Statement: I think I should be able to leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and not have it stolen. It is my property and the ease of it's theft does not make it any less mine. Practice: I take my keys with me when I exit my vehicle and I leave the doors locked... oh, but I still believe in statement. There is the world as I would like it to be, and the world that is. I would like there to be a color blind society. I do not think people should be treated differently because of the color of their skin. I oppose AA. In reality, people do notice gender and skin color. If the Republicans had the first black president, or even presidential candidate, it could lessen the Dems stranglehold on the black vote. It could also change the perception of the Republican party, a party that is often portrayed as racist (anyone remember the map of slave states next to the map of Republican states). Having a black person in the highest office could also be the death knell of affirmative action (hard to say minorities are being held back if there is a black woman in the Oval Office). Have fun with your word games SF. There seem to be plenty of people who get where I am coming from.
Oh, Moniker, so your initial statement of defense sank like a stone, so now you have brought out the "pre-emptive theory of affirmative action?" - aka you wish you didn't have to engage in it, like locking your car door, but you're going to anyway, because otherwise the other guy is going to do the same? THis makes the sum total of zero sense, but good luck with this amateur rationalization in the future, it makes no sense but it's novel, you could parley it into a C-grade sociology paper at your local community college. ....stop being such a liar and saying "I oppose AA". It's dishonest to leave that statement incomplete. You have, once again, come out and supported it, this time in the hastily cobbled "preemptive theory of affirmative action.[/b]. Friend, in this very post, you're saying exactly what I've described "I'm opposed to affirmative action unless it furthers my own interests". It is right there, plain as day, for all to see. There is no disagreement here. It's not a "word game", it's in plain English: You support affirmative action.
The whole basis for 'affirmative action' was Johnson's push for AA through executive order, which does - in fact - mandate AA. "The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing United States Executive Order 11246, later amended by Executive Order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The Order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected class status. The Order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. Any organization with fifty or more employees and an aggregate revenue exceeding $50,000 from federal contracts during a twelve month period must have a written affirmative action plan. This plan must include goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities." Too bad Sam's done a fine job of confusing StupidMoniker. This is like a bad movie where the annoying and not so bright DA gets the innocent idiot to confess on the stand to something he didn't do.
They don't have to implement AA though. They can do without federal funding. It is only mandated if they want their money from the government. But we all know that in the free market economy they shouldn't really need money from the government, and if they can't run their businesses without those handouts then they should change their business model.
An executive order which has precisely what legal effect? And it's binding on future presidents - how? And how have courts treated this order? You have several weeks to come back with a response. But newsflash- there have been some developments in this area since 1968 - see Baake, Adarand, City of Richmond - etc. I don't understand why people think this is confusing - you can't say "I oppose affirmative action, but I think so and so should be president because they're black" and not have people think you are at a minimum, very confused. This is simple Hayes, I don't really see why explanation is needed by anybody. It really
It mandates action on federal agencies, contractors, and subcontractors. Its binding on anyone accepting federal funding unless revoked by another President. Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require all United States Federal Agencies to implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees. EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD 715) (http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/eeomd715.html) provides guidance as to how such programs are to be implemented. City of Richmond et al only limited the scope of AA, it did not remove its mandate - not to mention that's not a federal issue ala Johnson's executive order. Bakke, Ararand, & Bollinger only applied new standards, they did not remove institutionalized mandates. I explained this in my first post. You can both oppose an institutionalized policy of advancing minorities (AA) AND support an individual minority for a post. Supporting Rice because she's "smart, just like dubya, a conservative academic" etc AND because its good PR for the Republican party does not translate into support for AA. I own a car dealership in the barrio. I hire a GM for the dealship because he's hispanic. That doesn't mean I support affirmative action mandated by the government, nor does it mean I support AA in the private sector. As SM rightly pointed out before his breakdown, AA at its core is to compensate for past wrongs and institutionalized racism (and its effects). SM never advocates that by proposing Rice become President. Merely supporting a minority, or hiring a minority - does not equate to supporting AA.
When SM talked about hiring a minority for a business because it is good PR, that is exploitation. That kind of racism isn't lynchings but it is still racism, and is still demeaning. That kind of thinking is proof that we haven't moved far enough along towards enlightenment to remove AA.
So our champions of social justice, Sam, FB and Sishir, are quick to label a Condi campaign as tokenism??? (Though sishir did note his other concerns too, which i share). How sad. How condescending. (Though i guess consistent with what some of our hardcore right wingers would label the promotion of a minority in other not-so-partisan fields). Same as it ever was. I guess the politics of sound bites, caricatures and division will continue... I'm most inclined to agree with Invisible Fan here...maybe the motives are questionable, but i would welcome a strong showing by her. Could she be any worse than Bush?
Hey...i'm not backing her candicy here . I actually agree with all your concerns. Just disagree with the tokenism label -- one you didn't use.
Sorry. After I posted that, I thought, "Man, I hope he doesn't think I'm bustin' his chops!" I really just used your post to take another well-deserved shot at Rice... and Bush. You were used! Keep D&D Civil!!
I don't disagree with Condi as a candidate because of tokenism. I believe that Thurgood Marshall was a token along with Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman and I respect all of them. I'm pointing out that the primary reasons cited by Stupid Monikers and others primarily have to do with the fact that she's black and a woman rather than her experience or stances on issues. I'm against Condi because I think she's a bad candidate even if she was a white male and even if I was a GW Bush supporter. If the Republican party wants to nominate a candidate with no domestic experience or policy and as the party that champions social values and the rural vote an unmarried academic go ahead. I think they would be foolish to do so but its their candidate.
rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm) n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. Advocating Rice as President is hardly racist, lol - notwithstanding the other five or six reasons given for making her President by SM.
I think you need to re-read his original post. Only ONE out of SM's SIX REASONS was that she was a minority (black woman). Not sure how that became the PRIMARY reason.
I'm writing here from the standpoint of purely political observation but I believe the Republicans would be ill served to put forward Condi Rice as an attempt to capture the African-American vote. As I noted before there are many reasons why Condi Rice is a bad candidate in general but on issues and personal history she's also a bad candidate for the Republican party as it is now. A Rice nomination will probably sow more dissention in the party and lose as many votes as she might gain. Leaving aside skin color or gender her pro-choice stance, Stanford background and being unmarried won't play well to the rural socially conservative power base. If the Republican party wants to reach out for the Afrian American vote the Terry Schiavo case shows how they could do it. While many blacks and black organizations are economically liberal they are socially conservative and there are huge opportunities to forge a faith based coalition among rural white evangelicals and black Christian groups. At the same time many rural white evangelicals really aren't that committed to economically conservative policies that support free trade and on the international front aren't that committed to a global outlook. The Christian Conservative Pat Buchanan wing, which still has some sway even if he doesn't, in many ways ideologically fits with the African American vote. To capture this vote there are far better black candidates out there than Condi Rice.
Because he's brought it up repeatedly that supporting Condi Rice is to win over black votes, change the perception of the Republican party and cheese of liberals. He's already said that he wouldn't support her because she's pro-choice.
First I didn't label a Rice candicy as tokenism. When I spoke about exploitation it was SM's assertion of having a business and hiring a black person for PR reasons. That is exploitation and tokenism. That is what I decried.
1. Just like Dubya, only well spoken 2. black, and a woman/would signal a dramatic shift in the perception of the Republican party (hard to call a party racist or a good ol' boys club if they have a black woman as president) 3. she is very smart 4. comes from that oh so rare breed of conservatives in academia 5. has a lot of foreign policy experience 6. would really cheese off the liberals One out of six reasons. How does 'cheese off liberals' equate to race at all? Do 'liberals' hate Rice because she's black?
I wasn't referring to advocating Rice for Presidency. This is what SM said that is racist, exploiting a person because of the the differences based on race. There was no other mention of a candidate's qualifications other than race, and no other mention of possible qualities the employee might offer other than his race. It also assumes that a good product couldn't sell itself or that minorities wouldn't be able to recognize that without a minority face for PR. That is tokenism and exploitation. I didn't mention Condi nor anyone's support of Condi at all in my posts.
Because he cited that it cheesed off liberals by stealing their thunder by running a black women. That's fine that he listed six reasons but looking over this thread I think I'm the only one who's discussed in depth Rice's qualifications, or lack thereof, for president other than race and gender. As I noted earlier SM has already stated that given other than that that she is a black woman he wouldn't support her because of her pro-choice stance. That tells me that of those six reasons ethnicity and gender are more important even to the point that it might overrule stands on other issues.
