Science > Abortion > Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
10 Feb 2006 03:56:36 PM |
| Object: |
Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
http://fathermckenzie.blogspot.com/2006/02/but-what-about-children.html
"But what about the CHILDREN?"
"Lyn Allison was 18 when she found out she was pregnant. Living in
Fairfield, Victoria, in the 1960s, the idea of being an unmarried
mother was a burden too great for her family to bear. As the Democrats
leader revealed in the Senate last night: "An estimated one in three
women have had an abortion, and I am one of them." [...] Senator
Allison explained her decision to the [Sydney Morning] Herald: "I came
from a very conservative family and for them the shame of having a
child out of wedlock was unacceptable... I lived near an unmarried
mothers' home and they were out of sight in what was effectively an
institution. That was never going to be a prospect for me." Her family
knew, and her GP referred her, an act that would have been illegal at
the time. Having a child at 18 would have changed her life in ways she
was not prepared to contemplate. "I probably wouldn't be here [in the
Senate]," she said..."
-- Stephanie Peatling, "Revelation adds to emotional debate", Sydney
Morning Herald (9 February 2006)
Perhaps not, Senator. On the other hand, there might be one more
40[?]-year-old Democrat voter alive today, to help your party stave off
its impending electoral extinction.
Unfortunately for the pro-aborts, in a political system based (assuming
we can continue to stave off the imposition of a Bill of Rights) on
universal adult suffrage, there's no way around the brute mathematics
of "I'm pro-life and I vote... and so do all my kids", no matter how
often they repeat the chanted mantra of "Not the Church/ not the state/
Let the Woman/ decide her fate". It is not necessary for the pro-life
side to chant back "Children's lives don't/ belong to others/ Not their
fathers/ Not their mothers". We just have to be the ones who have
children. (With the caveat that you don't of course, have like, fifteen
or sixteen kids so they grow up unfed and unclothed and get so pissed
off with their pro-life upbringing that they turn your society into
another Italy, France, Ireland or Quebec in a single generation.)
Having had much experience in my youth with student politicians, I
always simply assume that at least half of our MPs at any given time
have either aborted a child (if female) or have sired an aborted child
(if male). This cuts across Left-Right lines, since the logic of easy
abortion is as highly appealing to the Party of Lust as it is to the
Party of Greed.
Perhaps we can have similarly rational and impartial debates about the
merits of other controversial social policies? Hmmm... "When I was 18,
I called an effeminate schoolmate of mine a '*****'. The Bill before
this House today, by outlawing vilification on the grounds of sexual
orientation, would have made me -- and thousands of others like me -- a
criminal! A law-breaker! But I'm a law-abiding citizen! Therefore, if
what I did would conflict with the law, then the law must be wrong!..."
And of course, society is still locking up young unmarried mothers, in
what is effectively an institution, just like in Lyn Allison's youth,
to brutally punish them for having sex out of wedlock.
I don't really expect much more than this from the Democrats (although
I do hope Natasha Stott-Despoja took care to turn down the TV sound in
case her baby son hears her telling the world "Mummy might have had you
chopped up by the doctor if you'd been inconvenient for her
lifestyle"), or from Julia Gillard. But Fiona Nash? One of the few
redeeming traits of the Nationals used to be their much-trumpeted
attachment to Christian values. If they want to become the party of
selfishness in relation to children's rights, not only to tariffs and
taxes, then to hell with them.
Having said that, the pro-life side seems to be putting a lot of energy
into a battle over an essentially short-term and symbolic question:
whether it is the Health Minister, or an appointed govt board, that can
give final approval to the abortion pill. Even if they win, it could
well turn out a pyrrhic victory: Tony Abbott (who seems, given his
views on abortion and the monarchy, to be undecided as to whether a
person's chances in life should depend on whether they're lucky to be
conceived in the right womb) won't be Health Minister forever.
Moreover, I disagree with the anti-RU486 tack of framing opposition in
terms of concern for the woman's health. Not that I want women to bleed
to death as punishment for procuring at-home abortions, but because
they have voluntarily assumed the risk. Pro-aborts frequently depict
anti-aborts as paternalistic chauvinists who don't think adult women
can be trusted to make decisions in their own interests;[*] this
anti-RU486 argument plays right into the hands of those who peddle this
stereotype. Me, I have no doubt that on balance women are as good as
men are at making decisions to promote their own interests; what I
don't buy is the creative Cannoldian line that, if your mother decides
to abort you, that's in your interests too. (I am not making that up.
Cannold is an ethics lecturer, believe it or not. But then, so is Peter
Singer.)
[*] Except, of course, when women vote for John Howard. Then they're
naive dupes of the ruling class, the media and dog-whistle politics.
.
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
10 Feb 2006 07:59:22 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in
news:1139608596.298593.39770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters?
Un-***** my newsgroup, butt-trumpet.
--
Doc Smartass XP - New Interface, Same Old *****
Keep THOR in THURSDAY!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
10 Feb 2006 04:39:21 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
[...]
Another idiot who thinks that women who abort a pregnancy *never* have
children, and who pretends that partisan political loyalty is a trait
inherited from one's parents, like eye or hair color. Well, only someone
who is dumber-than-rocks would believe that. In fact, more than 60% of
abortions are among women who already have 1 or more children.
The only way you can guarantee that your anti-choice parents could have that
kind of influence over their children would be for them to homeschool their
children and never let them watch TV, listen to the radio or surf the
Internet. That is not going to happen.
And don't forget to take into account the fungability of political values.
140 years ago, it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that saved the Union
and freed the slaves, while the Democrats were basically an organized
backlash against the Republicans. But for the last 50 years, it's been the
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice, and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Whichever party picks up the standard for social justice is where you will
find people of conscience. The mean, spiteful people will side with the
backlash. Are you saying that the U.S. will be overrun with mean, spiteful
people?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 12:33:32 AM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
news:dsj4mq$73s$0@pita.alt.net...
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
[...]
Another idiot who thinks that women who abort a pregnancy *never* have
children, and who pretends that partisan political loyalty is a trait
inherited from one's parents, like eye or hair color. Well, only
someone
who is dumber-than-rocks would believe that. In fact, more than 60% of
abortions are among women who already have 1 or more children.
The only way you can guarantee that your anti-choice parents could have
that
kind of influence over their children would be for them to homeschool
their
children and never let them watch TV, listen to the radio or surf the
Internet. That is not going to happen.
And don't forget to take into account the fungability of political
values.
140 years ago, it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that saved the
Union
and freed the slaves, while the Democrats were basically an organized
backlash against the Republicans. But for the last 50 years, it's been
the
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice, and the
Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on Poverty" program
in 1964.
Never had there been such a comprehensive program to tackle poverty at
its roots, to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, to
rehabilitate those who had fallen by the wayside, and to make dependent
people self-supporting. Its intentions were the best. But we know what
road is paved with good intentions.
The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal
vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to
social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the
word "liberal" so much of a political liability that today even
candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that
designation.
In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government
housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and
quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to
be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were
not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as
Section 8 housing.
Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for
years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through
the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends
suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.
The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was
just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies
toward curing the "root causes" of crime and creating new "rights" for
criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.
The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and
discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare
state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an
emergency rescue to a way of life.
Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a
way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the
1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration,
which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far
fewer urban riots.
Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question
the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often
attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people
to these programs.
For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal
says in its current issue: "Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition
of most black Americans improved markedly."
That is completely false and misleading.
The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the
legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The
continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not -- repeat, did
not -- accelerate during the 1960s.
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to
47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights
legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage
points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during
the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither
unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs
like the War on Poverty.
In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites
more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that is, before the magic
1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in
professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five
years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years
afterwards.
While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other
decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today.
Many of those disasters began quite clearly during the 1960s.
But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision? Liberal assumptions
-- "two Americas," for example -- are being recycled this election year,
even by candidates who evade the "liberal" label.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find this story at:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/08/17/12721.html
Whichever party picks up the standard for social justice is where you
will
find people of conscience.
"Social justice" is just the latest catch phrase the left has invented to
support Marxism, socialism, and complete dependence on the nanny state
since they made "liberalism" a bad word in America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 12:53:58 AM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice, and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its effect.
---------------------------------------
A Day in Life of Joe Republican
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare
his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some
tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His
medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought
to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical
plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for
paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe
to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the
meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is
properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total
contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know
what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he
breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought
for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to
work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation
fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a
contributor.
Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy
liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't
want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or
becomes unemployed, he'll get a workers compensation or unemployment
check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home
because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noontime, and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some
bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC, because some
godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous
bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his
below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided
that Joe and the government would be better off if he were educated
and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at
his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His
car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating
liberal fought for car safety standards.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live
in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers
didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity
until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't
belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on
Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk
show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved
Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe
enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those
big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self- made
man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I
have."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 12:23:01 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43ed8a06$0$58037$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
not bother to answer the rebuttal of your
imbedded inflamed brain stem response that was
already right there in Sowell's column:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/08/17/12721.html
====
Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions
question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even
conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has
been made by lower-income people to these programs.
For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City
Journal says in its current issue: "Beginning in the
mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved
markedly."
That is completely false and misleading.
The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before
any of the legislation and policies that are credited with
producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks
out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate
during the 1960s.
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent
in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no
major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It
dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of
the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but
this continuation of the previous trend was neither
unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to
the programs like the War on Poverty.
In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative
to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that
is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all
progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other
high-level occupations was greater in the five years
preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five
years afterwards.
While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of
many other decades, so did major social disasters that
continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began
quite clearly during the 1960s.
But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision? Liberal
assumptions -- "two Americas," for example -- are being
recycled this election year, even by candidates who evade
the "liberal" label.
====
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 01:44:38 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
12 Feb 2006 05:01:24 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43ee3ea6$0$58119$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
And it's pretty clear from that graph that the drop in poverty SLOWED
markedly once LBJ's "War on Poverty" was implemented. The poverty rate
had already dropped 7% by then. The most it dropped after that was 3 -
4%. So, if it had any effect, it could better be argued that it hurt more
than it helped. And that's without all the disastrous side effects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
12 Feb 2006 06:22:28 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43ee3ea6$0$58119$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
And it's pretty clear from that graph that the drop in poverty SLOWED
markedly once LBJ's "War on Poverty" was implemented.
What drugs are YOU using?
The poverty rate
had already dropped 7% by then.
In 1964 it was around 19%. by 1968 it was down to 12%.
The number of people in poverty dropped from 34 million to
25 million.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
13 Feb 2006 11:30:52 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43efd144$0$58051$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43ee3ea6$0$58119$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
And it's pretty clear from that graph that the drop in poverty SLOWED
markedly once LBJ's "War on Poverty" was implemented.
What drugs are YOU using?
It's called "Reality." Something you obviously have no experience with.
The poverty rate
had already dropped 7% by then.
In 1964 it was around 19%. by 1968 it was down to 12%.
The number of people in poverty dropped from 34 million to
25 million.
LBJ only signed the bill in late 1964. It takes at least a year to
implement and more for the effects to make themselves known.
Take a look at Figure 2, on Page 5 of
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf
There is it obvious that non-elderly poverty rates went pretty much FLAT
after the so-called "War on Poverty," after having dropped for 7 years
before that.
You lose again. Reality's a *****, ain't it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
12 Feb 2006 06:58:55 PM |
|
|
On 13 Feb 2006 00:22:28 GMT, (Ray Fischer)
posted:
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
news:43ee3ea6$0$58119$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
And it's pretty clear from that graph that the drop in poverty SLOWED
markedly once LBJ's "War on Poverty" was implemented.
What drugs are YOU using?
The poverty rate
had already dropped 7% by then.
In 1964 it was around 19%. by 1968 it was down to 12%.
The number of people in poverty dropped from 34 million to
25 million.
And the numbers of poor have been rising ever since, eh, Ray?
Looks like poverty stopped dropping just about the time the War on
Poverty got up to speed.
Morons like Ray would like to believe that the mere *passage* of the
act in 1964 brought poverty immediately down (Ray *has* to pretend
that or the figures don't support him), while realists understand
the effects of any such mammoth program wouldn't be noticeable for
several years out, or just about the time that the poverty stopped
dropping in the United States.
And, as Martin so aptly pointed out, poverty had already been
rapidly dropping for two decades before the passage of the act, but
that, too, doesn't look good for Ray's chart, so it's left way off
to the left there, kinda outta sight...
But the main thing is, one doesn't need to go grubbing for charts or
statistics to prop up the dim germ of a notion scavenging in the
dark corners of Ray's mind. It's very simple: The ends don't
justify the means. Even if the "War on Poverty" did appear to knock
a percentage or two off the poverty rate, it's still wrong to steal
from people, no matter how you justify it.
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 03:11:08 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43ee3ea6$0$58119$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social
justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
I know, Ray, that as an inflamed brain stem
you merely have imbeds that resemble thinking
but have no capacity to reflect on context,
which is why you can't deal with what Tom
Sowell has to say about your chart:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/08/17/12721.html
====
Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions
question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even
conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has
been made by lower-income people to these programs.
For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City
Journal says in its current issue: "Beginning in the
mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved
markedly."
That is completely false and misleading.
The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before
any of the legislation and policies that are credited with
producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks
out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate
during the 1960s.
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent
in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no
major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It
dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of
the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but
this continuation of the previous trend was neither
unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to
the programs like the War on Poverty.
In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative
to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that
is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all
progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other
high-level occupations was greater in the five years
preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five
years afterwards.
While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of
many other decades, so did major social disasters that
continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began
quite clearly during the 1960s.
But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision? Liberal
assumptions -- "two Americas," for example -- are being
recycled this election year, even by candidates who evade
the "liberal" label.
====
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 03:41:24 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social
justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
I know, Ray, that as an inflamed brain stem
And so the neocon cultist ignores the facts and clings to the
propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 06:11:19 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43ee5a04$0$58102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com>
wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social
justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe
this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date
on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
I know, Ray, that as an inflamed brain stem
And so the neocon cultist ignores the facts and clings to
the
propaganda.
Are you saying that you're a "neocon cultist"
now, Ray, or just that you can't read----
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
not bother to answer the rebuttal of your
imbedded inflamed brain stem response that was
already right there in Sowell's column:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/08/17/12721.html
====
Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions
question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even
conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has
been made by lower-income people to these programs.
For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City
Journal says in its current issue: "Beginning in the
mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved
markedly."
That is completely false and misleading.
The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before
any of the legislation and policies that are credited with
producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks
out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate
during the 1960s.
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent
in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no
major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It
dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of
the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but
this continuation of the previous trend was neither
unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to
the programs like the War on Poverty.
In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative
to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that
is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all
progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other
high-level occupations was greater in the five years
preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five
years afterwards.
While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of
many other decades, so did major social disasters that
continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began
quite clearly during the 1960s.
But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision? Liberal
assumptions -- "two Americas," for example -- are being
recycled this election year, even by candidates who evade
the "liberal" label.
====
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 11:19:46 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43ee5a04$0$58102$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Unpleasant Truth <no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com>
wrote...
Democrats who have carried the torch for social
justice,
and the Republicans
became the organized backlash.
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe
this
dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
A painful anniversary
By Thomas Sowell
Aug 17, 2004
August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the
major turning
points in American social history. That was the date
on
which President
Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on
Poverty" program
in 1964.
It actually halved the rate of poverty in the US. One
needs only look
at a chart of the rate of poverty in the US to see its
effect.
But, inflamed brain stem that you are, Ray, you did
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html
I know, Ray, that as an inflamed brain stem
And so the neocon cultist ignores the facts and clings to
the
propaganda.
Are you saying that you're a "neocon cultist"
You right-wing cultists sure are not very smart.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 06:20:48 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
Is that so? Let's go through what I posted and see what facts are
"otherwise".
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote:
Another idiot who thinks that women who abort a pregnancy *never*
have children, and who pretends that partisan political loyalty is a trait
inherited from one's parents, like eye or hair color. Well, only
someone who is dumber-than-rocks would believe that. In fact,
more than 60% of abortions are among women who already have
1 or more children.
Those are the facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
The only way you can guarantee that your anti-choice parents could have
that kind of influence over their children would be for them to homeschool
their children and never let them watch TV, listen to the radio or surf the
Internet. That is not going to happen.
How would you go about making sure your children hold the same
political views as you, Unpleasant?
And don't forget to take into account the fungability of political values.
140 years ago, it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that saved the
Union and freed the slaves, while the Democrats were basically an
organized backlash against the Republicans. But for the last 50 years,
it's been the Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice,
and the Republicans became the organized backlash.
Unpleasant, when the Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, the
bigots and rednecks beat a path to the Republican Party. Those are the
facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
And you respond with some wankage about the war on poverty. The
subject was reproductive rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
12 Feb 2006 05:20:00 PM |
|
|
<spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1139703648.048596.280980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this dogma. The
facts
are otherwise.
Is that so? Let's go through what I posted and see what facts are
"otherwise".
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote:
Another idiot who thinks that women who abort a pregnancy *never*
have children, and who pretends that partisan political loyalty is a
trait
inherited from one's parents, like eye or hair color. Well, only
someone who is dumber-than-rocks would believe that. In fact,
more than 60% of abortions are among women who already have
1 or more children.
Those are the facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
I didn't address that, did I?
The only way you can guarantee that your anti-choice parents could
have
that kind of influence over their children would be for them to
homeschool
their children and never let them watch TV, listen to the radio or
surf the
Internet. That is not going to happen.
How would you go about making sure your children hold the same
political views as you, Unpleasant?
Well, no one can be sure, can they? You can't be sure your children
aren't going to become criminals either. You just do your best. But when
the monopoly government schools deliberately and relentlessly undermine
your efforts, you can be sure they are the enemy.
And don't forget to take into account the fungability of political
values.
140 years ago, it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that saved
the
Union and freed the slaves, while the Democrats were basically an
organized backlash against the Republicans. But for the last 50
years,
it's been the Democrats who have carried the torch for social
justice,
and the Republicans became the organized backlash.
Unpleasant, when the Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, the
bigots and rednecks beat a path to the Republican Party. Those are the
facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
Where there are candidates of both races running, whites are more likely
to vote for the black candidate than blacks are likely to vote for the
white. So you tell us who is the more racist when it comes to voting.
And the real bigots - the people who want to treat people DIFFERENTLY
based on race - are now almost all in the Democrat Party, aren't they? Of
course, they don't call their positions "bigotry." They call them
"affirmative action," or "diversity." And certainly the anti-religious
bigots, and especially the anti-Christian bigots are one of the core
constituencies of the Democrat Party.
And you respond with some wankage about the war on poverty. The
subject was reproductive rights.
There were several subjects in your post. What does the "fungability of
political values" have to do with abortion rights? I was responding to
your asinine contention that
Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice,
implying that Democrats have done more for the REAL welfare of the poor
than conservatives. The fact that liberal policies unleashed an
unmitigated disaster on the black family and the morals of the entire
society, but especially the poor is an appropriate retort.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
13 Feb 2006 04:27:00 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
<spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this dogma. The
facts are otherwise.
Is that so? Let's go through what I posted and see what facts are
"otherwise".
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote:
Another idiot who thinks that women who abort a pregnancy *never*
have children, and who pretends that partisan political loyalty is a
trait inherited from one's parents, like eye or hair color. Well, only
someone who is dumber-than-rocks would believe that. In fact,
more than 60% of abortions are among women who already have
1 or more children.
Those are the facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
I didn't address that, did I?
No, you didn't. You should have because it was directly relevant to
the original post.
The only way you can guarantee that your anti-choice parents could
have that kind of influence over their children would be for them to
homeschool their children and never let them watch TV, listen to the
radio or surf the Internet. That is not going to happen.
How would you go about making sure your children hold the same
political views as you, Unpleasant?
Well, no one can be sure, can they?
OK, we're all finished here. You've conceded the point.
You can't be sure your children aren't going to become criminals either.
You just do your best. But when the monopoly government schools
deliberately and relentlessly undermine your efforts, you can be sure
they are the enemy.
The government does not have a monopoly on education, you silly person.
And don't forget to take into account the fungability of political
values. 140 years ago, it was Lincoln and the Republican Party
that saved the Union and freed the slaves, while the Democrats
were basically an organized backlash against the Republicans.
But for the last 50 years, it's been the Democrats who have
carried the torch for social justice, and the Republicans became
the organized backlash.
Unpleasant, when the Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, the
bigots and rednecks beat a path to the Republican Party. Those are the
facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
Where there are candidates of both races running, whites are more likely
to vote for the black candidate than blacks are likely to vote for the
white.
You forgot to say, "in my humble opinion". Because you have no
evidence of your assertion.
So you tell us who is the more racist when it comes to voting.
How many African-Americans sit on the Republican side of the aisle in
Congress, Unpleasant?
And the real bigots - the people who want to treat people DIFFERENTLY
based on race - are now almost all in the Democrat Party, aren't they?
No, they're hiring decision makers who still discriminate against
qualified people of color. That's why we still have affirmative
action.
Of course, they don't call their positions "bigotry." They call them
"affirmative action," or "diversity.
I can tell from what you have written so far that you have no clue as
to how affirmative action works, so why don't you quit while you are
behind?
And certainly the anti-religious bigots, and especially the anti-Christian
bigots are one of the core constituencies of the Democrat Party.
Are you a religious person, Unpleasant? If so, is it that the
Democrats don't support *your* flavor of religion as much as you'd
like? If you aren't a religious person, then why do you care?
And you respond with some wankage about the war on poverty. The
subject was reproductive rights.
There were several subjects in your post. What does the "fungability of
political values" have to do with abortion rights?
Gee, there's been quite a *political* struggle over abortion rights
over the past 40 or so years. Haven't you noticed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
15 Feb 2006 03:31:49 AM |
|
|
<spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1139869620.003112.192670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
<spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this dogma.
The
facts are otherwise.
Is that so? Let's go through what I posted and see what facts are
"otherwise".
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote:
Another idiot who thinks that women who abort a pregnancy
*never*
have children, and who pretends that partisan political loyalty
is a
trait inherited from one's parents, like eye or hair color.
Well, only
someone who is dumber-than-rocks would believe that. In fact,
more than 60% of abortions are among women who already have
1 or more children.
Those are the facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
I didn't address that, did I?
No, you didn't. You should have because it was directly relevant to
the original post.
Oh, so YOU'RE the one who makes the rules for everyone who posts here? I
didn't know, oh fascist one.
The only way you can guarantee that your anti-choice parents
could
have that kind of influence over their children would be for
them to
homeschool their children and never let them watch TV, listen to
the
radio or surf the Internet. That is not going to happen.
How would you go about making sure your children hold the same
political views as you, Unpleasant?
Well, no one can be sure, can they?
OK, we're all finished here. You've conceded the point.
What point? You made a point?
You can't be sure your children aren't going to become criminals
either.
You just do your best. But when the monopoly government schools
deliberately and relentlessly undermine your efforts, you can be sure
they are the enemy.
The government does not have a monopoly on education, you silly person.
Name a private corporation that has a greater monopoly over such a broad
business area, twit.
Unpleasant, when the Democrats embraced the civil rights movement,
the
bigots and rednecks beat a path to the Republican Party. Those are
the
facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
Where there are candidates of both races running, whites are more
likely
to vote for the black candidate than blacks are likely to vote for the
white.
You forgot to say, "in my humble opinion". Because you have no
evidence of your assertion.
I can name lots of black politicians who ran against white candidates in a
majority white district or state and won. Can you name even one white
politician who ran against a black candidate in a majority black district
and won?
So you tell us who is the more racist when it comes to voting.
How many African-Americans sit on the Republican side of the aisle in
Congress, Unpleasant?
Irrelevant.
By the way, I love how you keep calling me "Unpleasant" instead of
"Unpleasant Truth." But then, leftists like you always have trouble with
the truth.
And the real bigots - the people who want to treat people DIFFERENTLY
based on race - are now almost all in the Democrat Party, aren't they?
No, they're hiring decision makers who still discriminate against
qualified people of color. That's why we still have affirmative
action.
Bull! Qualified blacks USED TO be discriminated against. Today, the only
qualified people being routinely discriminated against are Asians
(especially) and whites, especially men (and most especially boys in
schools). That's what affirmative action has morphed into - giving people
bonus points on their SATs just for their skin color or an ethnic surname.
The result is LESS qualified minorities displace MORE qualified Asians and
whites. And everyone knows it. The Supreme Court even said it's OK - for
another 25 years, according to the (thankfully departed) Sanda Day
O'Connor. The left just lies about it.
Of course, they don't call their positions "bigotry." They call them
"affirmative action," or "diversity.
I can tell from what you have written so far that you have no clue as
to how affirmative action works, so why don't you quit while you are
behind?
You're the one with no clue. Read the Michigan Law School case.
For a more general view, read the following:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8861
College Preferences by Race, Sex and Legacy Status
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 11, 2003
Many colleges, in their ceaseless quest to manipulate
and
micro-manage the composition of their student bodies, do
in
fact give preference to some women over men with better
academic qualifications. And yes, this is
philosophically
repugnant to those who oppose any preferences awarded
merely
for physical, rather than merit-related, considerations.
But
it must be pointed out that in practicing such sex-based
preferences in the admissions process, schools are
compelled
neither to delve deep into the pool of female
applicants, nor
to admit large numbers of women who are far less
qualified
than many men who are rejected. In this very important
respect, the practical application of sex-based
affirmative
action bears virtually no resemblance to its race-based
counterpart. The scholastic qualifications of females as
a
whole are largely comparable to those of males. The
College
Board reports that in 2002, female test-takers achieved
an
average score of 500 on the math SAT, a relatively
modest 34
points lower than the male average. Meanwhile, the
verbal SAT
scores of females and males were nearly identical - 502
and
507, respectively.
These differences come nowhere near the black-white
disparity,
which generally hovers around 200 points (on the math
and
verbal tests combined) in any given year. Indeed black
students at most competitive colleges and elite
universities
have median SAT scores ranging from 180 to 230 points
lower
than the median of their white classmates. Moreover, the
median SAT scores of black admittees are often
significantly
lower than the median scores of whites who are rejected.
This
state of affairs simply does not exist across gender
lines.
Another germane fact is that girls' high-school grades
tend to
be better than those of boys. The publication
Postsecondary
Education Opportunity reports that in one recent year,
65.9
percent of male college freshmen had high-school grade
averages of B or better, vs. 77.9 percent of female
college
freshmen. A legitimate case can be made that a college
admissions committee is not acting improperly by
choosing a
female applicant with a slightly lower SAT score and a
slightly higher grade-point-average than a particular
male
applicant. There is no such mitigating factor in the
black-white question. The respective proportions of
black and
white high-school students with B averages or better
were 56.8
percent and 74 percent. Incidentally, Asians far
outperformed
both groups, with 84.3 percent achieving B averages or
better.
----
http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/98/07/river.htm
Review of Bowen and Bok's The Shape of the River:
Justifying Racial Discrimination
Many are pointing to William Bowen and Derek Bok's new book "The Shape of
the
River" as proof that affirmative action works. But it also should dispel
any
arguments that affirmative action is not about preferences. The former
presidents of Harvard and Princeton have finally come out the closet with
charts
and tables showing just how much skin color and "diversity" have displaced
grades and test scores as the new version of "merit" under affirmative
action.
While many still maintain that standards are not lower, test scores of the
average black that was admitted were lower than the average rejected
white.
Median minority students in selective colleges have test scores which put
them
in the bottom 25 percent of the class, or worse, and they get grade
averages
that rank just as low. Racial favoritism is rampant on campus, but it
favors
blacks when nearly half, 42 percent of blacks at selective colleges were
admitted with far lower scores than the 1 in 4 whites that got in. If
equality
simply meant an equal chance for equal scores, the black admission rate
would be
only half, not double that of whites.
If some low-scoring minorities do well, most don't. On average, grades and
graduation rates for African Americans were lower than for whites even
with
equal scores. Bowen and Bok say that a 75% graduation rate is high for
minorities. But if we look at it as dropout rates, 25% is twice as large
as 12%.
This 2 to 1 ratio also holds at medical and law schools. Even if
minorities
graduate at higher rates in tougher universities, their graduation rates
would
not lag as far behind if their scores were higher.
....
Yes, minorities who graduated from elite universities made more money and
went
on to get advanced degrees. But that doesn't explain the logic of
preferring
affluent blacks with college educated parents with bad test scores over
poor
Asian refugees with higher scores. Even if only a few are displaced,
unfairness
is wrong even if it harms only one person. Bowen and Bok never explain why
a law
that only prohibits discrimination compels society to prefer
"disadvantaged"
races over the others. Initiative 200 only makes it clear to all that
preferences for some groups discriminate against the others.
----
Rewarding the Unqualified
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 3, 2003
As a result of the Supreme Court's recent rulings on affirmative action,
schools
will now discard any openly race-based point systems they may have
formerly
employed, while simultaneously continuing their longstanding practice of
using
totally subjective criteria to manipulate the racial composition of their
student bodies as they wish - criteria like an applicant's demonstration
of such
qualities as self discipline, civic pride, altruism, leadership, energy,
perseverance, and generosity. Indeed just a few years ago, the
highest-ranking
members of our country's legal-education establishment issued a joint
press
release explaining that "personal statements from applicants, letters of
recommendation, work experience, and the applicant's prior success in
overcoming
personal disadvantage" were all factors that should be considered in the
admissions process. Obviously, such malleable, amorphous standards
essentially
amount to having no standards at all. So instead of being openly awarded
20
points for having dark skin, African Americans applying to the University
of
Michigan will now earn their extra credit by showing "civic pride,"
"energy,"
and an ability "to overcome obstacles" - among which, of course, is the
purportedly titanic obstacle of being black in America.
Justice O'Connor asserts that "access" to higher education "must be
inclusive of
talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that
all
members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational
institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed
in
America. . . . Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic
groups in the civil life of our nation is essential if the dream of one
nation,
indivisible, is to be realized."
If we cut through the polite rhetoric, however, we are confronted with a
mountain of truly disturbing facts. Consider the numerous, well-designed,
recent
studies conducted by the Washington, DC-based Center For Equal Opportunity
(CEO), which powerfully demonstrate that the more competitive a school's
admissions standards are, the greater the degree of racial or ethnic
preference
we are likely to observe there. In the University of Washington's (UW)
1995
freshman class, the raw admission rate for blacks was 96.6 percent, as
compared
to 78.5 percent for Asians and 74.4 percent for whites. These figures were
in
the precisely inverse order of the students' actual academic
qualifications. For
instance, black freshmen had scored 80 points lower than whites on the
verbal
SAT exam, and 140 points lower on the math SAT. In fact, the verbal and
math SAT
scores of black freshmen in the 75th percentile were roughly equivalent to
the
scores of whites in the 25th percentile; that is, black admittees who
outscored
three-fourths of all other blacks admitted to UW, scored only about as
well as
whites at the bottom one-fourth of all whites admitted to UW.
We mustn't forget that these figures are not mere abstractions, but
translate
into large numbers of actual human beings who are denied admission to the
school
of their choice solely because of their skin color. Things don't often get
much
uglier than that. All told, in 1995 UW rejected 912 whites and 164 Asians
whose
verbal SAT scores, math SAT scores, and high-school grades equaled or
surpassed
the median of blacks who were admitted. As has been demonstrated time and
again,
students who are admitted to a given school under lowered academic
standards can
be expected to struggle mightily to keep up with their peers who met the
school's normal admissions requirements. In general, there is a strong
negative
correlation between preference in the admissions process and graduation
rates.
At UW, the percentage of 1995 freshman who eventually graduated within six
years
was 70 percent for whites, 65 percent for Asians, and a mere 29 percent
for
blacks.
The story was similar at Washington State University that same year, where
blacks were also admitted with academic qualifications far below those of
their
white and Asian peers. Black admittees scored about 70 points lower than
whites
on the verbal SAT, and 110 points lower on the math SAT. Predictably, the
eventual graduation rates of those students were 44 percent for blacks and
61
percent for whites.
In the 1995 freshman class at the University of California at Irvine, the
75th
percentile math SAT scores of blacks admitted were a remarkable 20 points
lower
than the corresponding scores of whites in the 25th percentile. UC Irvine
actually rejected 1,516 Asians and 546 whites whose math SAT scores were
higher
than the median score for black enrollees, as well as 879 Asians and 637
whites
whose verbal SAT scores were better than the black enrollee median. Not
surprisingly, the graduation rate for that cohort of blacks was about 47
percent, as opposed to 68 percent for whites and 73 percent for Asians.
The situation at UC San Diego was so bad that CEO researchers commented,
"There
are two distinct populations of enrollees at UCSD as measured by math SAT
scores: African Americans and Hispanics on the one hand, and whites and
Asian
Americans on the other." The 75th percentile scores of black and Hispanic
admittees in 1995 were roughly the same as the white and Asian 35th
percentile
scores. The graduation rates for blacks at UCSD during the 1990s hovered
around
41 percent. For whites and Asians, the rates generally exceeded 70
percent.
Though blacks had by far the weakest academic qualifications in the
University
of Virginia's (UV) 1999 freshman class, they were admitted at a much
higher rate
than white and Asian applicants, whose composite SAT scores were nearly
200
points higher. In that one year alone, fully 4,591 whites were rejected
despite
having higher test scores than the median black enrollee. Statistically,
black
applicants were an astonishing 111 times more likely to be admitted to UV
than
were whites with equivalent qualifications.
In the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor's 1995 freshman class, whites
and
Asians (whose composite SAT median scores were 1250 and 1300,
respectively) were
accepted at significantly lower rates than blacks, whose median score was
only
1020. A total of 1,090 whites and 297 Asians were rejected with better SAT
scores than the median black admittee. The six-year graduation rate for
blacks
was 66 percent, as compared to 86 percent for Asians and 87 percent for
whites.
The odds of a black applicant with the same qualifications as a white
applicant
being offered admission to UM Ann Arbor was an incredible 173.7 to 1. The
corresponding ratio at UM Dearborn was not nearly as high, though still
very
substantial at 36.5 to 1.
At North Carolina State in 1995, blacks were admitted at a slightly higher
rate
than whites and Asians, though their SAT scores were, on average, 210
points
below those of Asians and 190 points below those of whites. A black
applicant
was statistically 177 times more likely to be accepted than a similarly
qualified white applicant. At the University of North Carolina at
Asheville, the
degree of preference was not nearly as egregious, but nonetheless black
applicants were 10 times likelier to be accepted than similarly qualified
whites. At UNC Charlotte, the corresponding preference ratio in favor of
black
applicants was 8.37 to 1, and at UNC Wilmington 57.2 to 1.
At the University of Maryland Medical School in 2000, blacks with college
grade-point-averages (g.p.a.) of B or B+ and Medical College Admissions
Test
scores in the bottom half of all test-takers had a 70 percent chance of
admission; for whites and Asians of similar credentials, the chance was 2
percent. At our nation's top law schools, blacks are admitted at 17 times
the
rate that a colorblind process would allow. At UCLA Law school in 1994, a
black
applicant with a college g.p.a. between 2.5 and 3.5, and a Law School
Admissions
Test score between 60 and 90, had a 61 percent chance of admission. The
corresponding rates for similarly qualified Asians and whites were 7 and
1
percent, respectively.
The champions of affirmative action strive to put a happy face on all
these
facts by deluging us with bromides about the value of "diversity" and the
need
for "equal access" to educational opportunities. But in the end, we as a
people
must decide whether it serves society to perpetuate a policy that makes
such an
utter mockery of standards.
---
So there you have it - the Unpleasant Truth. The truth is almost always
unpleasant to the left.
And certainly the anti-religious bigots, and especially the
anti-Christian
bigots are one of the core constituencies of the Democrat Party.
Are you a religious person, Unpleasant? If so, is it that the
Democrats don't support *your* flavor of religion as much as you'd
like? If you aren't a religious person, then why do you care?
What's your point?
So, if I'm not black, people who discriminate against blacks should be
fine with me?
In fact, of course, Democrats not only "don't support *my* flavor of
religion (orthodox Christianity) as much as I'd like, they are as openly
and relentlessly hostile to it as the KKK was toward blacks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
13 Feb 2006 08:49:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
< > wrote...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this dogma. The
facts are otherwise.
Is that so? Let's go through what I posted and see what facts are
"otherwise".
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote:
Another idiot who thinks that women who abort a pregnancy *never*
have children, and who pretends that partisan political loyalty is a
trait inherited from one's parents, like eye or hair color. Well, only
someone who is dumber-than-rocks would believe that. In fact,
more than 60% of abortions are among women who already have
1 or more children.
Those are the facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
I didn't address that, did I?
No, you didn't. You should have because it was directly relevant to
the original post.
The only way you can guarantee that your anti-choice parents could
have that kind of influence over their children would be for them to
homeschool their children and never let them watch TV, listen to the
radio or surf the Internet. That is not going to happen.
How would you go about making sure your children hold the same
political views as you, Unpleasant?
Well, no one can be sure, can they?
OK, we're all finished here. You've conceded the point.
You can't be sure your children aren't going to become criminals either.
You just do your best. But when the monopoly government schools
deliberately and relentlessly undermine your efforts, you can be sure
they are the enemy.
The government does not have a monopoly on education, you silly person.
And don't forget to take into account the fungability of political
values. 140 years ago, it was Lincoln and the Republican Party
that saved the Union and freed the slaves, while the Democrats
were basically an organized backlash against the Republicans.
But for the last 50 years, it's been the Democrats who have
carried the torch for social justice, and the Republicans became
the organized backlash.
Unpleasant, when the Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, the
bigots and rednecks beat a path to the Republican Party. Those are the
facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
Where there are candidates of both races running, whites are more likely
to vote for the black candidate than blacks are likely to vote for the
white.
You forgot to say, "in my humble opinion". Because you have no
evidence of your assertion.
So you tell us who is the more racist when it comes to voting.
How many African-Americans sit on the Republican side of the aisle in
Congress, Unpleasant?
And the real bigots - the people who want to treat people DIFFERENTLY
based on race - are now almost all in the Democrat Party, aren't they?
No, they're hiring decision makers who still discriminate against
qualified people of color. That's why we still have affirmative
action.
Of course, they don't call their positions "bigotry." They call them
"affirmative action," or "diversity.
I can tell from what you have written so far that you have no clue as
to how affirmative action works, so why don't you quit while you are
behind?
It's simple. Affirmative Action is nothing more than reverse
discrimination.
The intention was good, but it's still wrong. Instead of telling
employers they can no longer refuse to hire someone based on their
race, sexual orientation, ethinicity, ect...
Now companies are being told to hire people based on their race, sexual
orientation, ethinicity, ect...
It's WRONG
And certainly the anti-religious bigots, and especially the anti-Christian
bigots are one of the core constituencies of the Democrat Party.
Are you a religious person, Unpleasant? If so, is it that the
Democrats don't support *your* flavor of religion as much as you'd
like? If you aren't a religious person, then why do you care?
And you respond with some wankage about the war on poverty. The
subject was reproductive rights.
There were several subjects in your post. What does the "fungability of
political values" have to do with abortion rights?
Gee, there's been quite a *political* struggle over abortion rights
over the past 40 or so years. Haven't you noticed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
14 Feb 2006 09:13:58 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote...
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
I can tell from what you have written so far that you have no clue as
to how affirmative action works, so why don't you quit while you are
behind?
It's simple. Affirmative Action is nothing more than reverse
discrimination.
The intention was good, but it's still wrong. Instead of telling
employers they can no longer refuse to hire someone based on their
race, sexual orientation, ethinicity, ect...
Now companies are being told to hire people based on their race, sexual
orientation, ethinicity, ect...
It's WRONG
So we can add another item to the long list of things you know nothing
about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? |
11 Feb 2006 06:28:31 PM |
|
|
<spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1139703648.048596.280980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
Of course, only ignorant leftists actually believe this dogma. The facts
are otherwise.
Is that so? Let's go through what I posted and see what facts are
"otherwise".
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote:
Another idiot who thinks that women who abort a pregnancy *never*
have children, and who pretends that partisan political loyalty is a
trait
inherited from one's parents, like eye or hair color. Well, only
someone who is dumber-than-rocks would believe that. In fact,
more than 60% of abortions are among women who already have
1 or more children.
Those are the facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
The only way you can guarantee that your anti-choice parents could have
that kind of influence over their children would be for them to
homeschool
their children and never let them watch TV, listen to the radio or surf
the
Internet. That is not going to happen.
How would you go about making sure your children hold the same
political views as you, Unpleasant?
And don't forget to take into account the fungability of political
values.
140 years ago, it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that saved the
Union and freed the slaves, while the Democrats were basically an
organized backlash against the Republicans. But for the last 50 years,
it's been the Democrats who have carried the torch for social justice,
and the Republicans became the organized backlash.
Unpleasant, when the Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, the
bigots and rednecks beat a path to the Republican Party.
You are incorrect. I started voting republican after 1973.
Why can't you tell the truth and notice that the non-gay alliance and the
non-abortion on demand alliance are switching from Dem to Rep?
Those are the facts, Unpleasant. They don't say otherwise, do they?
The facts are that the Dems are losing because of their allegiance to the
gays and the abortionists.
And you respond with some wankage about the war on poverty. The
subject was reproductive rights.
Reproductive rights/privilege are something most people attain once they
reach adulthood.
If you don't want to reproduce then don't have sex.
Too simple for you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| | | | | |
