A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

With The World Environment Day Conference.....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old June 21st, 2005, 03:32 PM
Stan de SD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
In ba.transportation The entity once known as

wrote:
Merlin Dorfman wrote:


In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:
that out of nearly 1000 students in the natural sciences department
(Chemistry, Physics, Biology) there were maybe a dozen black

students - and
half of those were Africans. Fact of the matter was that black

students
simply weren't intrested in that academic track, despite the effort of

the
CC to offer all sorts of minority "outreach" programs to minorities.

And why do you suppose that is? And do you see that as a problem,
or should we just shrug our shoulders and move on?


Those very questions are a manifestation of the "I know what's best for
you" hubris that is tightly woven into the American WASP cultural
psychology. This hubris is such an integral part of the culture that we
find it at every point of the political spectrum. The right exhibits

this
hubris when it "exports freedom," but the left exhibits it too when it
obssesses about equality.


I don't think it's a matter of abstractly knowing what's best for
the country. It's that a situation where a large ethnic group is
more or less permanently consigned to economic inferiority leads to
some instability. If you have a group that feels some internal
cohesion and has no stake in the society, you wind up spending
resources on law enforcement that it would be better if we didn't have
to spend. Or else you build walls...but a society where the top
layer has to hire guards to protect itself from the bottom layer has
a lot of instability anyway.
Do you disagree? Do you think the situation is sustainable, or
will correct itself if we quit interfering?


The problem is the assumption that such "underrrepresentation" is some
deliberate attempt by one group to exclude the other (a la DC's foaming &
frothing) as oppposed to the acceptance that people who have a different
culture, outlook, and values AS A GROUP simply have different levels of
interest in certain areas of study, employment, et. al. As a society we
spend all sorts of time and effort on various equal opportunity "outreach"
programs to encourage some minority groups to participate in various
educational and employment opportunities, and some individuals do, but not
in numbers proportionate to their population. Is that the fault of evil
white racists, especially when members of other minority groups have no
problem competing without and special encouragement whatsoever?


Is it a problem that blacks are not interested in the academic track of

the
hard sciences? It's only a problem because American WASP culture values
technology and science and believes that others should too. Confronted

with
the fact that they don't, the cultural reaction is to label the

situation
"a problem" and look around for a solution.


Is there any point at all in wondering why? It's not just
science and technology, it's all the well-paying jobs, and
therefore it's a situation where ethnic minorities--not all, but
some very large ones--are way OVER represented in the poor-paying
jobs...and in unemployment. And yes, I do believe that that
should not be the case.


Does the fact that it is NOT the case prove that there is some deliberate
effort to exclude these groups as DC wildly accuses?

Why do you think blacks are less "interested" in science and
technology? Is it genetic?


Many African-American academics and commentators have already answered this,
and believe it is a cultural factor. Try reading "Race and Culture" and
"Black Rednecks, White Liberals" by Dr. Thomas Sowell for his take on this
issue.

But, indeed, why should the ethnic distribution of college students

within
specific majors match the ethnic distribution of the general population?
Why must everyone like to study what American WASP culture likes to

study?

So it's not genetic, it's cultural...blacks are interested in
rap music and sports, while American WASPS (not to mention Asians,
Catholics, Jews, and other groups) are interested in things that
have a much better chance of leading to well-paying jobs. And you
are OK with that?


The fact that you and I may not be OK with that doesn't seem to affect the
fact that a noticeable proportion of those people see it as just fine.
Again, that's not to say we shouldn't try to change the situation, but do we
need to continually accept the blame for it?


  #122  
Old June 21st, 2005, 03:39 PM
Stan de SD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Pittman" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

I don't see that as a "problem" if there aren't a bunch of PC assholes
insisting that the reason these groups are "underrepresented" is somehow

due
to "racism"...


If you had spent your early years (1-18) in Kentucky and Missouri, as I
did, you'd KNOW it was due to racism -


I spent my early years in CA, NY, and NJ, all states that have a pretty
"progressive" reputation when it comes to affirmative action and the latest
and greatest touchie-feelie panaceas guranteed to ensure "inclusion". Had
blacks, hispanics, and Asians in every school I went to, in every grade, and
by the time I was in 7th grade, our schools also had noticeable populations
of Middle Eastern students as well. Yet with all that, blacks and hispanics
were still "underrepresented" in the population of HS kids continuing on to
college, while Asians and middle easterners OVER-represented. That suggests
that there are factors other than your tired caricature of Evil Nasty White
Folks trying to keep the black or brown man down... :O|


  #123  
Old June 21st, 2005, 03:44 PM
Stan de SD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

Congress doesn't agree with you. The only people who agree with you

are
other bigots.

Another fine example of Lefty Liberal circular reasoning...


You're free to petition Congress to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment, and

all of its laws based on that Amendment. Until then, vox populi vox Dei.


Colleges face a different situation than employers. You keep diverting

by
bringing up college issues to rationalize employment discrimination.

No, I bring it up as an example of political correctness run amuck....


Diversion. EEO/AA is the law of the land, not some buzzwords.


Ever considered the fact that with all your intervention in public policy
and education, the fact that you Lefty Liberals still can't get the Utopian
results you hope for in terms of "representation" might be due to the fact
that your own cultural blinders (and the desire to find a convenient
scapegoat for all the world's problems) prevent you from acknowledging that
some of your assumpions may not be valid?


  #124  
Old June 21st, 2005, 03:55 PM
Stan de SD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
In ba.transportation Frank F. Matthews

wrote:


Merlin Dorfman wrote:


...

only

2-3% of the students in those programs were black to begin with? I

recall

that out of nearly 1000 students in the natural sciences department
(Chemistry, Physics, Biology) there were maybe a dozen black

students -

and

half of those were Africans. Fact of the matter was that black

students
simply weren't intrested in that academic track, despite the effort

of

the

CC to offer all sorts of minority "outreach" programs to minorities.

And why do you suppose that is? And do you see that as a

problem,
or should we just shrug our shoulders and move on?


I don't see that as a "problem" if there aren't a bunch of PC assholes
insisting that the reason these groups are "underrepresented" is

somehow due
to "racism"...


Suppose all us PC assholes disappeared overnight, and we still
had a situation where only 2-3% of the students in the hard sciences
are black. Do you see that as a problem that the universities, or
the government, or private organizations ought to address, or do you
believe it will correct itself over time, or is it simply not a
problem and therefore it should be ignored?


If you want to force all students to take courses in mathematics and
science then, perhaps, you can do something. You can provide students
with an opportunity to take classes but it is difficult to see how to
force them into a major.


I was thinking more along the lines of working at the root cause
of the lack of minority students in these programs...surely it's not
a cultural aversion to high-paying, respected jobs...


You sure of that? I lived in a racially mixed, fairly "liberal" neighborhood
in Southern California in the 1970's. Our neighbor was a black aerospace
engineer who worked for Hughes and who saved and scrimped to bring his
family out of the ghetto and into the suburbs. Both his kids attended the
same suburban, racially mixed schools I did, but both of them became
ne'er-do-well types who dropped out of school, shacked up with their
girlfriends, and got in various scrapes with the law. Going to school and
getting good grades was considered "acting white" by their peers who lived
in the projects in northwest Pasadena, and the last thing any black kid
wanted back then was to be accused of being "white". Despite the fact that
the Pasadena Unified School District did all the good and right liberal
things such as implementing a court-ordered busing plan, electing a hispanic
superitendent (Ramon Cortinez), promoting plenty of black and hispanic
teachers as "role models", and striving for AA, there was still an almost
predestined effort to fail among some of the black kids. The fact that
blacks and hispanics aren't making it in the year 2005 has less and less to
do with vestiges of some era of racial discrimination that ended 2
generations ago and more to do with cultural attitudes of people who not
only do not hold the same values as the rest of society, but often hold them
in contempt. Now whose fault is that?


  #125  
Old June 21st, 2005, 07:50 PM
Disgruntled Customer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

The problem is the assumption that such "underrrepresentation" is some
deliberate attempt by one group to exclude the other (a la DC's foaming &
frothing) as oppposed to the acceptance that people who have a different
culture, outlook, and values AS A GROUP simply have different levels of


Diversion. An excuse for bigotry.

EEO/AA applies to pool of job applicants, not the entire population. If whatever reason, the pool of applicants to an employer differs from the entire population, the employer is only responsible for fair hiring from the pool. Society as a whole may address why the pool differs from the whole population, but the employer does not have to.

You have been informed of this many times and still you whine that the pool does not match general population therefore the employer should be allowed a biased selection within the pool. Because you are unable to grasp such a simple concept, I wonder if you are congenitally stupid or a self-made moron?

programs to encourage some minority groups to participate in various
educational and employment opportunities, and some individuals do, but not
in numbers proportionate to their population. Is that the fault of evil
white racists, especially when members of other minority groups have no
problem competing without and special encouragement whatsoever?


If the distribution of hired people does not match the distribution of the _job applicants_ (and not the population as a whole), the explanations are a fluke whose probability can be computed; Congress and three quarters of the states are wrong; or hiring is biased. If no bigotry is involved, the employer will desire to overcome bias since it is contrary to the best interest of the company

If bigotry is involved, they whine and bitch about "quotas."

--
Feh. Mad as heck.
  #126  
Old June 22nd, 2005, 12:01 AM
Bill Pittman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

Ever considered the fact that with all your intervention in public policy
and education, the fact that you Lefty Liberals still can't get the Utopian
results you hope for in terms of "representation" might be due to the fact
that your own cultural blinders (and the desire to find a convenient
scapegoat for all the world's problems) prevent you from acknowledging that
some of your assumpions may not be valid?


I don't think we "Lefty Liberals" need "a convenient scapegoat) for
problems in this country, anyway. Everything I see tells me that the
problems we presently have involve a single scapegoat organization: the
"Righty Neanderthal" Republicans in the administration and in Congress.
  #127  
Old June 22nd, 2005, 02:02 AM
pigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Pittman" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

Ever considered the fact that with all your intervention in public
policy
and education, the fact that you Lefty Liberals still can't get
the Utopian
results you hope for in terms of "representation" might be due to
the fact
that your own cultural blinders (and the desire to find a
convenient
scapegoat for all the world's problems) prevent you from
acknowledging that
some of your assumpions may not be valid?


I don't think we "Lefty Liberals" need "a convenient scapegoat) for
problems in this country, anyway. Everything I see tells me that
the
problems we presently have involve a single scapegoat organization:
the
"Righty Neanderthal" Republicans in the administration and in
Congress.


Actually that's the "scapegoat" that's trying to fix them.

Enron was going in the toilet during the excesses and anything goes
policy of the previous democrat administration. The same folks that
are more interested in making things difficult for President Bush
than what's best for the country. Clinton used Haliburton to rebuild
Kosovo. But no one brings that up when they bash Bush for using them.

The same ones that are now complaining about the insurgency in Iraq
that would have squealed like Ned Beatty had we killled those guys
rather than let them fade back into the population. The same ones
that whine "why did we attack Iraq when N. Korea and Iran are such
threats" when you know damn well had we attacked Iran they'd just
substitute Iraq in that sentence.

It took the Democrats 40 years to **** things up as badly as it has
gotten. It's going to take a long time to correct especially with an
opposition more interested in regaining power than doing what's best
for America.

Those dickweeds couldn't wait to crucify Sen. Lott for some remarks
made at a birthday party. But nary a word when one of their own
compares treatment of illegal combatants by US soldiers at Gitmo to
that of the people in Nazi Concentration Camps and Soviet Gulags
where millions were tortured and killed. During a time of War no
less. What a pitiful sack of ****.

If liberals want redistribute wealth and force the hiring of
unqualified persons why don't they just take it upon themselves and
do it? We won't stop them.


  #128  
Old June 22nd, 2005, 03:02 AM
Stan de SD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

The problem is the assumption that such "underrrepresentation" is some
deliberate attempt by one group to exclude the other (a la DC's foaming

&
frothing) as oppposed to the acceptance that people who have a different
culture, outlook, and values AS A GROUP simply have different levels of


Diversion. An excuse for bigotry.


Stupidity - an excuse for DC.


EEO/AA applies to pool of job applicants, not the entire population.


And if the entire pool of job applicants doesn't share the same level of
qualification?


  #129  
Old June 22nd, 2005, 03:09 AM
Disgruntled Customer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"pigo" enscribed:

Enron was going in the toilet during the excesses and anything goes
policy of the previous democrat administration. The same folks that


The previous democrat administration extended to November 9, 2001? What was Bush between January and November

are more interested in making things difficult for President Bush
than what's best for the country. Clinton used Haliburton to rebuild
Kosovo. But no one brings that up when they bash Bush for using them.


Al Gore didn't financially benefit from Haliburton in Kosovo. That's what conflict of interest is all about. Cheney's relation to Haliburton, Bush's relation to Enron or ADM throws suspicion on their decisions.

The same ones that are now complaining about the insurgency in Iraq
that would have squealed like Ned Beatty had we killled those guys
rather than let them fade back into the population. The same ones


The ones complaining about the insurgency in Iraq (Bush, Rumsfield, et al) are the same ones who dismissed accurate predictions that Iraq would be a tar baby. Given their past ability to predict the location of WMD, American troops being cheered by locals, how it would be a cakewalk, how Iraqi oil would pay for it all, do you really believe Cheney when he tells us that back of the insurgency has been broken?

Of course, the Downing Street memos show that Bush knew along he was lying about WMD.

that whine "why did we attack Iraq when N. Korea and Iran are such
threats" when you know damn well had we attacked Iran they'd just
substitute Iraq in that sentence.


Or you could get your head out of your butt long enough to realize the question points out Bush's hypocrisy. For all of Bush's blather about democracy, he remarkably blase about Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, PRC, Sudan, etc. And Bush cheered on the coup d'etat of the democratically elected government of Venezula (or participated in the plot). His bone headed bashing of Iranian elections brought an anti-American candidate into second place. Then again a hostile Iran really is in Bush's interest.

It took the Democrats 40 years to **** things up as badly as it has
gotten. It's going to take a long time to correct especially with an
opposition more interested in regaining power than doing what's best
for America.


When exactly did that forty year period end? Before or after the WTC was destroyed? Before or after the debt was doubled again making Social Security untenable? Before or after high paying jobs were outsourced to Asia? Before or after the Army was bogged down in war it can't extricate itself from? Before or after 1700 dead and 12000 wounded American soldiers? Before or after the first balanced budget since before Reagan? Before or after Army recruiting plummeted? Before or after DPRK withdrew from NPT? Before or after religious whackos were allowed to violate the First Amendment? Before or after the Senate was prepared to abandon two centuries of unlimited or nearly unlimited debate? Before or after most countries of the world listed the USA as the greatest threat to world peace? Before or after Manhattan sized icebergs broke off Antarctica? Before or after medical costs are driving middle class families into bankruptcy? Before or after middle class families are driven into perpetual debt because of medical costs? Before or after the only medical care available to most poor people is expensive emergency care?

Perhaps it would help if you listed specifically what you consider a "**** up."

Those dickweeds couldn't wait to crucify Sen. Lott for some remarks
made at a birthday party. But nary a word when one of their own


At what point has Lott repudiated Thurman's bigotry he was cheering on? At what point did Lott repudiate his connection to the racist CCC and apologize for it? At what point did Republicans repudiated the openly racist Dixiecrats that swelled their party ranks in the fifties? At what point did Republicans stop pointing Byrd's KKK past or did they start pointing out the Byrd utterly repudiated that past and apologized for his decisions in his youth?

compares treatment of illegal combatants by US soldiers at Gitmo to
that of the people in Nazi Concentration Camps and Soviet Gulags
where millions were tortured and killed. During a time of War no
less. What a pitiful sack of ****.


I've noticed one thing about the whole Durbin brouhaha: Durbin asked a question. Nobody has yet answered his question. It seems as the question is so embarrassing that people would rather stifle the question that deal with it.

What about? If you had read accounts of what was done without knowing who had done it, would you assume that it been American soldiers?

If liberals want redistribute wealth and force the hiring of


Do you think it stabilizes the country to have a vast and increasing gulf between rich and poor? Do you think other countries like this are models are political stability? Why do you feel that the profit from productivity increases should only go to small fraction of people who neither work more productivity nor invent the productivity increases? Is it fair that the laborer whose sweat and blood increases the company's value should sink into poverty?

unqualified persons why don't they just take it upon themselves and
do it? We won't stop them.


Only bigoted scum still believe some groups of people are inherently inferior or superior. Even Mississippi is walking away from that sewer.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.
  #130  
Old June 22nd, 2005, 03:16 AM
Disgruntled Customer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

EEO/AA applies to pool of job applicants, not the entire population.


And if the entire pool of job applicants doesn't share the same level of
qualification?


And if nobody claimed they did? You keep arguing against statements nobody makes. Why is that? Are you too feeble to deal with reality?

The claim is not that all people are equal. Nor is the claim that pool of job applicants will match the population as whole. The claim is that merit is distributed among the pool of job applicants without regards to race, color, creed (except for religious vocations), national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc. That claim is held as truth by the Congress and state legislatures.

Your continued, and nauseating, attempts to qualify your way around this truth are just excuses for your bigotry. Be a man and accept your bigotry for what it is.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Banking for long term world travel? [email protected] Travel - anything else not covered 0 April 9th, 2005 06:54 AM
HAL Committed To Protecting Environment! Ray Goldenberg Cruises 3 April 24th, 2004 06:11 AM
Seven Seas Voyager's 107-night first world cruise Jan. - April 2005. Anchors Away Cruise Center Cruises 1 April 2nd, 2004 12:39 AM
Most of the World Still Does Without Earl Evleth Europe 1 December 26th, 2003 09:07 PM
_Lonely Planet_ Threat to Environment Tame Africa 1 October 24th, 2003 05:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.