McCain to lose even more support among women and Hispanics?

[marite]

<p>The bill that is under discussion is only partly about public education. And by the way, Harvard is not a public institution.</p>

<p>I have NEVER ever said that face diversity is insignificant. Show me JUST ONE post where I’ve said that or take back your statement. Until then, I refuse to discuss diversity with you.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

Well, there is always hope. We can look forward to the wisdom of your opinions to shed much needed light and clarity.

</p>

<p>I’ll try my best. ;)</p>

<p>

It always amuses me when a poster manages to create disagreements with other posters on all areas of the political spectrum. Xiggi, me, and especially Marite. That about covers the entire range of posters here!

</p>

<p>Shouldn’t be too surprising; I’m a centrist.</p>

<p>Also, it doesn’t mean anything. I think I’ve probably spent more time researching and thinking this through than most Americans have.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

Zmom:
I happen to agree with you on quite a range of issues, you know, and respect you all the time! But Xiggi may be amused to find himself lumped with old fogeys like me

Marite, you know I admire and respect you greatly, and I think very highly of Xiggi. It’s just funny that any single poster could have a problem getting along with all three of us since we pretty much cover the board!</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

Shouldn’t be too surprising; I’m a centrist.

It’s really the style of posting to which I was referring.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

The bill that is under discussion is only partly about public education. And by the way, Harvard is not a public institution.

</p>

<p>I don’t see why that matters. Look at Justice Powell’s opinion on the Bakke case. He held up Harvard’s holistic admissions policy as a good affirmative action policy. The fact that he held theirs up seems to suggest that he would think it wise that other schools adopt similar policies.</p>

<p>

I have NEVER ever said that face diversity is insignificant. Show me JUST ONE post where I’ve said that or take back your statement. Until then, I refuse to discuss diversity with you.

</p>

<p>As I said in my long post, you certainly implied it. I mean, referring to ethnic/racial and gender diversity as “face” diversity seems to be belittling it. Being born with that “face” has a significant impact on people’s lives.</p>

<p>Perhaps that’s just what people from your generation refer to it as but most of the people I know refer to it as what it is: racial/ethnic and gender diversity.</p>

<p>Basically, this is just a misunderstanding between us… I think.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

But Xiggi may be amused to find himself lumped with old fogeys like me

</p>

<p>Oh, I do not mind, especially when the old fogeys correct my erroneous interpretation of the current political views of the French. At least, I think I had Jerry Lewis pegged correctly. :)</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

It’s really the style of posting to which I was referring.

</p>

<p>Oh ok. I agree. I do use a rather harsh tone. I think that I developed it when dealing with posters on this forum who tried to argue such things like Asians are superior to African Americans because they do better on the SAT, etc.</p>

<p>I used a harsh tone in dealing with marite because I thought she was saying that diversity–or at least gender and racial/ethnic diversity–doesn’t matter.</p>

<p>My bad everyone.</p>

[tega]

<p>

…Why do you think that racial/ethnic and gender diversity are important yet you belittle them calling them “face diversity?”

</p>

<p>In a university setting, unless you are part of a department that deals with looking at a topic from race perspective, race does not contribute to how well you learn. A black person in a mathematics class does not bring a black math perspective to the table, mathematics does not recognize color. </p>

<p>In classes like gender studies, gender and race are very important because your perception of our society can be influenced by these two characteristics.</p>

<p>Race based Affirmative Action benefits more affluent Blacks and Latinos than poor Blacks and Latinos (who are more likely to drop out by High School). Rich Blacks and Latinos can afford to send their children to good k-12 schools. They are also more likely to have higher test scores, and higher GPA. </p>

<p>Why should rich Blacks and Latinos get a break? Rich people of all races should receive the same treatment from the admission committee. </p>

<p>Affimative Action should only be used to help poor people of all races.</p>

<p>The most important issue should be the deplorable state of the k-12 schools in the minority neighborhoods, Affirmative Action wont correct this.</p>

[marite]

<p>Xiggi:</p>

<p>Not only have the French lost the fight against franglais, but against cereals and cold milk for breakfast, McDonalds (remember the anti-McDo fights of a few years ago?), American films (my niece went to see O Brother Were Art Thou because of George Clooney–thankfully her younger sister got over her Britney Spears phase). But Sarkozy is seriously in love with the US. </p>

<p>As I once heard in a Paris cinema at a showing of Cousin, Cousine, Ou est-ce qu’on va?</p>

<p>PS: You’d like my history teacher’s explanation for Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. Perfidious…Belgian weather.</p>

[tega]

<p>None of the major parties made any statement on the just released information on HIV; Blacks contracted almost 50% (about 25% for Latinos) of new HIV cases. I am not sure whether the two candidates have any plans to address this issue. </p>

<p>If the Democratic Party cared so much about minories, this issue should be on their platform. The party only cares about using minorities to win elections. </p>

<p>Both parties care about corporations and their lobbyists friends. They make bills that disproportionately favor their buddies, the average tax payer can take a hike.</p>

[marite]

<p>

Both parties care about corporations and their lobbyists friends. They make bills that disproportionately favor their buddies, the average tax payer can take a hike.

</p>

<p>Obama’s tax plan actually benefits 95% of taxpayers (I belong to the other 5%).</p>

[Kafka89]

<p>mccain up 3 in the latest usa today/gallup natl poll. and down only one in 18 key battleground states per democracy corp polling.</p>

<p>what now? WHAT NOW?</p>

[tega]

<p>

Obama’s tax plan actually benefits 95% of taxpayers (I belong to the other 5%).

</p>

<p>Mccain’s tax plans also benefits everyone. The top 5% pay more taxes, so it is only “fair” that they get a higher relief.</p>

<p>Obama’s tax plan is just a wealth distribution scheme just like his social security plan. He wants to raise the cap, but he doesn’t know whether those people paying more would also receive more.</p>

[marite]

<p>tega:
I was responding to your specific claim that “the average tax payer can take a hike.”</p>

<p>McCain, over the weekend, has said that “nothing is off the table” when asked about a possible tax increase. So the 95% may indeed a take a hike. Under either Obama or McCain, I expect to pay more in taxes.</p>

[tega]

<p>For those interested: “The Greatest Scandal”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.wsj.com/article/SB12172006848****381.html?mod=most_emailed_day[/url]”>http://www.wsj.com/article/SB12172006848****381.html?mod=most_emailed_day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

The state of California just announced that one in three students in the Los Angeles public school system drops out before graduating. Among black and Latino students in L.A. district schools, the numbers are 42% and 30%. In the past five years, the number of dropouts has grown by more than 80%. The number of high school graduates has gone up only 9%. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

Mr. McCain cited the Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program, a federally financed school-choice program for disadvantaged kids signed into law by President Bush in 2004. Qualifying families in the District of Columbia receive up to $7,500 a year to attend private K-12 schools. To qualify, a child must live in a family with a household income below 185% of the poverty level. Some 1,900 children participate; 99% are black or Hispanic. Average annual income is just over $22,000 for a family of four.</p>

<p>A recent Department of Education report found nearly 90% of participants in the D.C. program have higher reading scores than peers who didn’t receive a scholarship. There are five applicants for every opening.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

Congressional Democrats have refused to reauthorize the D.C. voucher program and are threatening to kill it.

</p>

<p>The Democratic party for minorities?</p>

[tega]

<p>Marite, ok.</p>

<p>The federal deficits is projected to hit over $420 Billion, everyone will be paying more taxes next year, it does not matter who the president is.</p>

<p>[Bush</a> administration projects record 2009 deficit - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_bi_ge/budget_deficit;_ylt=ArMxSvntgSQIxghlx_Xd1RmyBhIF]Bush”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_bi_ge/budget_deficit;_ylt=ArMxSvntgSQIxghlx_Xd1RmyBhIF)</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

The federal deficits is projected to hit over $420 Billion, everyone will be paying more taxes next year, it does not matter who the president is.

</p>

<p>That’s not a guarantee. They could just ignore the deficits and let future generations pay for it.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

PS: You’d like my history teacher’s explanation for Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. Perfidious…Belgian weather.

</p>

<p>I think that even Belgians love to blame the treacherous weather. Nobody can count on a sunny and dry June. </p>

<p>Heck, the french teacher might have been on something as Waterloo somehow means Water Forest. Surely, it offers a more poetic version than having to admit to Napoleon’s hesitation that allowed the Prussians to still play a role in finishing the battle. </p>

<p>If you like stories, here is one about the much beloved King Baudouin who died childless. As the Belgians love to tell while quenching their thirst with a local brew … Napoleon had his Waterloo, Nixon had his Watergate, and our poor King had a Water Flute. A votre sant</p>

[bz2010]

<p>tega - your link sys the page is unavailable.</p>

<p>Did the article state that McCain was touting the benefits of the D.C. voucher program?</p>

<p>From your last sentence it would seem that it is a good program - democrats are threatening to kill it?? McCain is supporting it?</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

In a university setting, unless you are part of a department that deals with looking at a topic from race perspective, race does not contribute to how well you learn. A black person in a mathematics class does not bring a black math perspective to the table, mathematics does not recognize color.

</p>

<p>I disagree. I think that simply being around and interacting with people who are different than you is a positive. I think that if there was more interaction going on between the races/ethnicities you wouldn’t have 34% of whites saying that race relations are generally good while 60% of blacks say relations are generally bad. I think that more interaction would help minorities and whites be more in touch with each other.</p>

<p>

Race based Affirmative Action benefits more affluent Blacks and Latinos than poor Blacks and Latinos (who are more likely to drop out by High School). Rich Blacks and Latinos can afford to send their children to good k-12 schools. They are also more likely to have higher test scores, and higher GPA.

</p>

<p>Again, you’re assuming that affirmative action is about levelling the playing field. In most cases today, it’s merely used to promote diversity.</p>

<p>

Why should rich Blacks and Latinos get a break? Rich people of all races should receive the same treatment from the admission committee.

</p>

<p>At schools with more comprehensive holistic admissions policies like Harvard, this is not true. Any applicant regardless of his or her race who went to an excellent school is expected to have achieved more than those who went to schools of less quality.</p>

<p>I have wealthy African American friends who were rejected from top schools despite having 2200+ SAT scores, good GPAs, etc.</p>

<p>

Affimative Action should only be used to help poor people of all races.

</p>

<p>You don’t need affirmative action to do this. Socio-economic class can be considered without affirmative action as long as its not being used as a proxy for race.</p>

<p>

The most important issue should be the deplorable state of the k-12 schools in the minority neighborhoods, Affirmative Action wont correct this.

</p>

<p>Again, this is not what the issue is nowadays. The debate that most people are having these days is not in touch with reality. It’s not about this. It’s merely about promoting diversity.</p>

<p>Also, colleges that practice holistic admissions already take socio-economic class/opportunity into account by considering the quality of the applicant’s school. They already look at things like the teach to student ratio, how many AP classes are offered, graduation rates, etc.</p>

<p>What needs to be done now is ensure that all schools have admissions policies similar to that of Harvard’s.</p>