Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

i can't imagine why a beneficiary of "AA" should be displeased over having
a better paying job and better career prospects!


.4808> I would seriously ask each of you to consider the above. ... If your
.4808> willing to prostitute solid principles for this, then again, you have
.4808> to look at yourself in the mirror every morning.  

it is a question of principle vs. principle - equality vs. non-discrimination

which one is higher?

if equality is higher then it would not only be a duty but it would also be 
just to remove inequality by discrimination if inequality was reached due to 
discrimination.

an example: in eastern europe under communist rule believing christians 
were openly discriminated against in the fully state regulated society 
- in the first generation (after communist take-over) well qualified academic 
parents were given low paying blue collar jobs, their confessed christian 
children weren't allowed to study the subjects of choice, they had to become 
manual workers too. after two generations, believing christians are largely 
absent from positions of influence. if christians now demanded "AA" two right 
the former wrongs, would you be sympathetic?

personally, from what i read here, i am not skeptical of the idea behind "AA".
i think "AA" is necessary. i am skeptical about implementation time-frames and 
expectations about the effect of "AA". given that societal change is gradual 
and slow, "AA" measures are probably most effective if they are used to set 
the signals in local, state and federal government positions and in publically
owned/sponsored institutions (particularly in education).


just in my honest [europe-biased] opinion,

andreas.

> an example: in eastern europe under communist rule believing christians 

specifically: in the former cssr and the former gdr



andreas.

re Note 91.4812 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Andreas:
>     
>     First, you assume that we must protect ourselves from our own evilness.

        In a lot of other areas of human activity conservatives seem
        to think that *more* should be done to protect Americans from
        their own evilness.  I wonder what this says about
        conservatives that they wish government to turn its back on
        this particular evil?  Hmmm...

        Bob

    If your referring to abortion for example, then this would be heading
    off an atrocious injustice to a third party who had no say or choice in
    the matter.  That is simple justice Bob, not government interference.
    he only thing pro abort people have is the written law...in which case
    then the concentration camp arguments start to appear as they had the
    law also.
    
    Bob, I would very much be interested on your input on the points I
    brought up about demeaning minorities by give them special treatment,
    etc.  I brought up the points in 91.last I believe.
    
    -Jack

thanks for opening that interesting topic bob! 


jack,

91.4812> We were just starting to recognize race relations in a better light and
91.4812> the parity of blacks and whites was quite polarized.  Some thirty years
91.4812> later, well...it has created some parity in the workforce; however, the
91.4812> suspicions still exist, there is still a wedge between races..because
91.4812> of this very government interference

looking in from the outside it seems to me that the US is a society which 
quite literally thrives on differences - of colour, gender, ethnicity, sexual 
orientation, you name it! :-) 

30 years of government didn't seem to change that often quoted "very fabric
of american society" much.... but why should these many divisions running
through society be "bad" or "good", aren't they merely a characteristic of
your society. in switzerland society is also divided. we have four different 
language groups and since over 50 years it is self-imposed informal quotas 
(between the language groups, regions, political parties) which maintain the 
political balance and social peace [*] only to benefit a strong and stable
economy.

if quotas didn't grow over generations by agreement, how should they be
implemented? well i have a conservative-liberal or liberal-conservative
view: i also prefer government to 1) set the example with implementing 
quotas in the public sector and 2) offer incentives to businesses for 
implementing quotas rather than forcing businesses (particularly small 
businesses) to do so.

whilst government must be obliged to counter discrimination it should also 
do so in a manner so as to minimise social unrest and disruption to the output 
of the economy.

andreas.


[*] of course the swiss discovered recently that women are also part of
    society and a battle is presently being waged to integrate women into
    the quota system.

91.4812> First, you assume that we must protect ourselves from our own evilness.

i am completely lost here. what do you mean with this?



andreas.

    .4  It's a catch-phrase uttered primarily by American conservatives.
     
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

thanks for bringing my vocabulary up to date, richard!



andreas.

    It may be a catch phrase but it is absolutely the case.
    
    Did it ever occur to people that maybe discrimination isn't always the
    reason the white gets a job over a black...or vice versa.  Did it ever
    occur to anybody that maybe the person getting the job is better
    qualified.  There is an ongoing attitude in this nation that if things
    don't happen in a PC manner, then there must certainly be a devious
    purpose behind it.  
    
    The US does indeed thrive on its diversity.  The government is
    cheapening it.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1060.2 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Bob, I would very much be interested on your input on the points I
>     brought up about demeaning minorities by give them special treatment,
>     etc.  I brought up the points in 91.last I believe.
  
        I don't know for sure -- I'm sure it depends upon the
        individual and how they have been led to interpret the
        situation.

        I do know that I'd rather get a job, and be "demeaned", than
        to have no job at all.

        I do know that I'd rather have a place for me and my family
        to live in, and be "demeaned", than have no home at all.

        Would I feel "demeaned" if I felt that I could have made it
        on my own without the "special treatment"?  Perhaps.  Perhaps
        not.

        Perhaps if I felt that discrimination was a fact, and that
        even if I could make it on my own, many in my situation won't
        make it because of discrimination, then perhaps that would
        make the feeling of being "demeaned" tolerable and
        understandable.

        On the other hand, if I felt that the temptation to
        discrimination had been abolished from the hearts of my
        fellow citizens ... aw, shucks, I can't imagine being that
        naive!

        Bob

    ZZ        On the other hand, if I felt that the temptation to
    ZZ        discrimination had been abolished from the hearts of my
    ZZ        fellow citizens ... aw, shucks, I can't imagine being that
    ZZ        naive!
    
    Bob:
    
    I realize it is possible this may have been said somewhat with tongue
    in cheek.  Assuming that it wasn't however, you have once again proved
    my point that the supporters of AA have, as always, seen humankind as
    incapable of changing for the better.  If we continue to be suspicious 
    of our fellow citizens, then our fellow citizens will live in paranoia
    instead of actually changing for the better. 
    
    Last night they had Mike Barnicle (who annoys me) do a commentary on
    Affirmative Action.  Barnicle is a liberal individual who supports
    government intervention and even he stated that Affirmative Action
    drives a wedge between people.  One thing he suggested that might be
    appropriate is this.  Instead of determining AA by gender or race, lets
    start basing affirmative action on economic status.  There are many
    cases where a white 18 year old for example, whose parents make 36K a
    year, will lose a seat in a college to a black female whose parents are
    making 100K a year.  This simply isn't equitable and this boy is a 
    victim of a presupposition that society has carried over since the
    civil rights era.  
    
    -Jack

    
    re:  1060.9

    > There are many cases where a white 18 year old for example, whose
    > parents make 36K a year, will lose a seat in a college to a black
    > female...  

    I don't believe this is true. I don't believe anyone who has a seat in
    a college will be asked to quit the school to make room for someone
    else. What I believe you mean to say is that the two were competing
    for a single open seat.

    The fact of your fears is not always the fact of the situation....
    
    Eric

re Note 1060.9 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I realize it is possible this may have been said somewhat with tongue
>     in cheek.  Assuming that it wasn't however, you have once again proved
>     my point that the supporters of AA have, as always, seen humankind as
>     incapable of changing for the better.  If we continue to be suspicious 
>     of our fellow citizens, then our fellow citizens will live in paranoia
>     instead of actually changing for the better. 
  
        When you start taking a similar attitude towards those who
        believe that a woman should not be trusted with the choice of
        abortion, only then I'll regard you as sincere in the above.

          
>     Barnicle is a liberal individual who supports
>     government intervention and even he stated that Affirmative Action
>     drives a wedge between people.  

        Is a thing wrong just because it "drives a wedge between
        people"?  (Hint: Luke 12:51-53.)

        Is that the standard being applied by the Republican
        leadership as they contemplate new legislation?  Are they
        pledged to avoid changes that pit people against people?


>     Instead of determining AA by gender or race, lets
>     start basing affirmative action on economic status.  

        I have no objection to that as long as it doesn't allow the
        old (apparently in the eyes of some, non-divisive :-{ ) forms
        of discrimination to re-surface.

        Bob

    As a women I am a benificiary of AA.
    
    Today Medical schools, Law Schools, Theological Schools, Service
    Academies, Business Schools all admit women.  today women are entering
    each of those professions in great numbers.
    
    It took years of Feminist activity and Affirmative Action for women to
    obtain rights in these areas which men have always enjoyed.
    
    The work is not done though.
    
    Even though in the entering ranks of these professions women are
    entering at the same rate as men,  Centuries of oppression against
    women still dictate that in the higher ranks of all of these
    professions, men still dominate and through systemic rules, exclude
    must women from the higher ranks.
    
    I am a strong proponent of affirmative action.  Some of the techniques
    may need modification, but those who are denied equal assess have to be
    protected and encouraged to seek and gain equal access!

    Bob:
    
    First of all, the abortion issue has nothing to do with a womans
    competence to make a choice.  I am a huge proponent of birth control so
    that comparison is not accurate at all.  I have high faith in the
    individual to choose their own destinies.  I just happen to think
    abortion is a brutal hideous crime only to be compared to the third
    reisch...has nothing to do with women's ability to self determination.
    
    ZZZ        Is a thing wrong just because it "drives a wedge between
    
    In this case it most definitely is because your taking two steps
    forward and three steps back.  The very thing (race harmony) we could
    have had a big improvement on in the last thirty years has ebeen
    somewhat squandered away...the waste of illogic.
    
    -Jack

    Patricia:
    
    With your tenacity...you'll do just fine on your own merits!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 1060.13 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     In this case it most definitely is because your taking two steps
>     forward and three steps back.  The very thing (race harmony) we could
>     have had a big improvement on in the last thirty years has ebeen
>     somewhat squandered away...the waste of illogic.
  
        You act as if race relations would have spontaneously
        improved over the past 30 years if only nothing were done
        about it.

        Jack, you certainly are a committed conservative!

        (The weird thing is that this form of "illogic" happened once
        before in this country:  southerners seemed to blame Jim Crow
        on the perceived excesses of reconstruction.)

        Bob

    Don't get me wrong.  Had I been older in the 60's, I would be on the
    civil rights side.  I'm all for it.  I just happen to see it now as an
    outdated tool.  Time to let the baby leave the nest and let society
    grow on it's own...instead of the plastic engineering that socialism
    and government tries to offer us.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Where do you live?
    
                                    Patricia

| <<< Note 1060.18 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I just happen to see it now as an outdated tool.  

	I don't think you will find too many people who will disagree with you
that it does need to be brought into the 90's. 

| Time to let the baby leave the nest and let society grow on it's own

	It might not be wise to throw the baby out with the bath water. 


Glen

    Patricia:
    
    Right now I live in Mont Vernon.  I grew up in Framingham.  Just to
    paint a clear picture, I grew up in a town that had 4 high schools
    and I graduated in a class of 420 students.   I guess I'm saying this
    to make you aware that I grew up in multicultural environment.  We took
    part in METCO and had all the problems that go with growing up in a
    public school.. I did not live in a lilly clean microcosm.  
    
    I entered 1st grade in 1967.  I of course was unaware of the racial
    problems we faced in those days.  Now, I absolutely realize there are
    serious problems in the inner city today.  My speculation or
    conjecture, since Jesse Jackson has stated that the biggest problem is
    black on black crime, is that there is a severe breakdown of the
    family.  This is the beginning of the snowball effect and the fruits of
    this are crime, drugs suicide, etc.  Just my thought process, you may
    be know something that will set me straight.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    What do you think has caused the breakdown of the black family?
    
                                        Patricia

ZZ    What do you think has caused the breakdown of the black family?
  
The Following is Underscored by the Fact that The Paternal Father is a Louse!

Interesting reading from a book called "The Black Family in Slavery and 
Freedom: 1750-1925" Written by Herbert Gutman, 1973.  

Examining plantation records, Gutman finds that 80% of black children were 
living in intact mother-father families during slavery.  Africans carried 
their marital customs to the United States as a continuation of African 
traditions.  Surveys in both the south and north showed a consistent pattern,
with 80 to 90% of black homes including a father, a large portion of the
minority were headed by widows.

The records of the Bennehan-Cameron plantation in North Carolina are the most
extensive records...listing 57 families, only 13 of them headed by unmarried
mothers.  Traditionally, unwed teens were cared for by the extended family.
On the few occasions where a girl would have two or three, it was then that 
the extended family, for lack of a better word, coerced her into getting 
married.   

In 1969, the pattern was still largely in tact, particularly down in the deep
south.  The clientele of welfare mainly consisted of old age pensions and 
sparse cases of young girls still living with their parents.

This is what I'm getting to Patricia.  I believe the current welfare system 
is THE major cause of alot of the inner city problems.  In essence, our federal 
government is guilty of breaking the cycle that those of African heritage had
been traditionally practicing for years.  The AFDC interrupted the process 
precisely at the point where family formation usually occurred.  A woman no
longer has to impose on her parents or find a husband.  She can go on welfare,
recieve a small but steady income, and become eligable for medical care and
housing subsidies..none of which come with marriage.  She can continue to have 
further illigitamate children...regardless, family formation fails.  This is 
why the negative effects of welfare have had such a severe impact on ethnic 
groups.

Again, like my case for Affirmative Action, welfare recipients need positive 
incentives to excell in life.  The Republican agenda forces compliancy but 
isn't positive.  The democrat agenda is just a yellow brick road of status 
quo all the way to perdition.  What is there to do?!

-Jack

    Jack,
    
    I think the book you are citing is a total distortion of the truth!
    
                                        Patricia

    Of course you do Patricia and your reply is as I expected.
    
    I hate to dissappoint you Patricia but the book is reputable and is
    known for its authenticity of fact by pundants from both sides of the
    spectrum.  The historical data is fact, the records speak for
    themselves.  However, the conclusions admittedly are drawn from trends 
    and hypothesis just as anything else is.  
    
    I happen to be of the belief that the US committed two major crimes in
    the last 200 years...one of course being the slavery issue...disrupting
    and imprisoning the lives of other peoples against their will.  The
    second crime was to continue to see blacks as inferior and hence
    creating a welfare culture, creating dependency amongst the young from
    all cultures and ethnic groups...but primarily in the inner city.  I
    find this loathesome.
    
    -Jack

.23>					I believe the current welfare system 
.23> is THE major cause of alot of the inner city problems.  In essence, our 
.23> federal government is guilty of breaking the cycle that those of African 
.23> heritage had been traditionally practicing for years.  

what do you say to the well established sociological explanation of family 
breakup [applying to all brackets of society] that increased mobility and 
new job opportunities in the last fifty years resulted in family breakup?


.23>					     The AFDC interrupted the process 
.23> precisely at the point where family formation usually occurred.  A woman no
.23> longer has to impose on her parents or find a husband.  She can go on welfare,
.23> recieve a small but steady income, and become eligable for medical care and
.23> housing subsidies..none of which come with marriage.  

how about the more likely variant of: because familily ties broke, social 
security filled the gap!

due you think a single mother of pre-school children without the financial 
support of the children's father and without money of her own, that such a 
woman should not get financial benefits? do you think raising kids is no work?
do you think that pre-school kids should raise themselves whilst mum is out 
looking for a job? this is probably why you have inner city violence - because 
the mother is forced to leave the kids home alone whilst trying to make ends 
meet with extra work, because benefits are cut or aren't enough or are stolen 
by a drunken brute or a drug addict.


.23> Again, like my case for Affirmative Action, welfare recipients need positive 
.23> incentives to excell in life.  The Republican agenda forces compliancy but 
.23> isn't positive.  

i like that. i would like to discuss a positive approach of changing the
welfare state to more effectively look after its citizens in need, without 
dismantling the welfare state altogether. where is the money currently being 
wasted? where could it be put to better use? don't we have politicians for 
working this out? ;-)


andreas.

From today's WSJ, copied without permission

How Workplaces May Look Without Affirmative Action
by Jonathan Kaufman

  David Phillips says he owes just about every job since hs college graduation
in 1971 to affirmative action -- from his first position as a federal bank
examiner through his climb to director of corporate finance at Stride Rite Corp.
  The black executive worries, though, that current attacks on affirmative 
action in Congress and the courts will limit opportunities for his 22-year-old
son, who wants to follow him into corporate finance.  It's not that Mr. Phillips
wants special treatment for his son; he just doesn't want him excluded.  "I
don't think the country has reached the point yet where affirmative action is
really from the heart," he says.  Changes in the rules "will allow the old-boy
network to come back."
  Indeed, in interviews with the federal Glass Ceiling Commission, a bipartisian
group studying diversity in the workplace, a majority of chief executives
acknowledged that federal guidelines had been crucial in maintaining their
commitment to a diverse work force.  Floyd Brady, senior vice president for
human resources at CNA Insurance Cos. in Chicago, estimates that only 30% to 40%
of American companies are committed to afirmative action programs purely for
business reasons, without any federal pressure.  Other executives endorse that
figure.
  Meanwhile, most medium-sized and small companies, where job growth is 
greatest, have adopted affirmative action only grudgingly, federal officials
say.  And without guidelines, the officials say, they're most likely to toss
affirmative action overboard.
  "If you relieve them of the burden of applying the law, they won't do it,"
contends Bernard Anderson, Assistant Secretary of Labor for employment
standards.  Add Andrew Brimmer, an economic and financial consultant who sits on
the boards of several major corporations:  "It's like the iceberg principle. 
The 8% of the iceberg above the water is what we see -- the large corporations
that have institutionalized affirmative action.  The vast bulk of firms are
below the surface -- the smaller corporations that have done virtually nothing."
  But changing demographics and business needs mean that affirmative action
makes good business sense for many companies.  Eastman Kokak Co. maintains it is
committed to diversity because the composition of the American work force is
changing and so is its customer base.  "If affirmative action wasn't legislated,
we'd still continue with our goal of building a diverse work force," says
Patricial Fleming, Kodak's director of affirmative action.  Kodak won't specify
how many women or blacks it has in top positions, but it recently tied a portion
of management compensation to recruitment and promotion of minorities and women.
  Others, like Toys "R" Us Inc., have instituted affirmative action programs
even though they aren't government contractors and therefore fall outside 
government guidelines.  "Our customers are not one group; they comprise all of
America.  It's important to be able to serve them," says Toys "R" Us Chairman
Michael Goldstein.  "Regardless of what happens," he adds, "It's not going to
change our commitment to diversity."
  But even at Toys "R" Us, only about 10% of vice presidents are women, and none
are African Americans.  As the Glass Ceiling Commission reported last week, 
white women make up close to half of the work force, but they hold only 5% of 
the senior level jobs in corporations.  And African Americans and other 
minorities fare even worse.  They account for less than 3% of top jobs, which
are defined as vice president and above.
  Even these modest gains have sparked a backlash.  An increasingly vocal
number of white men are raising objections in private conversations with their
bosses and even at company meetings.  "They're not hiring and promoting people
like me," says one white software manager.  "There's a constant fear factor
among guys like myself.  You lose a job, and it will be mighty hard to find one
because you're not what they're looking for."
  Under current federal guidelines, any federal contractor -- which includes
most major corporations -- must tally women and minorities employed at various
job levels.  If the percentage falls below that in the entire hiring pool,
companies must set goals and institute special recruitment and career 
development programs.  And if women and minorities are severly under-
represented, companies can voluntarily engage in preferential hiring and
promotion.
  Privately, some executives acknowledge that affirmative action has been hurt
by poor implementation.  In too many companies, the effort to diversity has been
an excuse for poor hiring and ill-conceived promotions.  Many companies have
failed to provide women and minorities with adequate support and guidance,
setting them up for failure.  One manager was told to fill openings with certain
minorities -- or leave the jobs vacant.  As a result, hires were branded --
regardless of their talents -- as tokens.
  The greatest impact of removing federal mandates will likely be felt by
minorities -- especially African Americans.  In a recent poll, 50% of Americans
backed affirmative action programs for women, but only 40% supported them for
minorities.  "White corporate American is still scared of black males," says
Wesley Poriotis, an executive recruiter specializing in minorities.  "Many
black men are interviewed for midlevel and upper-level positions, but so few are
hired."
  Some analysits argue that women won't be hurt that much.  For one thing,
between now and the year 2000, only 15% of workers entering the work force will
be white men, according to the Hudson Institute, while nearly two-thirds will be
women.  In addition, women currently hold 40% of jobs like assistant vice
president and office manager.  "There are more women in corporate corridors,
more of a constituent base for women to fight to be there," says Antoinette
Malveaux, head of the National Black MBA Association.
  Mr. Brady of CNA worries about "a game of swapping," with some companies
fulfilling their internal affirmative action goals by hiring and promoting
women while ignoring African Americans and other minorities.
  Toby Thompkins, a consultant and former manager of diversity programs at
Baxter Healthcare Corp., says companies "tend to follow the letter of the law.
If the law says representation by be X% they tend to do that and nothing more.
If you relax the minimum standards, you will see many corporations adjust
themselves accordingly."

Where Women and Minorities Are Now
% of managers who are women              % of managers who are minorities
Industry                       Percent   Industry                        Percent

Finance,insurance,real estate  41.4%     Retail trade                    13.0%
Services                       38.9      Transportation, communications  12.0
Retail trade                   38.5      and public utilities        
Transportation, communications 25.6      Services                        11.0
and public utilities                     Finance,insurance,real estate   11.0
Wholesale trade                20.9      Agriculture                      1.3
Manufacturing                  15.9      Wholesale trade                  0.9
Agriculture                    14.5      Manufacturing                    0.8
Construction                   10.4      Mining                           0.7
Mining                          9.8      Construction                     0.6

Source: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission

    First of all, I notice in our society that pro AA folks will NEVER
    admit or use the word quotas.  This is disingenuous at best.
    
    Secondly, I truly feel sorry in the lack of trust David Phillips has in
    his own ability to succeed in life...
    
ZZ    David Phillips says he owes just about every job since hs college
ZZ    graduation
ZZ    in 1971 to affirmative action -- from his first position as a federal
ZZ    bank
ZZ    examiner through his climb to director of corporate finance at Stride
ZZ    Rite Corp.
    
    What an absolute crime we have bestowed on this guy.  The height of
    racism and arrogance.  The racism we turn a blind eye to absolutely
    turns my stomach.
    
    Thirdly, I find it equally amazing that after thirty years of
    Affirmative Action, women and minority groups still feel equity hasn't
    been achieved.   This may be the case but what it reveals is that
    Affirmative Action has failed and needs to be gutted and retried.
    
    I believe Affirmative Action, even as a toll for equity, has been
    abused over the years..by both whites, minorities and women.  The
    bottom line is, if you put somebody in a job who is unqualified but
    gets based on a quota, you are a racist!
    
    -Jack

	Again Jack, you want to get rid of something without fixing the
problems. You seem to want to do that with all policies. 

    Glen:
    
    I want to get rid of something that puts a wedge between people, a
    wedge within the democrat party itself, and has shown to not do a whole
    lot of good.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1060.30 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I want to get rid of something that puts a wedge between people, a wedge 
| within the democrat party itself, and has shown to not do a whole lot of good.

	Jack, you amaze me. You do this with everything, as if everything
doesn't work good, as if everything puts a wedge between people. Will you do
the same with religion? That too puts a wedge between people. But I know you
would draw the line there. You don't make a lot of sense here on this one. 

    The statistics posted a few replies ago proves that AA is not the best
    way...after 30 years.  That's why I would want to scrap it!
    
    -Jack

re Note 1060.32 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     The statistics posted a few replies ago proves that AA is not the best
>     way...after 30 years.  That's why I would want to scrap it!
  
        Jack, you are implying a comparison here -- compared to what? 
        Compared to the hypothetical ideal?  Compared to the first
        half of this century?   Compared to right wing propaganda?

        It is often impossible (or nearly so) to say that one social
        policy is better or worse than another, since you rarely get
        to run the "experiment" in more then one way under a given
        set of conditions.  You might be right, but I sincerely doubt
        that you can offer any real proof of that.  Where social
        policy is concerned, the choice ultimately boils down to a
        matter of taste -- the public's taste.

        Bob

    I heard on a commentary last week that 90% of the benefits of
    Affirmative Action have been enjoyed by women...and inequitably I might
    add.  Women of color are making more money than white women as a whole. 
    This is wrong, just as equal pay between men and women is wrong.
    
    As proposed earlier, I am a strong proponent of enterprise zones.  Give
    companies incentives for doing the same thing instead of penalizing
    them for not doing the social experiment thing.  Offer tax incentives
    for opening businesses in urban areas where unemployment is growing. 
    This will foster self reliance and entrepreneurship within the inner
    city and welfare will drop dramatically.  Instead, we have government
    holding a gun to business saying, "Hire 10% here or else..."  This is
    absurd...and communist if you ask me.  But worse, it sets false
    expectations and distrust amongst society.  
    
    Incent business, don't threaten them.  It creates a real sense of
    disdain between the private and public sector...and it promotes racism
    and discrimination.
    
    -Jack

    Balance is achieved not by moving the fulcrum, but by getting rid of it.
    

.34>  This is wrong, just as equal pay between men and women is wrong.


are you saying that women and men should not be payed the same if they do the 
same work?



andreas.

.28>  What an absolute crime we have bestowed on this guy.  The height of
.28>  racism and arrogance.  The racism we turn a blind eye to absolutely
.28>  turns my stomach.

your stomach is more likely being turned because you are unduly stretching
the meaning of 'racism'. see webster's dictionary definition below. 

as a champion of anti-racism you will no doubt be pleased to discover that 
equating affirmative action to racism is indeed an unpalatable thought.

hoping to have contributed to your stomach's well being,

andreas.


racism - i) a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims 
to find racial differences in character, intelligence, etc., that asserts the 
superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain 
the supposed purity of a race of the races ii) any program or practice or 
racial discrimination, segregation, etc. based on such beliefs.

.28 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    bottom line is, if you put somebody in a job who is unqualified but
    gets based on a quota, you are a racist!

Jack, what do you call it if you put a less qualified white guy in a position
over a better qualified black guy, or a woman?

Do you believe that there is no racism in our society? Do you believe that there
are no people out there that simply will not hire minorities at any level, if
they have that option. That for these people skill and talent have nothing to do
with it?

If you believe that, then I understand where you are coming from. If, however,
you believe that racism exists, and that it doesn't matter in some situations
how talented an individual might be, they will NOT be hired, how would you
address that?

Steve

| <<< Note 1060.32 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| The statistics posted a few replies ago proves that AA is not the best
| way...after 30 years.  That's why I would want to scrap it!

	But Jack, that was your answer for welfare, for school taxes, etc. You
are never interested in fixing something that used to be good. You just want to
scrap it, regardless of who gets hurt in the process. You must be a republican. 


Glen

    Alot of things here....
    
    Andreas, first, my .34 was a typo.  I firmly believe in equal pay for
    all genders.  disparity between white and black women is just as bad as
    disparity between men and women.
    
    ZZracism - i) a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that
    ZZclaims 
    ZZto find racial differences in character, intelligence, etc., that asserts 
    ZZthe superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain 
    ZZthe supposed purity of a race of the races ii) any program or practice
    ZZor racial discrimination, segregation, etc. based on such beliefs.
    
    Andreas, racial gerrymandering is a government supported activity. 
    Setting different standards on testing for blacks as opposed to whites
    is a government supported activity.  Andreas, I believe the purpose of
    this is well intended...and I don't believe that most proponents of
    this have a malicious bone in their body.  I also realize people like
    myself are getting negative notariety.  There was an article in the New
    Republic written by Kinsley called Affirmative Action and the White
    Male Whine.  My whining so to speak is directed more at the hypocrisy
    factor of the government and not so much the intent of Affirmative
    Action.  But I do believe that Affirmative Action is built upon the
    foundation of an element of elitism, i.e. blacks can't score as well on
    tests...blacks need a vote to count twice for them because they cannot
    win in a purely democratic country.  Andreas, you don't see elitism
    here?  I do...and to me this fits within the guise of racism.
    
    -Jack

.40>  But I do believe that Affirmative Action is built upon the
.40>  foundation of an element of elitism, i.e. blacks can't score as well on
.40>  tests...blacks need a vote to count twice for them because they cannot
.40>  win in a purely democratic country.  Andreas, you don't see elitism
.40>  here?  

well jack, i think it is a little arrogant from your side to argue that 
mr. phillips could have done aswell without affirmative action when the 
man says otherwise. 



andreas.

re Note 1060.40 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     But I do believe that Affirmative Action is built upon the
>     foundation of an element of elitism, i.e. blacks can't score as well on
>     tests...

        Perhaps you think this is the "foundation" of Affirmative
        Action, but what you write above parallels the most common
        argument offered by the right *against* AA, that is, that the
        blacks hired today under Affirmative Action are incompetent
        and undeserving of the jobs they hold.

        I am extremely suspicious, and downright fearful, of a
        movement making the twin claims that "the blacks and women
        hired under today's laws are incompetent" and "discrimination
        would be absent if it were not for today's laws."


>     blacks need a vote to count twice for them because they cannot
>     win in a purely democratic country.  

        What's this "vote to count twice" stuff about?  What current
        AA law deals with voting?

        Bob

 Z   well jack, i think it is a little arrogant from your side to argue that 
 Z   mr. phillips could have done aswell without affirmative action when the 
 Z   man says otherwise. 
    
    If anything, I am esteeming Mr. Phillips on his own ability.
    I don't deny that discrimination could have happened.  Discrimination
    is a part of life...everybody is discriminated against at one time or
    another in their life...some more than others and for the wrong
    reasons.  What I do believe however is the current system needs to be
    gutted because it sets the wrong prescedent in society:
    
    1. Mr. Phillips believes he needed help.
    2. AA causes division within society...between peoples of race and
       gender.
    3. AA destroys the trust factor in society.
    4. AA presumes category over ability.  Hence job is more likely to be
    done inadequately and person hired will lose job and become even more
    bitter.
    5. AA promotes legalized discrimination based on category..no matter
    how well intentioned it is...it's illegal as the courts will decide in
    California no doubt.
    
    Bob, what do you think of my idea regarding enterprise zones...I mean
    REALLY pushing the incentive to businesses.  Sounds to me like private
    business would gladly go into the inner city and the inner city would
    face a future of entrepreneurship and independence instead of crime and
    government dependency.  If you and I were running the country, would
    you be willing to try that in lieu of Affirmative Action??
    
    -Jack
    
    The man assumed 

re Note 1060.43 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Bob, what do you think of my idea regarding enterprise zones...I mean
>     REALLY pushing the incentive to businesses.  Sounds to me like private
>     business would gladly go into the inner city and the inner city would
>     face a future of entrepreneurship and independence instead of crime and
>     government dependency.  

        I think an enterprise zone is an excellent idea, although I
        fear that since it is discriminatory (against the non-favored
        zones) not to mention elitist (it assumes that there are some
        regions that cannot make it on their own resources) that some
        future demagogue or political party will collect anecdotes
        which illustrate the "failure" of enterprise zones (since it
        is a human activity, there will be failures, there will be
        malfeasance).

        Remember, if the poor of this country gain economic power,
        this will affect the balance of power in our society with
        others losing power in the balance.  For some, such as the
        minimum-wage employers, economic opportunity would mean that
        it would be harder to get people to work for low wages.  If
        enterprise zones *really* raised the economic well-being of
        the poor in this country, there would be some powerful forces
        which would be bent on crippling, discrediting, and
        ultimately dismantling enterprise zones.


> If you and I were running the country, would
>     you be willing to try that in lieu of Affirmative Action??

        That's like asking "would you be willing to try a
        refrigerator instead of a car?"

        Bob

    You're right.  I just realized Washington DC is a tax free zone and we
    all know DC has practically both feet into perdition.
    
    -Jack

    Several months ago my wife and I both took an exam for a federal 
    government position.  Applicants for these positions would be further 
    considered and evaluated based on the results of this test.  On the 
    test was a set of questions to indicate age, race, national origin and
    sex.  Completing these questions, we were told, was completely
    voluntary BUT no application would be considered unless they were
    filled out.  When the scores came back we received two numbers, one
    adjusted for AA.  Mine was adjusted 15 points down because I am a white
    male, my wife was only adjusted down 10 points because she's a white
    female.  This essentially put us out of any reasonable competition for
    the jobs.  Is this governmental discrimination or not?
    
    Kent
    

.46>	Is this governmental discrimination or not?

i believe this is what is called positive discrimination.

if we want to be serious about evening out inequalities, then how do you 
propose the selection for the federal government position should have been 
done?

would you have been happier if only racial minorities had been invited
to apply?

would you have been happier if you had been told "sorry, you passed your 
test, but to make the quota we really need an african american"?

it seems the way you describe it, you as a white male would have to have
been outstandingly good to make the job. what strikes me in your description
is that you still had a chance, albeit with a handicap.

this is a situation which unfortunately, today, alot of racial minorities,
and, to a lesser extent, women still find themselves in. they have a chance 
with a handicap.



andreas.

ZZ
i believe this is what is called positive discrimination.
    
    
ZZ  if we want to be serious about evening out inequalities, then how do
ZZ  you 
ZZ  propose the selection for the federal government position should have
ZZ  been done?
    
    Positive Discrimination?  I am totally awed by the presumptuous of
    people....Positive Discrimination?????  Andreas, this is Wrong,
    immoral, and illegal, unethical, unfair.  I would rather they said
    whites need not apply.  It would take away the twofacedness of our
    government.
    
    Double pox on Washington for their hypocrisy!
    
    -Jack

.48>  Positive Discrimination?  I am totally awed by the presumptuous of
.48>  people....Positive Discrimination?????  Andreas, this is Wrong,
.48>  immoral, and illegal, unethical, unfair.  

jack, emotionalising politics on matters of racial minorities and inequality
is wrong in my opinion. it makes for the type of politics which leads to 
systematic extermination of minorities. at least in one case, adolf hitler's,
it sure did.

facts provide a better discussion ground for the issue at hand.


.48> I would rather they said whites need not apply.  

the tought crossed my mind aswell when i read .46 

but how many people would take exception then? 
is there a legal basis for drafting/employing "whites only", "blacks only"?

which way can inequality be evened out without the accompanying talk of
"twofacedness" and "hypocrisy"??!!



andreas.

    >> if we want to be serious about evening out inequalities, then how do
    
    So, what you are saying, andreas is that the blacks, hispanics, native
    Americans, women, etc... are not my equal because I'm a white male.  
    
    The test was not biased, the scoring was.  It was a simple entrance
    exam that measured memorization ability, basic logic skills and the
    ability to follow written directions.  The lowest possible score, after
    skewing, to be further considered was 75% meaning that a white male has
    to make a score of at least 90% to even make round two.  The test was 
    saying we are going to have a fair race but this group gets a ten yard 
    head start.  
    
    Sorry, I don't buy positive discrimination.
    
    Kent
    

.50>  So, what you are saying, andreas is that the blacks, hispanics, native
.50>  Americans, women, etc... are not my equal because I'm a white male.  

blacks, hispanics, native americans, women are your equal on paper but not 
in practice. if they were equal in practice they would be proportionately 
represented in professional jobs and in the upper echelons of society.

blacks, hispanics, native americans, women have to be better than the average 
white male to hold their jobs, if the job is one traditionally held by a white
male. this implies that blacks, hispanics, native americans, women enter the 
employment market with a handicap.

in the test which you took the handicaps were reversed so to speak. the hard
to swallow truth of the matter being that you were in with an "equal" chance. 
as much of a "equal" chance, that is, as those least handicapped in the test 
usually find themselves in every day life.

so much for equality.


andreas.

    Bottom line is Andreas, you are justifying an illegal practice to
    establish equity in the workplace.  You are creating bitterness amongst
    people of different races.
    
    I hate to say this Andreas, but the current practice is only going to
    exasperate the problem.  It is not doing one bit of good to squelch
    racism.  Incentives to the private sector would work better.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1060.52 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Bottom line is Andreas, you are justifying an illegal practice to
>     establish equity in the workplace.  

        If I have a fence with ten posts, and one of the posts is out
        in a strong wind, tending to force it over, and the others
        are not, and I provide a special brace for the one post,
        counteracting the force of the wind, I certainly have
        treated the posts differently, but the net effect is that
        none suffers from the bias of the wind.

        (Of course, Mr. Oxymoron will chime in and state, quite
        rightly of course, that the brace is exerting a force on the
        one post, a force with which the other posts do not have to
        contend -- or benefit from, depending upon your point of
        view.  If these posts were human beings, instead, would that
        be unfair?)


>    You are creating bitterness amongst
>     people of different races.
    
        I'm sorry, but I do see things quite differently.  I see
        right-wind demagogues and talk-show hosts igniting fires of
        discontent and hatred, in a way faintly reminiscent of a
        Hitler fanning flames of hatred towards Jews.  They call the
        analogue to the brace in my story above a great evil while
        denying that there is any wind of discrimination.

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    Use all the analogies you want.  It is still an illegal act.  And it is
    most definitely causing a wedge in society.
    
    -Jack

.52> you are justifying an illegal practice to establish equity in the workplace

i understand that affirmative action practices as engaged in by the government
have a legal basis and that the constitutional court has yet to rule against 
them. is this correct?

.52> You are creating bitterness amongst people of different races.

there is already bitterness amongst people of different races due to 
inequality. what you appear to be saying is that affirmative action shifts
bitterness from people of different races to people of other races.


.52> I hate to say this Andreas, but the current practice is only going to
.52> exasperate the problem.  It is not doing one bit of good to squelch
.52> racism.  Incentives to the private sector would work better.

you know jack, i was thinking how can inequalities be levelled out without 
stepping on anyones toes.

i also think, like you, that things like business incentives, student grants, 
training and retraining programmes for minorities all make sense. these are
measures which help to make minorities more competitive without putting the
majority in the back row.

the problem with these measures though is that THEY COST MONEY and it seems 
that the gingrich crew on capitol hill is dead against spending this kind of 
money.

in these circumstances, instituting quotas or giving minorities preferential
treatment in the selection process for jobs really does seem to be (the only?)
cost effective measure. it doesn't cost extra money. it costs, as you rightly 
point out, nerves and emotions on those who now have less preferential 
treatment.

i agree with you that the situation as presented in .46 is not at all ideal.
i would also like to see the problem solved through more incentives. [i think
i have said this before that there would be alot of money available for this
purpose if the defense spending was cut, whilst still reducing the budget 
deficit.]



andreas.

    Hey, if somebody in power said, "It's illegal, but we're going to do it
    anyway...short term pain for long term gain..", I would at least have
    more respect for the party involved.  Instead it is masqueraded under a
    mask of compassion.  
    
 Z   the problem with these measures though is that THEY COST MONEY and it
 Z   seems 
 Z   that the gingrich crew on capitol hill is dead against spending this
 Z   kind of money.
    
    Yes, this is true.  It's too bad though that congress was run by the
    democrat party for forty years and they too didn't use the wisdom of
    incenting the private sector.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1060.56 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Use all the analogies you want.  It is still an illegal act.  And it is
| most definitely causing a wedge in society.

	Jack, you have to admit that the analogy Bob used was very clear at
showing what AA can do. It may not be that way now, but it does not mean it
can't be. And the only wedge in society that is being caused is from white
males complaining. 

	BTW Bob, I REALLY enjoyed the oxymoron thing. :-)  Smart AND  a great
sense of humor.... you're a lucky guy Bob.


Glen

    That's fine Glen.  It would be nice if businesses just posted their
    intent.  It would save people alot of aggravation and time.
    
    It is inconsiderate to open up the interview process when the company
    knows they are going to hire somebody based on their skin color as well
    as qualifications.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .51
    
    > blacks, hispanics, native american, women are your equal on paper but
    > not in practice.
    
    andreas,
    
    Not on the test paper according to what I hear here and AA.  A
    minority's score of 75 equals a white male score of 90.  That's not
    good math.  The issue is not equal representation in the job market.  The
    issue is equality.  They are not the same thing.  Your argument
    confuses the two.  From this one example (and honestly I have a
    personal interest here) I would conclude that AA does not promote
    equality but rewards mediocrity.
    
    Kent
    

    Correct...and in a competitive world marketplace, this is not good!
    
    But even so, the fact still remains it is illegal!
    
    -Jack

    RE: 1060.61
    

    > Not on the test paper according to what I hear here and AA.  A
    > minority's score of 75 equals a white male score of 90.

    What test is this? Where can I get a copy of it? To what agency do I go
    to take this test?

    AA isn't some centralized set of procedures practiced equally in every
    state, city and town in the US. Most, if not all, of the complaints
    voiced here and elsewhere cite gross exceptions to the norm, as
    practiced by a specific town or a specific fire department or school
    district.

    Eric

	The discussion in this notes string, to me, shows
	that mankinds efforts to resolve issues such as
	discrimination in Soceity are doomed to failure.
	Even with this well intentioned AA organisation
	(it is an organisation yes?), persons argue that
	it itself discriminates.

	As Jeremiah wrote "I know, O Lord, that the way of
	man is not in himself, that it is not in man who
	walks to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 RSV

	Many governments may try to bring an end to 
	discrimination like racialism but don't know how 
	go about it, all attempts fail. Jeremiah explains why, 
	it's not in him.

	The answer is God's kingdom. For example Jesus told
	his followers to pray for "Thy kingdom come, thy will
	be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:10 RSV

	Just think what it would be like to be subjects
	under a government that has brought an end to
	partiality such as racialism.

	Phil. 

.61>    The issue is not equal representation in the job market.  
.61>    The issue is equality. They are not the same thing.  

kent, in a society which provides equal opportunities to all and where 
50% of the population are women and 30% of the population are racial
minorities, wouldn't you expect 50% of the politicians, decision makers,
managers to be women and wouldn't you also expect 30% of the politicians, 
decision makers, managers to be racial minorities?

how else do you want to measure if equal opportunities really work in 
practice if not by looking for proportional representation at all levels
of society?

i'll assume for the following, that the test which you described is a bonafide 
AA measure.

.61>	I would conclude that AA does not promote equality but rewards 
.61>	mediocrity.

in the job application, a racial minority needs a score of 75, a white male 
needs a score of 90, in order to make the next round.

the way you see this is: setting the entry level low for racial minorities 
promotes mediocrity.

the way i see this is: 75 and only 75 is the required entry level, no more.
anything above 75 is exceptional.

in your test white males were asked to perform exceptionally, to score well 
above the entry level. they were asked to outperform their racial minority 
counterparts by a significant margin just to be granted the same reward of 
going on to the next round.

from this i conclude, that with this test, white males which make the next 
round are more likely to be overqualified for the position applied for, whilst
their racial minority counterparts are more likely to fit the position just
right.

today, in executive jobs where racial minorities or women are rare, you often 
hear from racial minorities and women in such executive positions that they are
measured and assessed far more critically than their white male counterparts.
that they have to perform exceptionally just to be granted the same financial 
rewards which the average white male gets in the same position.

in your test you find the same situation with the roles reversed.

my guess is that the employer, where you took the test, based his selection 
criteria on statistical findings whereby a racial minority does need to 
outperform the white male counterpart to hold the same position. specifically, 
that a racial minority has to bring 90% performance to get the same rewards of 
a white male delivering only 75% performance.

so the the employer reversed the statistical inequalities in an effort to 
correct the skewed math which is found out there in practice.

this being just a guess, all the same, was that a good and fair thing to do? 
i don't know. the selection process which you described is obviously painful 
for some applicants because it leaves the door just slighlty open for some. 

as regards government employment policies, would straight forward quotas fair
better? such that only minorities, women, white males are considered per 
individual recruitement. i can see that a quota based approach could be even 
more difficult to push through politically than your AA example, because with 
quotas the door would be completely shut to you from time to time. 

what do you think?


andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    I just read your last reply and have a question for you.  Would you as
    somebody of African descent consider it demigogery to presume
    minorities need a 75% while whites need a 90%?  I know you said 75 was
    just the minimum and anything above is just exceptional.  Yet it is
    still causing whites to be exceptional.  Andreas, I know many
    minorities that are far more intellectual than I am.  The current set
    up is a hasty generalization.
    
    -Jack

.66>  Would you as somebody of African descent consider it demigogery to 
.66>  presume minorities need a 75% while whites need a 90%?  

i don't know the meaning of the word "demigogery" jack, and neither does
my dictionary. also i am not of african descent.

but your question should be "Would you as somebody of African descent consider
it demigogery to demand that white males need an additonal 15% to the standard
entry level, whilst minorities don't"

whatever you mean with "demigogery", if minorities are proven to be 
discriminated against in practice, i can certainly follow the reasoning
behind the +15% performance on white males. i consider this a reasonable
measure at any rate considering that white males still have more advantages
than anyone else.



andreas.

    Sorry, the spelling is demigoguery.
    
    Demigogue - A leader who obtains power by appeals to the emotions and 
    predjudices of the populace.
    
    
    I see the way you word the question.  It is still fallacious since it
    would have to presume all white males are more intelligent than any one
    black male...which is of course false and I am living proof of this.
    
    Regardless of the attempt to reach a quota, it is still illegal and an
    inequitable way.  Yes, somebody's going to have a beef one way or the
    other.  But for crying out loud let's call it like it really
    is...reverse discriminiation...which is illegal under Federal Equal
    Opportunity Laws.
    
    -Jack

    You guys type too fast.  I'm not in here all the time but I'll try to
    keep up.
    
    First, this was a standard entrance test for an entry level federal 
    government position.  It was not a state test.  It was not a county
    test.  It was not a city test.  It was not a company test.  I am in
    Georgia and someone in Maine or Oregon applying for this position would
    have taken the same test.  As I said before, it was a basic skills test
    to determine who might best be suited for the position(s).
    
    Second, in my opinion, there should be two overriding criteria in
    hiring, promotion and retention practices.  (1) The best interest of
    the company.  By this I mean the highest potential for return on
    investment.  Basic economics teaches that manpower is nothing more than
    another factor in optimizing output.  From an economic perspective it's
    no different than technology or raw materials.  If you have a less than
    optimum level of technology or raw materials then you have less than
    optimum output.  Likewise, if you have less than optimum manpower then
    you have less than optimum output.  This measurement is not bound by
    color or sex but by knowledge, skills and abilities matching the needs
    of the company.  A ton of turnips doesn't do me a bit of good if I'm
    manufacturing televisions.  (2) The practice must give equal
    opportunity, in a real sense, to all prospects/applicants/employees. 
    To me, that means that all measurements being equal, skill sets, 
    experience, whatever might qualify one above another, then the one more
    qualified is given the opportunity regardless of minority/majority
    status.
    
    Regarding andreas' "wouldn't you expect" question, we have spent years
    watching South Africa move toward racial equity.  The cry was that
    those in the majority were not being represented.  The majority were
    being repressed.  All true statements and all reprehensible.  Now,
    Nelson Mandela is the nation's leader.  I would expect that we will see
    a gradual change in the 'color' of the government.  When the government
    of South Africa changes to the point where there is a greater
    percentage of blacks in government than the percentage of blacks in the
    country are you going to condemn their election policies as unfair and
    not properly representing the demographics of the country?  Politics
    will never be free of bias no matter what country, no matter who is the
    majority.  AA is not going to change that in this country and, as I
    understand it, isn't designed to.  So it's really a moot question.
    
    Finally, andreas, why don't you use capital letters?
    
    Kent
    

.66> The current set up is a hasty generalization.
    

my problem with "positive discrimination" as given in kent's example, is,
when does such discrimination stop. how do we know when equality is implemented.

statistical evidence can lag and is not necessarily comprehensive nor
accurate. furthermore it is also a generalization and does not take into 
account individual biases.

how about, for implementing equality, getting all parties concerned around the 
table to agree quotas for key areas and then work towards implementing equality 
together.

an example of women in politics would be: let's make sure that within the
next twelve years at least 40% of women and at least 40% of men are represented
in all levels of the legislative. where the representation of one gender 
deviates strongly today it will be incremented with each legislative period so 
as to reach the 40% minimum in twelve years as smoothly as possible.

after twelve years (or after a while of steady state thereafter) an interesting
question arises: should guaranteed minimums be safeguarded constitutionally?
or should, once equality has been established, the system evolve by itself by
virtue of its own dynamics?



andreas.

.69>  Second, in my opinion, there should be two overriding criteria in
.69>  hiring, promotion and retention practices.  

kent, i agree with much of your criteria as regards businesses, particularly
small business. 

government business though is payed by tax payer's money and government 
represents the people, not a market product such as a company does. therefore
governmental positions should represents the population too. this applies
for all levels of government.


.69>						When the government
.69> of South Africa changes to the point where there is a greater
.69> percentage of blacks in government than the percentage of blacks in the
.69> country are you going to condemn their election policies as unfair and
.69> not properly representing the demographics of the country?

since the early 80's, the south africans have demonstrated how to implement
change to equality grdually, with minimal disruption to the economy and
minimal social unrest. i have full confidence that the politics of the south 
african government will continue on the path of gradual implementation
of equality and constitutionally guranteed safeguards for minorities.


.69>  Finally, andreas, why don't you use capital letters?

heck, i write quicker this way! :-)



andreas.

    
    RE: 1060.69

    > First, this was a standard entrance test for an entry level federal
    > government position.  It was not a state test.  It was not a county
    > test.  It was not a city test.  It was not a company test.  I am in
    > Georgia and someone in Maine or Oregon applying for this position would
    > have taken the same test. 

    Which is exactly my point. Odious though this 75% vs 90% test is, it is
    not a requirement of all things under the "Affirmative Action" heading.
    This is a requirement for a specific job. To the best of my knowledge I
    can be an Affirmative Action employer and not impose this form of skill
    test. One does not need to kill all Affirmative Action programs to get
    rid of one apparently flawed metric. It's like saying we should stop
    all missionary work because some missionaries were abusive to
    aboriginal people. 

    Regarding human resources being equivalent to raw materials. That is,
    all that matters is a benchmark set of quantifiable skills and that
    individual is as interchangeable as a 10-32 bolt. While Economics 101
    may preach this, Organizational Management 101 would not. But I
    digress.
    
    	Eric

 ZZ   how about, for implementing equality, getting all parties concerned
 ZZ   around the 
 ZZ   table to agree quotas for key areas and then work towards implementing
 ZZ   equality together.
    
    This would be fine but if they use quotas, then they would have to
    scrap the wording of Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law...This is
    the Federal document hung up in most places of employment.  It goes on
    to state that hiring will not take place on the basis of race,
    religion, creed, or gender.  Quotas would supercede this.
    
    Secondly, quotas of congress would be an absolute no no for most
    people.  It would take away the democratic foundation of voting for the
    candidate you felt best represented your views.  I believe this would
    simply be dangerous.
    
    -Jack

.58 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    Yes, this is true.  It's too bad though that congress was run by the
    democrat party for forty years and they too didn't use the wisdom of
    incenting the private sector.

Jack, do you honestly think that incentives will make any difference to a
bigoted employer? Please answer this question (this is the third time I've
asked, you just keep ignoring it). If you have a large employer in a racially
mixed area, and only whites are hired, is this OK? Is it OK if the employer
states that the company policy is to hire only whites?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.64 RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" 
Title:  God's kingdom will bring an end to discrimination be it racial, ethnic,
sexual or age.

	The answer is God's kingdom. For example Jesus told
	his followers to pray for "Thy kingdom come, thy will
	be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:10 RSV

	Just think what it would be like to be subjects
	under a government that has brought an end to
	partiality such as racialism.

So why hasn't he done so? And why did he set up a system that fostered this kind
of problem (racism) in the first place?

    Steve:
    
    Sorry...didn't mean to avoid the question.  Inherently, any kind of
    predjudicial discrimination is wrong.  It is bigoted and isn't what
    America should be all about.  At the same time, I find government
    meddling in the private sector repugnant.  Therefore, I would have to
    say that if a company is publically or privately owned by the
    stockholders, then white only hiring would be wrong.  If a company is
    privately owned by a sole proprietor...no stockholders, regardless of 
    size, then the proprietor should have carte blanche on their hiring 
    practices.  Companies can be boycotted too.
    
    This should prove interesting because the Nation of Islam (Ferrekhan)
    (SP?), is pushing to move blacks away from government dependence.  This
    to me is great!!!  They are incorporating and building their own
    manufacturing plants and really getting into the free enterprise
    system.  I will be really interested to see if they hire any whites...
    bet they don't!!
    
    -Jack  

re .74

Steve,

We have been here before, right?. But say you are a loving father 
of a family and a son in your family contests that you are indeed
loving but rather a despot. Because of his malicious words others
distrust you also and join in the rebellion. Would you stamp out 
the rebellion right away or let things run there course allowing 
the evidence to speak for itself for the remainder of the family?. 

;And why did he set up a system that fostered this kind
;of problem (racism) in the first place?

Self-rule was introduced by man and not God. Adam rebelled
against Theocracy, though a foolish course God has allowed
enough time to pass to show that it is beyond man to direct
his own steps as indicated in the Jeremiah 10:23 scripture.
Take for example, a democracy which one dictionary defines
as "A form of government in which the sumpreme power is 
vested by the people." The evidence to date is that such
a government has not been able to resolve the problems
of racism. Man does not know how to direct his own steps.

;So why hasn't he done so?

He will soon, a study of Jesus' prophecies show that we are
living in the last days of this system. He may have stepped
in earlier, but doubt may have fostered in the minds of the
heavenly realm looking on. You see, Satan called God a liar, 
saying "'Death will not certainly come to you: For God sees 
that on the day when you take of the fruit, your eyes will 
be open, and you will be as gods, having knowledge of good 
and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5 (The Bible in Basic English) Satan 
was making a few accussations here, one being "you will be 
as gods" in otherwords he was saying to Eve God is tricking
you, you can rule yourselves with no ill effects. Keeping
in mind Adam & Eve enjoyed a fine life style under God's
rule.

When the first human pair listened to Satan and rebelled against
God, they had pulled themselves away from the source of life.
Rather like an electronic fan being pulled from the socket,
for a while the fan keeps turning until it stops. For Adam
& Eve it meant the aging process would begin ultimately 
resulting in death. So Satan had told a lie, the first human 
pair died as result of their rebellion. But could Adam and his
offspring rule themselves and would this be an improvement on 
Theocracy. Only time would tell.

God in his wisdom has allowed monarchies, republics, democracies
and all sorts of governments to rule. All have failed to give 
lasting peace and security to all of it's subjects. He has even 
allowed man to develop technogically, with what result?.

Soon God will bring an end to this system (man's self rule) 
those who want to live as subjects under God's kingdom are
being gathered now (Isaiah 2:2-4). These ones put away the 
old personality of racism and put on a new personality imitating
God's impartiality. Many who have died will be given a resurrection
in the new system (Acts 24:15). However, one has to make the
choice now, because at Armageddon one will be either for self-rule
(in opposition) or God's kingdom. For this reason he is allowing a 
preaching work to be carried out before God's war begins, so that 
people can make a choice. As prophesied "And this good news of the 
kingdom will be given through all the world for a witness to all 
nations and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14 The Bible in 
Basic English). The end being the end of this system brought about
by Armageddon God's war.


Phil.

.68>                But for crying out loud let's call it like it really
.68>    is...reverse discriminiation...which is illegal under Federal Equal
.68>    Opportunity Laws.
    
just because we as individuals or as employers can't discriminate it doesn't
mean the government can't.

"AA" or quotas are measures taken by the government in the interest of the
people which it represents to correct a situation which is not in the interest 
of the people.

under the same logic government is putting people in jail (taking their 
freedom) and taking people's lifes under capital punishment. government
may perform acts which individuals may not. that's a fundamental idea of
government, particularly in democracies.



andreas.

.75 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    stockholders, then white only hiring would be wrong.  If a company is
    privately owned by a sole proprietor...no stockholders, regardless of 
    size, then the proprietor should have carte blanche on their hiring 
    practices.  Companies can be boycotted too.

Thanks, Jack, I understand better where you're coming from now. I, too, dislike
the idea of government meddling, but in some cases I believe it is necessary. 
Do you believe that the sole proprieter should also have the ability to refuse
to serve <blacks, whites, christians> also?

I guess that I believe that there are enough bigots out there that if you allow
segregation to return, it will, and THAT would be divisive. 

How about a compromise, you may hire whomever you wish, but if your employment
figures are way out of whack with the community make-up, you pay a progressivly
higher tax. Not ideal, but the idea of allowing rampant racism is one that I
find revolting, because I believe that it would be rampant (on all sides) very
quickly, and that it would lead us down the same path as other places with deep
divisions, such as Northern Ireland, Bosnia, etc...

As a side note, although it may not be right, the score adjustment on the
entrance exams probably give white males a very small taste of what most blacks
go through on a regular basis, day in and day out, for their entire lives. The
handicap isn't enough to preclude you (the majority of government still seems to
be white), but it is a handicap.

Steve

re .78

>How about a compromise, you may hire whomever you wish, but if your employment
>figures are way out of whack with the community make-up, you pay a progressivly
>higher tax. 

i think this is an excellent idea steve. a win-win situation. it doesn't 
have government meddling in everybody's affairs and it doesn't cost money. 
on the contrary, those who perfer homogeneity pay for this luxury!



andreas.

    As a side note, although it may not be right, the score adjustment on
    the
    entrance exams probably give white males a very small taste of what
    most blacks
    go through on a regular basis, day in and day out, for their entire
    lives. The
    handicap isn't enough to preclude you (the majority of government still
    seems to
    be white), but it is a handicap.
    
    This to me is the ole get-even-withem-ism which is a dangerous
    prescedent to set.  Dangerous in that it neutralizes societies growth
    in combatting racism.  As I've stated, it just puts a wedge of
    resentment between the races and the genders.  Therefore, it just
    festers the problem and promotes it further.
    
    Regarding the tax idea, I see some merit in this but once again, it is
    government incenting through penalization.  Just like our current tax
    system.  What I would rather see is tax breaks if they do hire a
    specific amount of a certain class.  This will help the business to
    prosper and grow at a much faster rate.  The other method would call
    for underhandedness...just as the current AA policy is doing.  AA has
    been sorely abused by white business owners as well...setting up ghost
    companies, etc.  Why tempt the private sector to not play by the rules?
    
    Regaring restaurants not serving, etc....good point.  That did make me
    think the thought out further.
    
    -Jack

.80 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    This to me is the ole get-even-withem-ism which is a dangerous
    prescedent to set.  

I agree that this isn't the way to go. My point was, that you can see how angry
it makes you, and I believe that this is only a very small taste of what
minorities still must put up with on a daily basis. I too would rather fix the
root cause, I'm just not sure how...

    Regarding the tax idea, I see some merit in this but once again, it is
    government incenting through penalization.  Just like our current tax
    system.  What I would rather see is tax breaks if they do hire a

This is an argument of reward vs. punishment, and is a matter of degree. To me,
it is the same as saying if you stay under the speed limit the road toll will be
less, but no matter how dangerously you drive you will pay only the normal toll.
I don't want to reward someone for doing what is right, I want to punish those
that do something wrong.

Steve

    Steve:
    
    Not so much anger as frustration..Only difference the perpetrator
    against minorities is a segment of racists in society.  The perpetrator
    of AA is government...which I fund through taxation.
    
    By the way, quota hiring is expressly forbidden in the 1964 Civil
    Rights Act.  Our gummit has conveniently forgotten this.
    
    -Jack

.82 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    By the way, quota hiring is expressly forbidden in the 1964 Civil
    Rights Act.  Our gummit has conveniently forgotten this.

Our gummit has conveniently forgotten many things, including most of the Bill of
Rights, and the separation of church and state.

Steve

    The 3-April issue of Newsweek has a series of articles on affirmative
    action. I learned things about both the pro and con sides of the
    argument. I found it thought provoking.

    Eric

extracted from minnesota daily (gopher:)

Headline: Affirmative action not meeting goals
Publish Date: 04/11/1995

Designed to redress the wrongs experienced early in this country's  
history by African-Americans, affirmative action has been extended to  
include such diverse groups as immigrants, transvestites and women.  
It's clear that this controversial policy, if nothing else, has lost  
its focus.

In its current state, affirmative action hurts both minorities and  
white males more than it helps. This was the collective conclusion  
drawn by speakers last weekend at the Humphrey Institute. Because  
affirmative action is clearly not doing what it was intended to, the  
speakers said, the program should shift its attention from employment  
to education. College degrees and vocational certificates can best  
prepare minorities for the modern job market. We couldn't agree more.

There's no doubt the patronizing thrust of affirmative action can  
send the implicit message that minorities are unable to compete  
without preferential treatment. Who hasn't witnessed a sly wink and  
nudge, insinuating that a minority got a job based on race only?  
Affirmative action as it stands does little to discourage this.

Many news articles -- not to mention jokes -- call the straight white  
male the new minority. Sam Meyers, a specialist in the economics of  
race, said white males are losing ground. All kidding aside, their  
share of the income pie is shrinking -- mostly as a result of a  
larger share going to female workers of all races.

Truly leveling the employment playing field in a world that's  
inherently unfair is an almost impossible task. But ensuring equal  
access to education and training would prepare minorities to compete  
based on merit. The number of women in professional and managerial  
jobs has grown from 37 percent to 42 percent from 1983 to 1993.  
During the same time, the number of white males in the same job  
category declined from 55 percent to 47 percent, while  
African-Americans accounted for only about 6 percent. Rapid and  
pervasive change must occur before equality becomes more than an  
exception to the rule.

Some might argue that no matter what credentials minorities obtain,  
there are some employers who won't hire them without a stick like  
affirmative action over their heads. This may be true, but those same  
employers have figured out how to avoid minorities under today's  
affirmative action guidelines anyway. Take a quick peek around any  
executive floor in any city throughout the country, and, chances are,  
you won't find many women or minorities. A report by the federal  
government's Glass Ceiling Commission indicates that 97 percent of  
senior managers at Fortune 500 companies are white males.

It's clear that even under affirmative action, minorities can go only  
so far. What they need now, for everyone's benefit, is real access to  
education.


.

ZZ    the program should shift its attention from employment  
ZZ    to education. College degrees and vocational certificates can best  
ZZ    prepare minorities for the modern job market. We couldn't agree more.
    
    "Give me a fish I eat for a day...teach me to fish I eat for a
    lifetime"  I am inclined to agree with the above; however, I stand
    firmly that standards must not be compromised in order to fulfill
    AA requirements.  Our public school system is in shambels as it is;
    however, our secondary school system, although decaying, has maintained
    high quality for the most part.  
    
    -Jack

>    "Give me a fish I eat for a day...teach me to fish I eat for a
>    lifetime"

Cute saying.  It assumes, of course, that there are enough fish for everyone
and that everyone has equal access to the fish.  It assumes that there aren't
a privileged few who have a good old boy fishing network upstream looking out
for each other to the exclusion of outsiders, as tacitly and perhaps
undeliberately defined by the network.

Richard

    	There are plenty of fish in this sea, though.  Just ask the
    	Mexicans and Cubans and Hatians and Asians, etc., who are 
    	beating down Immigration's doors to come fishing!

    I was listening to a talk radio program last evening.  There was an
    African American student on the David Brudnoy show...quite intelligent
    and very well versed in the English language.  He had written an
    article that was so well written it was published in the Boston Globe
    and the Boston Herald.  In a very classy way, what he said was that the
    black leadership that continually decries victim does so to the plight
    of African Americans...and continue to fail to transcend the negativity
    of their own heritage in order to prosper.  This is why a lot of
    successful black business men are referred to as Uncle Tom by people of
    the same heritage.  
    
    I agree with this Richard.  Why is it that Koreans who own little shops
    in Los Angelas do so well...even in spite of the riots and gangs that
    proliferate in that area?  I'll tell you why...they come to America,
    they work 18 hours a day in their small shops, they loan money to each
    other to help build their businesses and they look out for each other. 
    The family unit is strong and that's what makes them succeed.  Now
    there are leaders like Farrakham who are attempting to implement the
    same types of philosophies...Bravo for him!  Although I believe him to
    be a racist bigot, I truly admire the man for his vision.  I just hope
    his vision is driven for the right reasons.  He HAS the right idea.  
    He is an example of a man who TRANSCENDS the plight of his past...he is
    to be commended.  
    
    You are hearing this from a man who expects nothing in life except that
    which God chooses to bless me with.  I expect no head starts, no
    handouts, no freebies...and I will most likely be delivering newspapers
    the rest of my life!  But one thing I have learned Richard is that
    THERE IS enough fish in the lake...and there is access to the fish.  
    If 35 years of stocking the lake still shows inequities in the program,
    then it is the method that is flawed...it is the method that needs
    repair and I for one will be more than happy to see the skeletons of
    the Johnson administration go!
    
    -Jack

From the Digital Reaffirm poster:

	"I choose to indentify with the underprivileged.
	I choose to give my life to the hungry.
	I choose to give my life to those who have been left out of
		the sunlight of opportunity...
	This is the way that I am going.
	If it means suffering a little bit, I'm going that way.
	If it means sacraficing, I'm going that way.
	If it means dying for them, I'm goint that way because
		I heard a voice saying,

		Do something for others."

			Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Economic refugees all, eh?  Perhaps there's plenty of room.  Perhaps
    it's mostly in the shallow parts of the stream.  Maybe that's why we're
    so eager to keep 'em out.
    
    Richard
    

 ZZ    Maybe that's why we're
 ZZ       so eager to keep 'em out.
    
   How do you justify this accusation?
    
    -Jack

re Note 1060.88 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	There are plenty of fish in this sea, though.  Just ask the
>     	Mexicans and Cubans and Hatians and Asians, etc., who are 
>     	beating down Immigration's doors to come fishing!
  
        Perhaps the people trying to enter this country think that
        there's "plenty of fish in this sea" but the people trying to
        keep them out seem to think that there isn't enough to go
        around.

        Bob

Note 1060.93

>        Perhaps the people trying to enter this country think that
>        there's "plenty of fish in this sea" but the people trying to
>        keep them out seem to think that there isn't enough to go
>        around.

Jack wants to know how this accusation is justified.

Perhaps Jack hasn't heard.

    ZZ        Perhaps the people trying to enter this country think that
    ZZ        there's "plenty of fish in this sea" but the people trying to
    ZZ        keep them out seem to think that there isn't enough to go
    ZZ        around.
    
    Yes, I understand that President Bubba has been keeping refugees out of
    the country.  
    
    I am a firm proponent of immigration under the following guidelines.
    
    1. AIDS free
    2. Learn the English language.
    3. Come to America, love America, identify with America.  Immigrants of
       past have prided themselves in this and it works.
    4. Keep your political disputes of the past in your own country.  Come
       with a vision of starting over.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1060.95 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


	I sometimes think you ONLY write to stir things up. :-)

| 1. AIDS free

	You state this, but then nothing about any of the other diseases out in
the world today. Sorry Jack, but from what you wrote, I keep thinking you're
just discriminating against people with AIDS. I mean, why else would you only
list AIDS and no other disease?

| 2. Learn the English language.

	That would happen over time. But let me ask you Jack, would you never
use your english language if you lived somewhere else? Do you think everyone
who lives somewhere should instantly learn that countries language?

| 3. Come to America, love America, identify with America.  Immigrants of
| past have prided themselves in this and it works.

	Jack, when someone asks what nationality you are, how do you answer? 

| 4. Keep your political disputes of the past in your own country.  Come
| with a vision of starting over.

	How do you mean in your own country. As in don't think America is like
the country they came from, or don't try to fight for the people in your
origional country by setting stuff up here?



Glen

ZZZ	I sometimes think you ONLY write to stir things up. :-)

Well.....sometimes!! :-)

| 1. AIDS free

ZZ	You state this, but then nothing about any of the other diseases out in
the world today. Sorry Jack, but from what you wrote, I keep thinking you're
just discriminating against people with AIDS. I mean, why else would you only
list AIDS and no other disease?
ZZ

This is absolutely correct, I am discriminating against people with AIDS.  Keep 
in mind that every choice we make in life is a form of discrimination.  When
one goes to a sald bar, they choose Romane or Iceberg; they choose Blue Cheese
or Italian.  This is discrimination.

I chose AIDS because it is a politically volatile disease in our country 
today.  Unlike Cyctic Fibrosis of Lou Gehrigs disease, AIDS is preventable
and is a communicable disease.  I find it interesting that you mention education
as being greatly needed...particularly in the inner city and the like.  
Immigrants throughout the century are more inclined to migrate to major cities
in this country.  So if you have AIDS infected individuals flocking to the 
cities, what do you think is going to happen in the uneducated areas of 
Boston?  Hint:  Check out Central Africa and the Florida Keys...then come 
back!!!  I'll be glad however to include other killer communicable
    diseases.

| 2. Learn the English language.

ZZZ	That would happen over time. But let me ask you Jack, would you never
use your english language if you lived somewhere else? Do you think everyone
who lives somewhere should instantly learn that countries language?
ZZZ

If I became a citizen of France, you can rest assure that the first thing I 
would do is forego English until I was very cometent in the French Language.
I have a friend here Glen, who cleans the offices while I work until 7:00
P.M.  He doesn't speak English and my Spanish is so so!  We communicate at a
very rudimentary level.  He has no desire to learn the English language...and
that's fine if he doesn't mind doing what he's doing for a very long time.
Bilingualism is a great asset to ones portfolio in todays world.  More 
importantly, I believe English should become the nationally recognized 
language of the United States.  I believe bilingual education is damaging and
will continue to balkanize the United States.  We are doing no favors here.


| 3. Come to America, love America, identify with America.  Immigrants of
| past have prided themselves in this and it works.

ZZ	Jack, when someone asks what nationality you are, how do you answer? 

Half English and half Scottish.  What I meant was don't come over here and spit
on the American flag...don't burn the American flag, and don't bad mouth 
America.  Keep the attitude in your own homeland!  

| 4. Keep your political disputes of the past in your own country.  Come
| with a vision of starting over.

ZZZZ	How do you mean in your own country. As in don't think America is like
the country they came from, or don't try to fight for the people in your
origional country by setting stuff up here?
ZZZZ

Quite frankly, what I mean is this.  If there is tribal warfare going on in 
your old country, then when you leave for America, please leave your disputes 
behind.  Simple enough!  US prisons have a very high rate of illegal aliens
    already.  We can't afford it anymore!


-Jack

| <<< Note 1060.97 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| This is absolutely correct, I am discriminating against people with AIDS. Keep
| in mind that every choice we make in life is a form of discrimination.  When
| one goes to a sald bar, they choose Romane or Iceberg; they choose Blue Cheese
| or Italian.  This is discrimination.

	Discrimination against a salad hardly validates discrimination
against people Jack. Man, you take the cake today bud!

| I chose AIDS because it is a politically volatile disease in our country
| today.  Unlike Cyctic Fibrosis of Lou Gehrigs disease, AIDS is preventable
| and is a communicable disease.  

	Jack, will you prevent those with lung cancer from coming into the
country? How about those who drank and their livers are hurting? You must do
this to remain consistant, shouldn't you? They are preventable. And why stop at
AIDS. Those std's are a problem. Let's keep them out too! You agree with all
this, don't you?

| Immigrants throughout the century are more inclined to migrate to major cities
| in this country. So if you have AIDS infected individuals flocking to the 
| cities, what do you think is going to happen in the uneducated areas of Boston

	Sigh..... Jack, you are looking at the way it is now, with a lot of
areas being uneducated. If education is there, the problem will drop
dramatically. But you knew that.

| If I became a citizen of France, you can rest assure that the first thing I
| would do is forego English until I was very cometent in the French Language.
| I have a friend here Glen, who cleans the offices while I work until 7:00
| P.M.  He doesn't speak English and my Spanish is so so!  We communicate at a
| very rudimentary level.  He has no desire to learn the English language...and
| that's fine if he doesn't mind doing what he's doing for a very long time.

	Wow Jack, talk about a slap in the face. I'm glad the real world isn't
as you imagine it. So those who only speak foreign languages will get nowhere
in this country Jack except cleaning out offices and talking to you? Uh huh....

| ZZ	Jack, when someone asks what nationality you are, how do you answer?

| Half English and half Scottish. What I meant was don't come over here and spit
| on the American flag...don't burn the American flag, and don't bad mouth
| America.  Keep the attitude in your own homeland!

	But Jack, this is your homeland, but you don't identify with calling
yourself an American. Talk about your hipocrite ways.

| Quite frankly, what I mean is this.  If there is tribal warfare going on in
| your old country, then when you leave for America, please leave your disputes
| behind.  Simple enough!  US prisons have a very high rate of illegal aliens
| already.  We can't afford it anymore!

	Jack, you still have me lost on this one...
| -Jack

ZZ    Jack, will you prevent those with lung cancer from coming into the
ZZ    country? How about those who drank and their livers are hurting? You
ZZ    must do
ZZ    this to remain consistant, shouldn't you? They are preventable. And why
ZZ    stop at
ZZ    AIDS. Those std's are a problem. Let's keep them out too! You agree
ZZ    with all this, don't you?
    
    Because Glen, the gay lobby is pushing the funding of a cure for
    AIDS...understandably.  So the gay lobby concurs with me that AIDS is a
    massive problem...superceding all the others.  Immigration will
    perpetuate the disease within the United States further because of the
    behavior of those who are not educated about the disease.  It's fine
    and dandy to educate after the fact Glen...but it's too late because
    the disease has been spread.  Remember, the AMA says Central Africa is
    LOST.  The same with the Florida Keys.  Are you willing to perpetuate
    the disease within the borders further?
    
    -Jack
    

| <<< Note 1060.99 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Because Glen, the gay lobby is pushing the funding of a cure for AIDS...
| understandably.  

	What in the world does the gay lobby have to do with keeping people
with a certain disease out of the country??? Why is it that you would even need
to bring the gay lobby into this at all?

| So the gay lobby concurs with me that AIDS is a massive problem...superceding 
| all the others.  

	Whoa... you really don't get it. Why has the gay lobby even pushed for
anything for AIDS Jack. Think just for a minute if you would. Could it have to
do with at first it was considered a gay disease and so we had to fight to get
anything done? Hmmm.... now if you even would look into things with thought,
you would see it's far more than the gay community that is addressing the issue
and pushing for a cure. AND, what does superceeding all the others have to do
with anything? Where did you come up with that?

| Immigration will perpetuate the disease within the United States further 
| because of the behavior of those who are not educated about the disease.  

	Jack, you really surprise me. The same excuse could be said about
anyone who smokes, drinks, or anything else that could bring on a disease. Now
tell me Jack, why is it you don't talk about them? Please explain.

| It's fine and dandy to educate after the fact Glen...but it's too late because
| the disease has been spread. Remember, the AMA says Central Africa is LOST.  
| The same with the Florida Keys.  

	Jack, please reproduce the data you're talking about. The Keys are
lost? Come on Jack, are you going to now tell me that it's the media who is
keeping this hush hush???? 

| Are you willing to perpetuate the disease within the borders further?

	Jack, you don't seem to care about all the other diseases, just AIDS.
Why? 

	To answer your question, you have always had a fataliastic outlook on
things you disagree with. No room for anything being fixed, just throw
everything away. So it's understandable, and from your recent string of notes,
that you think the way you do. If education is allowed to do it's job, it's got
to get out there and get out there now. In the schools, in the cities. Oh yeah,
we do have some right wingers who would oppose this. Oh well... I hope they
aren't the same ones who are complaining the way you are Jack. I think you
might find you are a big part of the problem.



Glen

    You were supposed to snarf!!

 ZZ   Oh well... I hope they
 ZZ   aren't the same ones who are complaining the way you are Jack. I think
 ZZ   you might find you are a big part of the problem.
    
    No, I'm a big proponent of education.  Education is the backbone of our
    future as a country.  You know Glen that I am the biggest complainer of
    a deteriorating school system and those evil National Education
    Association types.  So, yes, I am a friend to education and not the
    beurocratic set up we have today.  So please don't put me in that box.
    
    Glen, I heard a speech from a convention of the American Medical
    Association 2 years ago.  The opening speaker got up to the podium and
    started by saying, "Central Africa is Lost".  I don't have written
    documentation to this effect, I only say what I heard.  The disease
    Glen, is being perpetuated throughout Africa at a plague rate. 
    Likewise, the Florida Keys is experiencing rampany AIDS infection...as
    is Southeast Asia...aw come on Glen, I don't need to tell you this.  
    
    Glen...speaking truth...even if we don't want to hear it doesn't mean 
    insensitivity or mean spiritedness.  AIDS has become politicized and
    has become a politically correct tool for the left.  The
    congresscritters are all wearing AIDS ribbons and lobby groups are
    screaming for more Federal funding.  This is fine except there is a
    demand for more money for AIDS research than for heart disease and
    cancer.  I find it interesting that these lobby groups insisted this
    disease superceded all other diseases...don't you Glen?  Especially
    since AIDS is so easy not to contract!
    
    As far as immigration of people with HIV, why isn't our illustrious
    presidente allowing these people into the country?  Could it be that he
    lacks the compassion just as I do...or does one have to be a David
    Brudnoy clone to be mean spirited?  Apparently, Bill Clinton also
    believes that allowing immigrants with AIDS to enter the country will
    perpetuate the disease within our own borders...unless that is you've
    heard otherwise.
    
    Regaring my comment about tribal warfare.  This was not meant to be
    racist.  What I was saying is...if you have violent tendencies toward
    another sect of your country...or even if you are an Arab extremist who 
    hates Americans, please do us and yourself a favor and stay over there.
    I don't want you here...thanks!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1060.101 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| You were supposed to snarf!!


	I was going to do that in my title, but I was so upset by what you
wrote that it slipped my mind! :-)


Glen

| <<< Note 1060.102 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| No, I'm a big proponent of education. Education is the backbone of our future 
| as a country.  

	But you complain that you want your tax dollars spent elsewhere, you
complain that you want to do away with the public school system and just go for
privatizing. If that is a choice you want to do, then do it. But don't take
away the public school system for those who can't afford to send their kids to
private schools. AND, instead of doing away with public schools, let's fix the
problems that exist. 

| So, yes, I am a friend to education and not the beurocratic set up we have 
| today.  

	Jack, your answer has always been to do away with it, not address the
problems. You do this with education, with welfare, etc. You've been told this
before, MANY times. I don't consider you a friend to education as a whole, only
to certain forms of it, regardless of the effect it would have on the rest of
the public.

| Glen, I heard a speech from a convention of the American Medical Association 
| 2 years ago. The opening speaker got up to the podium and started by saying, 
| "Central Africa is Lost".  

	Jack, nice thing to start off with. Now what did the speaker say about
it? AND, how do you tie that in with your Florida Keys being lost too? You are
one, being vaigue about what was said, and two, you haven't tied it in with all
of your claims. You may not address one, but please address two.

| Likewise, the Florida Keys is experiencing rampany AIDS infection...as is 
| Southeast Asia...aw come on Glen, I don't need to tell you this.

	Yes Jack, you do need to tell me this. You stated the Keys are lost.
Yet you have not even begun to prove anything. Again, I think it might be a
case of you tying everything together, whether it is warrented or not. But I'll
wait until you back or don't back your claims to know this for sure.

| Glen...speaking truth...even if we don't want to hear it doesn't mean
| insensitivity or mean spiritedness.  

	Jack, talking the truth can hurt, and we may not always want to hear
it. But you have yet to prove your claims, so I'm not at all sure you are
speaking the actual truth. It might be your belief, but you'll have to let me
know on that.

| AIDS has become politicized and has become a politically correct tool for the 
| left.  

	Jack, you really amaze me on this one. Why does anything ever become
political? Because it is left on the road to die, and when it doesn't, and when
people see that others are also involved, and the numbers grow, then there is
backlash to change things. Then it becomes noticed, and then it becomes
political. Look at what the Right is doing. Aren't they saying that if a
candidate does not go against abortion, that they will not get their backing?
Gee, seems to me they are making abortion a political issue. And it's all being
done for the same reasons. So please don't turn this into something it isn't.

| The congresscritters are all wearing AIDS ribbons and lobby groups are 
| screaming for more Federal funding. This is fine except there is a demand for 
| more money for AIDS research than for heart disease and cancer. 

	Jack, when you go and sell a car, is the sticker price you put on it
the price you really want, or is it inflated? This, like any other disease,
works the same way. All of them demand more money be spent. All of them want
cures found. So they all lobby for more $$$$. Don't try and make this out that
it's one disease lobby that is doing it, and the others are not.

| I find it interesting that these lobby groups insisted this disease superceded
| all other diseases...don't you Glen?  

	Errr... Jack, maybe you should do some reading. Guess what disease is
the #1 killer for men 25-40? Let me ask you something else. Do any of the other
"BIG NAME" diseases state that their disease is killing more than any others? I
know they do Jack, and in certain instances they too are correct. Again, stop
trying to make this a one disease thing when it's far from it.

	Also, you talk about the ribbons and such. Why is it when something
like this is done, people like you do the most complaining? Why is it that
people like you can't take that energy and channel it into something useful?
Could any of the other diseases that you seem to be implying are getting
slighted, need any volunteers? Could you sit down and write a letter or two
asking for changes? Could you attend a rally of some sort, or even organize one
yourself? How about fundraising? All these things are stuff you could be doing
now, they are stuff you could do period. I know I myself do a lot of stuff for
AIDS research/care. From giving money, to organizing the AIDS walk rally's here
at HLO, to doing the Walk itself. I myself have not gotten AIDS, but I know
many who have, and have seen the suffering they have gone through. I have seen
how many have changed other peoples lives. I can't sit back and do nothing
about it. Right now other diseases get more money. I do what I can to help this
disease become better funded. What do you do Jack?

| As far as immigration of people with HIV, why isn't our illustrious presidente
| allowing these people into the country? Could it be that he lacks the 
| compassion just as I do...

	You might want to ask him Jack. You might just be surprised. What if I
told you he did that because of pressure from the Right. Would you complain
about the lobby group? What if he changed his mind because of pressure from the
Left? Would you complain about the lobby group?

	Now Jack, there was a lot in my note that you did not address. Please
find some time and do. Thanks.


Glen

    "Learning the language" is a major issue in Israel with the massive
    worldwide exodus of Jews back to their homeland.  It's one of the first
    things new immigrants have to go through - Hebrew classes.
    
    Mike

    Having a national language can only benefit the citizenry of the
    country.  Bilingualism can only benefit the people!!!!!
    
    -Jack

>    Having a national language can only benefit the citizenry of the
>    country.  Bilingualism can only benefit the people!!!!!
    
i don't understand this statement.

in my country, switzerland, we have three written and four spoken national 
languages, ie. german, french, italian and romantsch.

this multilingualism seems to benefit both the citizenry and the people.

most swiss nationals speak at least two national languages and english 
and they integrate easily in other countries, as easily as germans, italians
and french nationals find themselves at home here.


andreas.

    Well, I was saying the same thing you did.  Bilingualism is a great
    benefit to all the citizenry.  People who become citizens of the US
    should learn the English language!!
    
    -Jack