<p>You can’t just say that blacks haven’t been disadvantaged since the 60’s. That was one or two generations ago. How do u expect people who were tied to slavery and oppression to suddenely rise up out of nothing? If you are born in one of those high crime neighborhoods what are you supposed to do? We are lucky because we have IQs in the top percentage of the population so we can get far by staying in school. What’s the rest of the population supposed to do if there are no other options besides being really smart or being really athletic. They are stuck and policies like AA are trying to even things out so they can have a more even-handed start. Sure some middle-class and upper-class blacks will benefit, but so will a large part of the population that is suffering. The effect of AA is that it pulls some blacks up and by doing that makes room for even more.<br>
You say high-crime rate places are usually highly-populated with blacks. Now how is that population supposed to suddenely become like a white-middle class town? They don’t have the money or opportunities. I do agree that the culture that is developing with teenagers who reject white-middle class is hurting them but you do have to admit that they are in a hell of a situation. How the hell is an average person supposed to get himself out when he and everyone he knows was born into a hole?</p>
<p>And thank you for your economic lecture…I have also taken a few econ classes. And let me tell you this…ideals are great, just like “the ideal Communist utopia”. But when it comes down to it you have to look at the realities. Will John McCain and most other Republicans follow the Republican ideal you are thinking about? No. They will do what the Republican Machine tells them to because that is how they got in office, that’s who supports them, and that’s who gives them money. Bush isn’t an outlier…he was elected by the people TWICE and was put in his place and guided by the Republican machine. What makes you think McCain will be different if he LITERALLY says he will stay in Iraq and keep Bush’s tax cuts. Are you blind or something?</p>
<p>I also don’t know where you got your Florida poll that say’s Obama is behind by 5. I track a site that combines all recent nonpartisan polls and their combo of Quinn, Rasmu, and ARG has Obama-46% McCain-45% (reminder…this is in Florida). You have to remember that if you look at a single poll there is a margin of error and that’s probably not the exact number. I’m looking at three recent polls averaged together with the average date being July 29th and it has them tied. So…</p>
<p>I’d also like to say that among the highest education bracket of America (those w/ post grad degrees) Obama is 54% McCain is 39%. Listen to the smartest people in America…vote Obama! <a href=“which%20shrunk%20from%20it’s%20early%20July%20high%20of%2022%%20gap.”>Poll cited from Gallup Polling</a></p>
<p>BigRed, your ad hominem attack on McCain supporters was completely unnecessary. And when did I ever say McCain would be different from Bush? I have said on numerous occasions that I supported McCain until he was nominated and began flip-flopping, so I am undecided. For you, as a self-proclaimed “smart” Obama supporter, this should have been easy to pick up on. </p>
<p>Applejack, tell me: is there any such thing as a selfless act? Even when people help others, give to the poor, etc. they still have themselves in mind; when they do these kind acts, they make themselves feel better. Hence, even in these situations that seem selfless, people have themselves in mind and even some of the most “selfless” acts are performed in the context of self-interest. People perform such noble actions because it makes themselves feel good about themselves inside and thus, these acts are done in self-interest. We might as well just give up on all economic theory if we were to say the most fundamental component of man’s decision making is not self-interest.</p>
<p>A few upper-middle class/upper class blacks benefit? Are you serious? The majority of blacks I have met at Cornell tend to be upper class blacks. In fact, I believe affirmative action is most beneficial to immigrant blacks from Africa (who tend to be upper-class blacks), with them comprising about 1/3 of black affirmative action admits. When do we ever see AA benefitting inner-city blacks? They are the real people who need AA. That is why I strongly feel that affirmative action is incorrect in that it only considers race and seems to disregard socioeconomic status. What about the inner-city white or Asian kids who grow up in high-crime neighborhoods and have a tough time succeeding? They get completely shafted by AA. AA doesn’t benefit who it needs to benefit.</p>
<p>Applejack, tell me: is there any such thing as a selfless act? Even when people help others, give to the poor, etc. they still have themselves in mind; when they do these kind acts, they make themselves feel better. Hence, even in these situations that seem selfless, people have themselves in mind and even some of the most “selfless” acts are performed in the context of self-interest. People perform such noble actions because it makes themselves feel good about themselves inside and thus, these acts are done in self-interest. We might as well just give up on all economic theory if we were to say the most fundamental component of man’s decision making is not self-interest.</p>
<p>Wow, that reminds me of an episode of Friends, called The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS. I guess television isn’t always mindless, eh?</p>
<p>applejack argued against the following idea:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually kind of agree with this. I think we should extend it to other contexts as well. How about this one? </p>
<p>Professor: Hey ‘dontno’, you scored 20 points above average on the final? But Billy over there scored one of the worst in the class. And he was telling me how he really needs a degree to pay off his college debt. Now I know he got really drunk the night before the prelim. However, you must understand that BIlly’s failure is all of our failure. We really need to decrease the scoring disparity in this class. So I know you studied your ass off for 2 weeks before the exam and I know you’re right on the cusp of an A+, but I’ve decided to give 10 of your points to Billy. Hope you’ll understand when your grade goes down a letter grade!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh god please enough with the tired: “science will find the soul one day!”. Is it quantum mechanics or maybe string theory? This malarkey has been repeated for the past 5000 years since ancient China and their chi concept. Don’t try to bait me into liberal politics because I owe something to the farce of a “collective unconscious”.</p>
<p>And please can we not have this thread devolve into another AA argument!!! It’s tired and liberals will never see the light.</p>
<p>And Brown Man, almost everyone agrees that socio-economic affirmative action is infintely more logical than race based AA. Believe me, there’s an almost universal consensus on the matter. But take a quick second and think what would happen if such a process was instituted. All the AA spots would go to poor white and Asian kids. The black and Hispanics populations would go to almost zero.</p>
<p>“So I know you studied your ass off for 2 weeks before the exam and I know you’re right on the cusp of an A+, but I’ve decided to give 10 of your points to Billy. Hope you’ll understand when your grade goes down a letter grade!!”</p>
<p>Dontno - I have an even BETTER example, which fits PERFECTLY!</p>
<p>“Party Official: Hillary, I know you left your name on the ballot in Michigan, and your supporters went out and voted for you. I know Obama was afraid of losing such a large state so close to Super Tuesday, so he removed his name from the ballot - but ya know what? We’re gonna go ahead and divide the delegates up! We’re going to give Obama ALL the Uncommited votes, even though are actually for John Edwards as well, AND THEN, we’re going to give him ten of your delegates - for no reason! Just in case he doesn’t have enough, you know? We gotta make sure he wins. Hope you understand.”</p>
<p>while i dont agree with AA the way it is now (i think economic factors + academics should outweigh race…too many kids with parents who already have a college education take advantage of this)</p>
<p>So even though I will vote for Obama in November, it makes me mad that he just asked the DNC to fully count Michigan and Florida. He fought that for the longest time, because he knew it wold derail his path to the nomination. Now that he is the nominee, he decided it’s a bad thing to discount these two incredibly important states.</p>
<p>That is disgusting coolman!
Simply disgusting.
Hillary might have gotten the nomination had MI and FL been counted.
It’s things like that that make me not want to support Obama.</p>
<p>If MI and FL had been counted from the start, I don’t see a situation in which Obama could have won. The superdelegates would have had much more incentive to support Clinton, and she would have had more momentum going into other states.</p>
<p>^If Obama had been on the ballot in MI maybe he would have done better, maybe not. Also, if Obama and Hillary had campaigned in FL I know he would have gotten more votes. Obama’s biggest problem this election was fighting the name recognition that is Clinton. He generally polled better and better as election day neared in many primaries. Maybe Hillary would be the presidential nominee has MI and FL counted from the beginning. Maybe not. Dems should have done what the Reps did when FL and MI changed their dates, told the states they would count for 1/2 (not 0) and left it at that. Reps might be the weaker party but they still know how to run their **** and keep everything in line.</p>
<p>And don’t talk about how you don’t like Obama for the whole FL and MI thing. Hillary said that those states should not count way early in the election, back when she thought she was going to win the nomination by Super Tuesday. If either Hillary or Obama had wrapped stuff up like McCain, none of this would be an issue. The one thing I really disliked about Hillary was that she was the only major candidate on the ballot in MI. If she had not been on that ballot like Obama and Edwards, maybe they could have had a case for a second primary or something in MI. Hillary would treat those two states the same way Obama did had everything been reversed.</p>
<p>Brown man - you fundamentally misunderstood my argument. I completely agree that people act out of self-interest. That’s even what I said.</p>
<p>But the question is, how far does that self-interest extend? </p>
<p>The solution is not an abandonment of self interest. It’s an expansion of self-interest beyond (but including) oneself. </p>
<hr>
<p>Dontno - you’re just spouting off conventional conservative versus liberal rhetoric with your test score argument and missing the fundamental point of what I’m saying. I’m neither liberal nor conservative. </p>
<p>The enlightened perspective on that situation is not disdain for that individual having been lazy, but rather sympathy in realizing that individual is wasting his opportunities. Rather than making that person suffer, a more enlightened society would bring such people along. Competing test scores and income wouldn’t matter to a more enlightened people because they would know that they are receiving all the resources and opportunities they individually need to thrive and are willing to provide for others, knowing that all they need will continue to be provided. </p>
<p>I know that sounds out there, but I’ve tested it time and again. It actually works. And, to counter your last derisive point, science is emerging into an understanding of the collective consciousness that spirituality has long known. We are on the cusp of the largest awakening in the known history of humankind. It has nothing to do with liberalism, though. It’s quite conservative in nature (self reliance, minimal government, free markets) - you’re just grounded in an ideological worldview right now that is preventing you from seeing it beyond the dichotomy of left versus right.</p>
<p>I think it would be fair to give Hillary all of the MI delegates she won, and give Obama all the uncommitted (even though a fair amount of those votes were for Edwards, as he was still in the race at the time).</p>
<p>And I don’t dislike Obama for the whole MI and Fl dispute. I do, however, dislike that he just asked the DNC to fully count these states.</p>
<p>I’ll stop the AA fight but just want to say that part of AA is that it has a trickle down effect. Even if the poorest aren’t able to get into the best schools b/c of AA, spots in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and down the line open up because AA raised up people who would have gone to those schools. So even if Cornell doesn’t have a bunch perhaps Cornell pulled some that would have gone to Bing, which opens up spots at Bing for others, etc…etc…</p>
<p>Also that example of taking the best score and giving it to the drunk wasn’t a good example. When we talk about helping the poor we don’t develop the ideal for helping the drunks who wasted away all the opportunities on purpose. We talk about the people who weren’t smart enough to go to college or athletic enough to play a sport professionally because of where they were born or what they were forced to do (such as work/take care of their family). We talk about helping the average person who is desperate for work and looking (right now around 25% of the population makes under the poverty like annually and unemployment is growing). Is it their fault the stockmarket is crashing and the housing market is in horrible shape? No, yet they suffer from it. Like I said before, the book Marked did a huge study that resulted in finding that being black when applying for a job is equivalent to a white applying for a job with a criminal record. So being black is like a crime when applying to a job. An example of giving would be to help this type of person who got stuck in a hole from birth and couldn’t beat the system of poverty because of their race or poverty level. A child born in an inner-city has less chance than a rich kid in a suburb and that is why the poor kid is helped…so he can achieve or at least survive…the rich kid is fine no matter what. Helping the drunk who wasted away endless opportunities isn’t the purpose of all of this.</p>
<p>Yea I think I’m done with you. I think you may have missed the point of my test score analogy. Test scores were a proxy for income. We shouldn’t “bring along” people who refuse to work hard or have put themselves into situations that doesn’t warrant success. I can’t argue for such an incredibly obvious point.</p>
<p>Oh and enough with depicting my views as ideological and rigid. I’m not a Republican! I’m not even conservative on all issues (religion, abortion, gay rights, etc.). It’s patronizing and equivalent to an ad hominem attack that you continue to dismiss my views as resulting from ideological loyalty and not intellectual rumination. I could do the same to you as you also subscribe to similarly impassioned ideals. But instead, while I consider your arguments to be logically flawed, I understand you probably have come to them from a process and not due to immaturity (which you’ve thrown at me) or some other shallow route. </p>
<p>And as to your contention that science is coming close to the soul, did you read that in the New Age section of your bookstore? Wasn’t the Enlightenment back in the 1700’s? It’s amazing to me that a seemingly intelligent individual can fall for such garbage. If anything, science is shrinking the gaps in which the soul could reside. But I can’t really argue here because you take such archaic views on faith. If it makes you happy though, I’m fine with that, but please refrain from trying to support those views in a scientific or intellectual setting.</p>
<p>I don’t mind some of the points you make in your post. I understand that it’s more difficult for a poor person as opposed to a rich person with similiar intelligence. </p>
<p>But the problem is many of these poor people (I assume you’re discussing ghetto blacks) are in that situation due to their parent’s or their own mistakes. If a woman is poor, she shouldn’t have 3 children. If a woman is poor, she shouldn’t spend her money on drugs or alcohol or new clothes. If a kid wants to go to college, he shouldn’t be having a child at 16. These are problems and situations that the government should not address because they are situations created from one’s own actions. I have no sympathy for these people willfully committing egregious acts. Furthermore, America is, at its base, a meritocracy. I know you’ll disagree, but I believe that hard work and ambition, with a corresponding level of intelligence, allows one to achieve success. Yes poor people have it harder, but we all have our crosses to bear. Life is unfair, but the system allows qualified individuals the means for success.</p>
<p>And AA is whole nother issue. Let’s ignore the whole issue of poor people scoring worse (maybe they’re simply not as smart??!?!?). But there’s a practical problem most people don’t discuss. If you let in someone to Cornell with a 3.5 GPA and an 1180, they’re probably not prepared or intelligent enough to handle the work. They simply can not compete academically at such a rigorous school. It does them no good and diminishes the academic environment by having such under qualified people here.</p>
<p>I think that is an extreme example for affirmative action. I am sure there are not alot of Cornell blacks with a 3.5 and a 1180, I’m black with a 3.86 and 1440 (u r talking about out of 1600 i hope). Anyway I hope that when i get to college ppl don’t go into extremes. I mean i am vocal about my politics (conservative) but i think it is ridiculus for ppl to actually treat someone differently bc of political views or to yell or protest bc of others views. That would be sooooo annoying.</p>