"Reparations": Would YOU donate?

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 29, 2016 9:53:06 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:36:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The difference would be that the Irish aren't getting the sharp end of a biased system up to and including today.

Plus you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who'll claim persecution of the Irish was in any wise comparable to persecution of blacks (non-whites, more generally).

Oh I dunno, the starvation of millions of Irish during the potato famine while Great Britain was exporting food to other countries was pretty shitty.

And we are only about 70 years removed from the "No Irish need apply" signs.

Well now, I want more than just a massage!

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 29, 2016 9:53:46 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:34:45 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I can totally understand what you are saying.  But I also don't think that the Honey Boo Boos of the world show the world what white people are all about.  I look at Carl, you and the few black people I know in real life (well, I know you in real life but you know what I mean!) and you are nothing like the people on those videos.  Much like I'm not like the Honey Boo Boos

come on, we've seen your FB page!!!

Sigh...I HAVE gained weight

[MJ2.0]

Jul 29, 2016 9:47:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:32:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I think the problem here is that people like you and me can't effectively change police conduct. I believe the idea that we can is a myth.

We've discussed the subject ad nauseum in P/CE and the general consensus is that there's a "cycle of mistrust" between black Americans especially and the police, and that this cycle can't be broken externally. Hence even if there was a "complete attitude shift in this country in regards to the purpose of policing", it wouldn't do any good. The cycle would still be there in full force. People have to take steps above and beyond simply adjusting their attitude.

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action, but many people here are, and it seems to me that this site is like a voluntary, from-the-heart kind of Affirmative Action. It's a way of acknowledging that a problem exists, and, over and above this, demonstrating a willingness to do something to "balance the scales". In short, I don't see why anybody who supports AA wouldn't support this.

I don't support AA so I guess that explains why I don't support this.  I'm a female and females benefit from quotas, too (remember that long battle over the military lessening their qualifications for females??).  This is jmho, but to me lessening any requirements to let me or anyone like me into a position, a school or anything else says that I'm not good enough to make it on my own.  I find that highly freaking offensive.  If there is a GPA needed to get into a school and I don't have it, then I don't belong there.  If there are physical standards for military and I dont' meet them, then I don't belong there. 

jmho....and I am sure most of you don't agree with me (considering the backlash I got on the military thread, I know most of you dont' agree with me...good thing I know less liberal people in real life or I would get a complex!)

I don't support AA either for the reasons you gave. The focus needs to be on inner city schools (and super rural schools) and making them better. I've been saying that since I was a teen.

[swamp]

Jul 29, 2016 9:56:27 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:53:46 GMT -5 swamp said:

come on, we've seen your FB page!!!

Sigh...I HAVE gained weight

It's not the weight. It's the hair.

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 29, 2016 9:58:53 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:56:27 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Sigh...I HAVE gained weight

It's not the weight. It's the hair.

Say what?  You told me the 80s look was back in

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 29, 2016 9:58:04 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:47:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I don't support AA so I guess that explains why I don't support this.  I'm a female and females benefit from quotas, too (remember that long battle over the military lessening their qualifications for females??).  This is jmho, but to me lessening any requirements to let me or anyone like me into a position, a school or anything else says that I'm not good enough to make it on my own.  I find that highly freaking offensive.  If there is a GPA needed to get into a school and I don't have it, then I don't belong there.  If there are physical standards for military and I dont' meet them, then I don't belong there. 

jmho....and I am sure most of you don't agree with me (considering the backlash I got on the military thread, I know most of you dont' agree with me...good thing I know less liberal people in real life or I would get a complex!)

I don't support AA either for the reasons you gave. The focus needs to be on inner city schools (and super rural schools) and making them better. I've been saying that since I was a teen.

I feel like Im in bizarro-world...too many people are agreeing with me today....lol

I wish we knew what the answer was.  Throwing money at problems isn't the answer.  We spend much more per child in the US than other, better performing, countries.  I do think family life means a lot when it comes to the success of a child.  so inner city and poor, rural areas continue the cycle (though I know less about the rural areas because they dont' seem to make the news).

[Tiny]

Jul 29, 2016 9:53:48 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:51:27 GMT -5 Tiny said:

You are thinking "locally"..   If we expect restitution from Japan for Pearl Harbor or the Bataan death march then we should expect the Japanese to need restitution for bombings and deaths of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

And just to cloud the subject slavery isn't done with.   Well, the kind we traditionally think of...women, children, and men are held in slavery today.  It's just not an institution condoned by the local governing authorities but it's there.

The thing is... restitution/reparations isn't always justice.   For some things justice needs to be something else.   That may be what the issue is.     Justice is required - it probably isn't in the form of dollars.

This is the part I find ludicrous.  The slaves and the slave owners are long dead.  That would be like me going after the great-great grandson of the man who murdered my great-great-grandfather.  Makes no sense

I meant justice for today's people (and tomorrow's people)... not justice for something done so far in the past.     Justice isn't always about punishing someone or making reparations.   Sometimes it's about changing something that might not greatly benefit people NOW but  that will benefit those in the future (say the youngsters of today will have a much better tomorrow).   

[mmhmm]

I wouldn't choose to participate in something like this for a couple of reasons:

1. How are those requesting help being vetted? The person asking for a massage could well be no more than your average perv. No thanks!

2. I believe charity should start at home - meaning, in your own community. That's what I do now and it doesn't matter to me what color the recipients' skin may be. What matters to me is the level of need and what I might do to alleviate that need.

For the record, Miss Tequila, I don't disagree with what you posted. Lowering the standards doesn't facilitate achievement.  It simply makes it appear someone has achieved. Better to find out why that person can't achieve what they wish to achieve and work with them toward the goal of achievement. At least, that's the way I see it. I could never be a rocket scientist; however, I made a darned good nurse practitioner. Everyone has a place. Some simply need guidance to help them find that place. That's what we, as a society, should be striving towards, IMO.

[Lizard Queen]

Jul 29, 2016 9:32:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 29, 2016 8:34:02 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

I don't think you can possibly do reparations generations removed, when all the wronged and wrong-doers and their children are dead and buried. What you can do, is address the wrongs occurring right now--innocent citizens being gunned down by police who never receive any consequences for their mistakes. Police officers choose their profession with full knowledge and acceptance of the risks involved, while innocent civilians who happen to have darker skin have no choice in the matter. There needs to be a complete attitude shift in this country in regards to the purpose of policing. The founders of this country were apparently very concerned with those in powerful positions misusing and oppressing the less powerful. They made it easier for criminals to get away for the sake of not harming any innocent people. The recent shift has been to the complete opposite side of this divide. We're supposed to just accept some collateral damage for the purpose of law and order.

I think the problem here is that people like you and me can't effectively change police conduct. I believe the idea that we can is a myth.

We've discussed the subject ad nauseum in P/CE and the general consensus is that there's a "cycle of mistrust" between black Americans especially and the police, and that this cycle can't be broken externally. Hence even if there was a "complete attitude shift in this country in regards to the purpose of policing", it wouldn't do any good. The cycle would still be there in full force. People have to take steps above and beyond simply adjusting their attitude.

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action, but many people here are, and it seems to me that this site is like a voluntary, from-the-heart kind of Affirmative Action. It's a way of acknowledging that a problem exists, and, over and above this, demonstrating a willingness to do something to "balance the scales". In short, I don't see why anybody who supports AA wouldn't support this.

Police conduct follows the law of the land, and the law of the land follows the changing attitudes of the people. (See: gay marriage). Currently, the law is that police face no consequences for killing innocent citizens. There might have been a consequence suffered by an officer in an isolated incident somewhere (but I don't remember any), but overall, they are let off scot free.

[MJ2.0]

Jul 29, 2016 10:14:25 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:58:04 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

I don't support AA either for the reasons you gave. The focus needs to be on inner city schools (and super rural schools) and making them better. I've been saying that since I was a teen.

as a white kid who grew up in a poor community I think this is the denominator (along with a sense of hopelessness and lack of drive at home)

Yes! And poor urban communities usually lack good role models, especially male role models. More POC who have "made it" should volunteer at local Boys and Girls clubs. White/other people should too. Help show these kids that they deserve better for their future.

[Tiny]

Jul 29, 2016 9:47:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:32:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I think the problem here is that people like you and me can't effectively change police conduct. I believe the idea that we can is a myth.

We've discussed the subject ad nauseum in P/CE and the general consensus is that there's a "cycle of mistrust" between black Americans especially and the police, and that this cycle can't be broken externally. Hence even if there was a "complete attitude shift in this country in regards to the purpose of policing", it wouldn't do any good. The cycle would still be there in full force. People have to take steps above and beyond simply adjusting their attitude.

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action, but many people here are, and it seems to me that this site is like a voluntary, from-the-heart kind of Affirmative Action. It's a way of acknowledging that a problem exists, and, over and above this, demonstrating a willingness to do something to "balance the scales". In short, I don't see why anybody who supports AA wouldn't support this.

I don't support AA so I guess that explains why I don't support this.  I'm a female and females benefit from quotas, too (remember that long battle over the military lessening their qualifications for females??).  This is jmho, but to me lessening any requirements to let me or anyone like me into a position, a school or anything else says that I'm not good enough to make it on my own.  I find that highly freaking offensive.  If there is a GPA needed to get into a school and I don't have it, then I don't belong there.  If there are physical standards for military and I dont' meet them, then I don't belong there. 

jmho....and I am sure most of you don't agree with me (considering the backlash I got on the military thread, I know most of you dont' agree with me...good thing I know less liberal people in real life or I would get a complex!)

I always thought the lessening of requirements was because the requirements were put in place to keep specific people OUT and weren't necessarily an actual requirement to be able to do the job or whatever.... 

Now, I understand not changing the requirements for being something like a Rockette (you need to be female, have dancing skills, and probably need to fit some physical requirements height, leg length, body type)  I get that.   But what if they had a requirement about being single? or not having had any kids?  or were required to be hetrosexual?   

I always thought Affirmative action didn't say someone with a 2.0 GPA was automatically Medical School material simply because they were non-white.    I thought Affirmation Action was to remove skin color, economic background, maybe even religion from the list of considerations when choosing students or job applicants or whatever...

I may need to do some research on Affirmative Action.   Cause if it's true that I can just apply for and be assured I'd get any old high paying job because I'm a woman... even if I have no qualifications/skills - I've been doing it wrong for 30 years!!!   

[Ombud]

Jul 27, 2016 20:49:44 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Hmmmmmm, Is something wrong here?

www.aol.com/article/2016/07/27/black-lives-matter-protestors-segregate-media-by-race-at-democra/21440131/

Yes

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 29, 2016 9:49:53 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:32:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I'm Irish, too...I want in on this free massage!  And I want more than you get because I also suffered through poverty through no fault of my own!

I'm also part native American. I deserve it more because my ancestor's land was taken away, and some white guy probably raped the native woman who have birth to my ancestor.

So there.

 

Jul 29, 2016 9:36:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The difference would be that the Irish aren't getting the sharp end of a biased system up to and including today.

Plus you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who'll claim persecution of the Irish was in any wise comparable to persecution of blacks (non-whites, more generally).

Oh I dunno, the starvation of millions of Irish during the potato famine while Great Britain was exporting food to other countries was pretty shitty.

And we are only about 70 years removed from the "No Irish need apply" signs.

Maybe there should be a site for the English to make reparations to the Irish. I still say there's a fundamental difference in that, to the best of my knowledge, no systemic bias against the Irish exists today in the US.

As for native Americans, they would probably qualify as "people of colour" on Ms. Marin's site.

Do you think they would consider this to be a "stupid idea"?

[quince]

I see this iteration of reparations like the idea of carbon offset credits. It's a patchy salve to guilt to let people feel better instead of actually changing how they behave.

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 29, 2016 10:20:55 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:47:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I don't support AA so I guess that explains why I don't support this.  I'm a female and females benefit from quotas, too (remember that long battle over the military lessening their qualifications for females??).  This is jmho, but to me lessening any requirements to let me or anyone like me into a position, a school or anything else says that I'm not good enough to make it on my own.  I find that highly freaking offensive.  If there is a GPA needed to get into a school and I don't have it, then I don't belong there.  If there are physical standards for military and I dont' meet them, then I don't belong there. 

jmho....and I am sure most of you don't agree with me (considering the backlash I got on the military thread, I know most of you dont' agree with me...good thing I know less liberal people in real life or I would get a complex!)

I always thought the lessening of requirements was because the requirements were put in place to keep specific people OUT and weren't necessarily an actual requirement to be able to do the job or whatever.... 

Now, I understand not changing the requirements for being something like a Rockette (you need to be female, have dancing skills, and probably need to fit some physical requirements height, leg length, body type)  I get that.   But what if they had a requirement about being single? or not having had any kids?  or were required to be hetrosexual?   

I always thought Affirmative action didn't say someone with a 2.0 GPA was automatically Medical School material simply because they were non-white.    I thought Affirmation Action was to remove skin color, economic background, maybe even religion from the list of considerations when choosing students or job applicants or whatever...

I may need to do some research on Affirmative Action.   Cause if it's true that I can just apply for and be assured I'd get any old high paying job because I'm a woman... even if I have no qualifications/skills - I've been doing it wrong for 30 years!!!   

You are incorrect.  There have  been many lawsuits over the years because lesser qualified (whatever the qualification is for the situation) minorities have gotten in over whites.

Google is your friend

Here is just one of many articles out there.  alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448

I would be somewhat ok with it if we said "after meeting the exact same qualifications, the make-up of the college has to be the same as the racial demographics of the country".  But to have standards in place for white people and lesser standards for black people just doesn't sit well with me.  Having standards in place for men and lesser standards for women just flat out pisses me off. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 29, 2016 10:14:00 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:32:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I think the problem here is that people like you and me can't effectively change police conduct. I believe the idea that we can is a myth.

We've discussed the subject ad nauseum in P/CE and the general consensus is that there's a "cycle of mistrust" between black Americans especially and the police, and that this cycle can't be broken externally. Hence even if there was a "complete attitude shift in this country in regards to the purpose of policing", it wouldn't do any good. The cycle would still be there in full force. People have to take steps above and beyond simply adjusting their attitude.

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action, but many people here are, and it seems to me that this site is like a voluntary, from-the-heart kind of Affirmative Action. It's a way of acknowledging that a problem exists, and, over and above this, demonstrating a willingness to do something to "balance the scales". In short, I don't see why anybody who supports AA wouldn't support this.

Police conduct follows the law of the land, and the law of the land follows the changing attitudes of the people. (See: gay marriage). Currently, the law is that police face no consequences for killing innocent citizens. There might have been a consequence suffered by an officer in an isolated incident somewhere (but I don't remember any), but overall, they are let off scot free.

Police face murder charges for killing innocent civilians. The problem is proving it.

Besides that, it's surely not the heart of the problem. There are generally fewer than 500 police shootings in the US yearly nationwide, justified or unjustified, a healthy majority of these are white victims, and of those that remain, few are even deemed questionable.

In any case, even assuming Draconian prosecution of police officers was an effective deterrent against unlawful police shootings of minorities, the best we've accomplished is to eliminate a handful of deaths per year. The bigger issue of systemic racism putatively affects millions of minority Americans each and every year. You might say that while police shootings are the flagship, there are thousands more ships in the fleet.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 29, 2016 11:35:50 GMT -5 quince said:

I see this iteration of reparations like the idea of carbon offset credits. It's a patchy salve to guilt to let people feel better instead of actually changing how they behave.

Interesting comparison.

[MJ2.0]

Jul 29, 2016 11:43:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 29, 2016 10:14:00 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Police conduct follows the law of the land, and the law of the land follows the changing attitudes of the people. (See: gay marriage). Currently, the law is that police face no consequences for killing innocent citizens. There might have been a consequence suffered by an officer in an isolated incident somewhere (but I don't remember any), but overall, they are let off scot free.

Police face murder charges for killing innocent civilians. The problem is proving it.

Besides that, it's surely not the heart of the problem. There are generally fewer than 500 police shootings in the US yearly nationwide, justified or unjustified, a healthy majority of these are white victims, and of those that remain, few are even deemed questionable.

In any case, even assuming Draconian prosecution of police officers was an effective deterrent against unlawful police shootings of minorities, the best we've accomplished is to eliminate a handful of deaths per year. The bigger issue of systemic racism putatively affects millions of minority Americans each and every year. You might say that while police shootings are the flagship, there are thousands more ships in the fleet.

You can't look at raw numbers. There are more white people than black people so of course there will be more whites killed than blacks. You have to look at those numbers and take into account the percentage of that group to the general population to get a better understanding.

[Phoenix84]

Jul 29, 2016 9:19:56 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:01:40 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I never understood this idea of generational/racial/ethnic guilt. I think most people agree that the sins of the pathetic don't pass to his sons.

Furthermore, if we acknowledge slavery, why don't we expect Japaneese people to pay us restitution for Pearl Harbor or the Bataan death march? Or Muslims to payouts for 9/11? Where does it end?

And slavery is done with, and it's never coming back. There's no one in America alive today that's even seen a slave. It was awful and horrible and I'm glad it's gone.

You're right. America has never apologized or paid any restitution for the atrocities that they have committed against anyone, why should they start now? Well for one thing, slavery was a huge boon to the American economy. Free unrestricted labor allowed plantations to produce a bounty of crops. All they had to provide was basic food and shelter. It could be argued that we wouldn't be where we are now had it not happened - for better or worse. So as thanks for all those years of free labor, after they were emancipated black people had to fight to vote, own property, use the same schools and restrooms as whites, etc. Is a museum or memorial to recognize the people who - against their will - built this country up really so much to ask?

No, it's not. They are building a museum of African American history on the mall in Washington DC, with all the other smithosinian museums.

For what it's worth, I think reparations/payment was justified for the freed slaves at the time of their emancipation. But not for their descendants, who were never slaves.

[giramomma]

We took the kids to the National Underground RR Museum.. www.freedomcenter.org/  but skipped the human trafficking/sex slave part of the museum. (I went through it while DH stayed with the kids.) ETA: I don't know that I'd argue that slavery is dead, exactly. One of my  clients is spending this summer, her summer before college, volunteering at a non-profit in DC that is involved with human trafficking and the sex slave industry.

I think part of the problems with the museums, is that there's no one national center. There's just a bunch of small ones across the US. It's hard to know that all of them exist. We were in Detroit last year, and I had no clue that there was an African American museum there..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_focused_on_African_Americans

[dannylion]

This is why I limit charitable donations to organizations that benefit dogs and one that provides service dogs for wounded warriors.

Life has never, ever, in the history of ever, ever been fair.  Never.  No amount of SJW-generated attempts at laying blame on anyone is ever going to change that or make anything better for anyone. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 29, 2016 11:52:33 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Jul 29, 2016 11:43:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Police face murder charges for killing innocent civilians. The problem is proving it.

Besides that, it's surely not the heart of the problem. There are generally fewer than 500 police shootings in the US yearly nationwide, justified or unjustified, a healthy majority of these are white victims, and of those that remain, few are even deemed questionable.

In any case, even assuming Draconian prosecution of police officers was an effective deterrent against unlawful police shootings of minorities, the best we've accomplished is to eliminate a handful of deaths per year. The bigger issue of systemic racism putatively affects millions of minority Americans each and every year. You might say that while police shootings are the flagship, there are thousands more ships in the fleet.

You can't look at raw numbers. There are more white people than black people so of course there will be more whites killed than blacks. You have to look at those numbers and take into account the percentage of that group to the general population to get a better understanding.

I understand that.

My thesis here is that unlawful police shootings of minorities is a relatively tiny slice of the systemic racism pie.

[Lizard Queen]

Jul 29, 2016 11:43:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 29, 2016 10:14:00 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Police conduct follows the law of the land, and the law of the land follows the changing attitudes of the people. (See: gay marriage). Currently, the law is that police face no consequences for killing innocent citizens. There might have been a consequence suffered by an officer in an isolated incident somewhere (but I don't remember any), but overall, they are let off scot free.

Police face murder charges for killing innocent civilians. The problem is proving it.

Besides that, it's surely not the heart of the problem. There are generally fewer than 500 police shootings in the US yearly nationwide, justified or unjustified, a healthy majority of these are white victims, and of those that remain, few are even deemed questionable.

In any case, even assuming Draconian prosecution of police officers was an effective deterrent against unlawful police shootings of minorities, the best we've accomplished is to eliminate a handful of deaths per year. The bigger issue of systemic racism putatively affects millions of minority Americans each and every year. You might say that while police shootings are the flagship, there are thousands more ships in the fleet.

The only difficulty in proving that some recent police killings were unjustified--killings caught on video--is that there are laws giving wide exceptions to police. That proves my point that laws need to be changed to better address this, so that all sides can feel that they are treated fairly.

There is also ample evidence that police are treating blacks much harsher than whites in all kinds of scenarios, not just police shootings. Simple traffic stops, for instance. But part of the attitudes that need to be changed is the belief that it is okay for police to shoot first and ask questions later. Or, if someone is mentally ill and we don't know how to deal with them, that it is okay for police to shoot them, 'cause hey, they were mentally ill anyway, right? It is not an okay policy. The err should be on the side of not killing.

[souldoubt]

Jul 29, 2016 11:52:33 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Jul 29, 2016 11:43:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Police face murder charges for killing innocent civilians. The problem is proving it.

Besides that, it's surely not the heart of the problem. There are generally fewer than 500 police shootings in the US yearly nationwide, justified or unjustified, a healthy majority of these are white victims, and of those that remain, few are even deemed questionable.

In any case, even assuming Draconian prosecution of police officers was an effective deterrent against unlawful police shootings of minorities, the best we've accomplished is to eliminate a handful of deaths per year. The bigger issue of systemic racism putatively affects millions of minority Americans each and every year. You might say that while police shootings are the flagship, there are thousands more ships in the fleet.

You can't look at raw numbers. There are more white people than black people so of course there will be more whites killed than blacks. You have to look at those numbers and take into account the percentage of that group to the general population to get a better understanding.

That doesn't really give you a better understanding because you need to look at crime rates, attacks on LEO's and so on by ethnicity.  If you do that you'll see that African Americans as a % of individuals killed by cops is still higher than expected but not as skewed when simply looking at them as ~12% of the US population.  

[happyhoix]

Jul 29, 2016 9:47:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:32:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I think the problem here is that people like you and me can't effectively change police conduct. I believe the idea that we can is a myth.

We've discussed the subject ad nauseum in P/CE and the general consensus is that there's a "cycle of mistrust" between black Americans especially and the police, and that this cycle can't be broken externally. Hence even if there was a "complete attitude shift in this country in regards to the purpose of policing", it wouldn't do any good. The cycle would still be there in full force. People have to take steps above and beyond simply adjusting their attitude.

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action, but many people here are, and it seems to me that this site is like a voluntary, from-the-heart kind of Affirmative Action. It's a way of acknowledging that a problem exists, and, over and above this, demonstrating a willingness to do something to "balance the scales". In short, I don't see why anybody who supports AA wouldn't support this.

I don't support AA so I guess that explains why I don't support this.  I'm a female and females benefit from quotas, too (remember that long battle over the military lessening their qualifications for females??).  This is jmho, but to me lessening any requirements to let me or anyone like me into a position, a school or anything else says that I'm not good enough to make it on my own.  I find that highly freaking offensive.  If there is a GPA needed to get into a school and I don't have it, then I don't belong there.  If there are physical standards for military and I dont' meet them, then I don't belong there. 

jmho....and I am sure most of you don't agree with me (considering the backlash I got on the military thread, I know most of you dont' agree with me...good thing I know less liberal people in real life or I would get a complex!)

 I have mixed feelings on this.

It's very competitive to get into the best universities. Kids who had the advantages of going to a private prep school, doing enrichment programs, having tutors, and especially having a parent who also attended that school are going to have much greater chances at getting into those programs. They've been groomed for them their whole lives.

I think we need to reserve some slots in the program, though, for the kids who are smart but not as well educated because they came from a poor background. Not necessarily black kids, but any kids who have the brains but had the misfortune of being born into bad circumstances, with subpar schools, absent parents, poor nutrition and probably having to work a job while in HS.

They won't test as well on standardized tests, they won't be well rounded students, they won't have traveled much or had the opportunity for private lessons, but if they're smart enough, we need to make some allowances and give them a shot.

Yes, some other kids lose their spots if we let some of the less qualified kids get in, but if we only have elite, upper class kids going to the best universities, we end up with a kind of caste system, where you only get a chance at the best education if your daddy and mommy come from the right class - from the nobility class. I'd rather have the smartest kids go to the best universities - society as a whole benefits if they do. But I wouldn't require the kids to be black, just from a lower income family.   

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 29, 2016 13:26:14 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:47:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I don't support AA so I guess that explains why I don't support this.  I'm a female and females benefit from quotas, too (remember that long battle over the military lessening their qualifications for females??).  This is jmho, but to me lessening any requirements to let me or anyone like me into a position, a school or anything else says that I'm not good enough to make it on my own.  I find that highly freaking offensive.  If there is a GPA needed to get into a school and I don't have it, then I don't belong there.  If there are physical standards for military and I dont' meet them, then I don't belong there. 

jmho....and I am sure most of you don't agree with me (considering the backlash I got on the military thread, I know most of you dont' agree with me...good thing I know less liberal people in real life or I would get a complex!)

 I have mixed feelings on this.

It's very competitive to get into the best universities. Kids who had the advantages of going to a private prep school, doing enrichment programs, having tutors, and especially having a parent who also attended that school are going to have much greater chances at getting into those programs. They've been groomed for them their whole lives.

I think we need to reserve some slots in the program, though, for the kids who are smart but not as well educated because they came from a poor background. Not necessarily black kids, but any kids who have the brains but had the misfortune of being born into bad circumstances, with subpar schools, absent parents, poor nutrition and probably having to work a job while in HS.

They won't test as well on standardized tests, they won't be well rounded students, they won't have traveled much or had the opportunity for private lessons, but if they're smart enough, we need to make some allowances and give them a shot.

Yes, some other kids lose their spots if we let some of the less qualified kids get in, but if we only have elite, upper class kids going to the best universities, we end up with a kind of caste system, where you only get a chance at the best education if your daddy and mommy come from the right class - from the nobility class. I'd rather have the smartest kids go to the best universities - society as a whole benefits if they do. But I wouldn't require the kids to be black, just from a lower income family.   

I'm not sure how I feel about letting in kids less qualified.  I get what you are saying.  That the poor are less qualified because the rich get sent to really good prep schools.  But won't the poor kids without the same education struggle? 

Honestly, I am not making $10million a year but I make a very good living (especially when you consider how cheap housing is where I live).  I went to community college and then a local university (well, it was a local college when I went).  You don't need a Wharton Business degree to make good money.  There is nothing wrong with not getting into the Ivy leagues.  They weren't even on my radar but being successful was. 

[souldoubt]

I don't really see how you could see who is "most deserving" out of the smart underachievers who came from poor families and/or bad areas. Do you sit them down one by one and have them tell you how hard they had it growing up?  At the end of the day if someone doesn't test as well as other students they still have plenty of options outside of top tier schools.  I may not have the cheap housing Miss T does but like her I'm doing pretty well and I went the JC to state school route.  I was raised by a single parent with nothing but a high school diploma and I don't think that meant I should have had a leg up on the kids who had 2 parents that owned a house if those kids tested better.  

[happyhoix]

Jul 29, 2016 13:32:33 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 29, 2016 13:26:14 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

 I have mixed feelings on this.

It's very competitive to get into the best universities. Kids who had the advantages of going to a private prep school, doing enrichment programs, having tutors, and especially having a parent who also attended that school are going to have much greater chances at getting into those programs. They've been groomed for them their whole lives.

I think we need to reserve some slots in the program, though, for the kids who are smart but not as well educated because they came from a poor background. Not necessarily black kids, but any kids who have the brains but had the misfortune of being born into bad circumstances, with subpar schools, absent parents, poor nutrition and probably having to work a job while in HS.

They won't test as well on standardized tests, they won't be well rounded students, they won't have traveled much or had the opportunity for private lessons, but if they're smart enough, we need to make some allowances and give them a shot.

Yes, some other kids lose their spots if we let some of the less qualified kids get in, but if we only have elite, upper class kids going to the best universities, we end up with a kind of caste system, where you only get a chance at the best education if your daddy and mommy come from the right class - from the nobility class. I'd rather have the smartest kids go to the best universities - society as a whole benefits if they do. But I wouldn't require the kids to be black, just from a lower income family.   

I'm not sure how I feel about letting in kids less qualified.  I get what you are saying.  That the poor are less qualified because the rich get sent to really good prep schools.  But won't the poor kids without the same education struggle? 

Honestly, I am not making $10million a year but I make a very good living (especially when you consider how cheap housing is where I live).  I went to community college and then a local university (well, it was a local college when I went).  You don't need a Wharton Business degree to make good money.  There is nothing wrong with not getting into the Ivy leagues.  They weren't even on my radar but being successful was. 

I'm not saying you can't make a good living without going to an Ivy league school.

I'm saying I think we need to funnel our very brightest minds into the best programs. If you have a kid with the mental and physical ability to be one of the top neurosurgeons, do we want him doing a two year program at the community college learning to be an EMT because that's what he can qualify for and afford? Certainly he would earn a decent living if he did, but could he be a better asset to society if he could make some break throughs in neurosurgery?

We don't have that many really talented, smart kids. If some of them need some extra tutoring and help to get into the top programs, I don't mind making some allowances for them, because society wins in the long run.  I don't like wasting talent.

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 29, 2016 13:46:41 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jul 29, 2016 13:32:33 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I'm not sure how I feel about letting in kids less qualified.  I get what you are saying.  That the poor are less qualified because the rich get sent to really good prep schools.  But won't the poor kids without the same education struggle? 

Honestly, I am not making $10million a year but I make a very good living (especially when you consider how cheap housing is where I live).  I went to community college and then a local university (well, it was a local college when I went).  You don't need a Wharton Business degree to make good money.  There is nothing wrong with not getting into the Ivy leagues.  They weren't even on my radar but being successful was. 

I'm not saying you can't make a good living without going to an Ivy league school.

I'm saying I think we need to funnel our very brightest minds into the best programs. If you have a kid with the mental and physical ability to be one of the top neurosurgeons, do we want him doing a two year program at the community college learning to be an EMT because that's what he can qualify for and afford? Certainly he would earn a decent living if he did, but could he be a better asset to society if he could make some break throughs in neurosurgery?

We don't have that many really talented, smart kids. If some of them need some extra tutoring and help to get into the top programs, I don't mind making some allowances for them, because society wins in the long run.  I don't like wasting talent.

How would you know who the underlying braniacs from a bad school are versus the others who would never cut it in a medical school program?  I don't want to waste money tutoring all kids who can't meet standards.

[happyhoix]

Jul 29, 2016 13:39:20 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I don't really see how you could see who is "most deserving" out of the smart underachievers who came from poor families and/or bad areas. Do you sit them down one by one and have them tell you how hard they had it growing up?  At the end of the day if someone doesn't test as well as other students they still have plenty of options outside of top tier schools.  I may not have the cheap housing Miss T does but like her I'm doing pretty well and I went the JC to state school route.  I was raised by a single parent with nothing but a high school diploma and I don't think that meant I should have had a leg up on the kids who had 2 parents that owned a house if those kids tested better.  

Teachers can figure out the really exceptional kids. It isn't who is the 'most deserving' it's the kids who have exceptional talent that we need to identify and move into the best programs, even if it means some other kids who are more qualified (on paper) get bumped.  

Of course, we need to improve schools in the lower income/rural areas so that even the 'regular' kids have the ability to continue to a 2 or 4 year degree program if they want to.  Every kid who comes through the public school system ought to be literate enough they can complete the kind of program required for the job they want - and no, a four year degree is not necessary for financial success, nor is going to a top rated school necessary, either.