we have difficulty understanding, you might say, or maybe we understand them only too well. You seem to admire slavery, either industrial serfdom or wage slavery or outright agricultural enslavement. The races "got along just fine" as long as you could enslave the others and the others stayed "in their place".

"Yankee go home!" wasn't a cry of American southerners but of Latin Americans and others who had to live under American imperialism. If you want to be enslaved you're welcome to it, it's your BDSM fantasy but if you want to enslave somebody else you've got nothing to say if somebody intervenes. Just like you wouldn't let somebody get robbed on the street if you were there and could do something about it.

Quote ChicagoMatt:

When you talk about elites, are you talking about the same group of people, or just whoever happens to have money and power at any given time? Is it more "Illuminati"-style, where there is literally a handful of very powerful people at work behind the scenes? Or is it more like "wealthy people who all have the same mindset and just want more wealth"? Like, for example, would Bill Gates, who made most of his fortune after the Reagan Revolution, be considered an "eilte"?

The elites I talk about are those who determine the course and structure of society. They are the most prominent business and political leaders. They are not that secretive a group. Anybody can find out about them and their activity by reading The Wall Street Journal. Sometimes some investigative reporting is necessary to get at the real story but that is also readily available to the "consumer of news", as it were.

Business influences government and public policy many ways. It does this through the campaign finance system - essentially, a system of legalized bribery; through the power of big business to influence public opinion through its PR and marketing apparatae - and simply through its ownership of major media organs; through its power to affect local, national and international economies (capital flight, capital strike and such); through the revolving door between business and politics and other ways.

In general, the powerful most always collude and conspire against the powerless, simply because they can. There is a saying I heard Norman Goldman say, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."