Why do I hear a dead horse being beaten somewhere...
"Present day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!" - Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
Just like CNN to twist facts and outright lie to make a Republican look bad. That is not Affirmative Action. That is a Legacy policy. They are two distinct and very separate issues. One gives a distinct advantage to certain people based on race. The other allows members of the same family to attend the same university. To even suggest "impropriety" because Bush benifited from one, and is against the other, is really just plain silly. That would be like attacking someone who benifits from unemployment, because he recieves Social Security. Just because they are similar, does nto make them the same.
Look, the issue is "getting into somewhere for reasons other than merit." That is what people have a problem with. People are pointing out the ways in which this happens. I understand why conservatives would just like to ignore the issue, or say it isn't relevant. It's because it exposes the blatent hypocracy of the white conservative elite in this country.
What upsets me about the whole issue isn't if A.A. is good or not, and in what form. I legitimatly haven't made up my mind on that issue yet. What I hate, is people looking for OTHER people to make things "fair," or asking other people's lives to be harder, or asking other people to take responsibility, before asking THEMSELVES "what can I do to make things fair? How have I gotten off easy when I shouldn't have?" "How am I responsible?"
I would have much more respect for the rich, conservative, white Ivy League elite (such as the Bush family) in this case if they addressed their own unfair advantages and privilages, and decided to eliminate those, before going after other people's. In fact, this is generally my problem with conservatives in general. They are always preaching "responsibility," and "morals," and the like, but only ever seem to address other people's deficiencies, never their own. Kind of like how guys like Jr., who have never done a day's work in their lives, have the nerve to tell people that all they need to get ahead is just work a little harder.
Look, I'm not saying there aren't privilaged Liberals also. But at least these people know this, and try to do something to make sure others can have the opportunity they had, rather than pretending to be a hardscrabble Texan instead of a lazy, Prep-School kid.
(edited by MoeGates on 22.1.03 1716) It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
"That is not Affirmative Action. That is a Legacy policy. They are two distinct and very separate issues. One gives a distinct advantage to certain people based on race. The other allows members of the same family to attend the same university. To even suggest "impropriety" because Bush benifited from one, and is against the other, is really just plain silly."
Not really. it's the same basic principle-someone getting into college for something other than their academic merit. And seeing as that was the basis of many arguments againt Affirmative Action, then I'd say Bush's use of the legacy policy is damn well relevant.
"Here's the thing: I don't give a tupenny f*ck about your moral conundrum, you meatheaded shit-sack. That's pretty much the thing." Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Gangs Of New York. You'd be surprised at how many statements this can be used as a response to.
Originally posted by MoeGatesLook, the issue is "getting into somewhere for reasons other than merit."
And for that reason it has nothing to do with affirmative action, which is about race and racism.
Let's follow your train of logic some more. You seem to be claiming that legacy policies are equivalent to AA.
So, Vince McMahon hiring the Rock because he is third generation is just as unfair as Vince McMahon let's say... firing D'Lo because he is black, or not hiring Booker T because he is black? These things are equvialent?
I think the main difference is that race issues are in the Constitution (where it states that you may not discriminate on the basis of race), and the Legacy policy is not (the Constitution doesn't state anything about discrimination using other kinds of criteria, including grades, test scores, donations, and even legacy).
That's not to say that the legacy thing is not a valid point or issue. I just merely stating that there is a Constitutional basis for the complaint on admission policies being based on race.
From the beginning, I thought Clark was a shoe-in for the race. A strong military career, not an insider, a good-looking guy-I thought Americans would just love him. I'm really surprised he ended up being an afterthought.