February 11, 2005
The Democrats in the Washington Legislature are once again performing their annual ritual of trying to overturn I-200 and reimposing state-sponsored racism -- See HB 1586 in the House and companion bill SB 5575 in the Senate.
KVI's John Carlson, who was in Olympia Thursday testifying against 1586, faxed me a page from a document the House Democrats were handing out. Note the racial categories used to break down the student body of public four-year institutions:
"White/Unknown" is given a single category. For example, for 2003, the number of "White/Unknown" is 77.1%. Notice also that the percentage of the state's overall population that is White is estimated at 77.6% (for 2005).
The source for this data is the WA Higher Education Coordinating Board. See this document [pdf] page 21. For 2003, it gives the number of Whites as 66.9% and the number of Unknown as 10.2%.
It's odd that the White and Unknown numbers are disaggregated in the source document, but aggregated in the presentation document. Why would anybody lump the Unknown category with the White category? Unless they wanted to hide the fact that Whites are actually underrepresented in higher education, a fact, which if known, would complicate the case for a racial preferences measure that is based on the fairytale that there are too many whites and not enough minorities in higher education. Okay, it's not all that odd really, it's downright sleazy. But the racial preference fanatics don't have many good arguments in their quiver, so they resort to distortions.
The Senate "Early Learning, K-12 & Higher Education" Committee is holding a hearing on SB 5575 Friday morning at 8am. Be there if you can.
The funny document was produced by the "House Office of Program Research", which advertises itself as a "nonpartisan, legislative staff office that provides research, legal, and administrative services to House committees". Somebody over there needs to be slapped for helping produce dishonest partisan propaganda.
UPDATE: A knowledgeable friend in Olympia, who's on the right side of this issue and whose input I value, e-mails with the following observations:
1) The document in question was not issued by "House Democrats", but by staff for the Democratic chair of the House Higher Education Rep. Phyllis Gutierrez-Kenney. A subtle but important difference.
2) the House Office of Program Research staff say that they obtained the composite White/Unknown numbers directly from the Higher Education Coordinating Board. The HECB has a lot of data reports, and it's possible the specific reports that the OPR relied on in this case showed composite numbers. They also assert that HECB doesn't have disaggregated numbers for all years. That's certainly possible, although I did find disaggregated White and Unknown numbers for at least some years on the HECB website.
In any event, I hope that both the HECB and the OPR will make the maximum effort to avoid issuing misleading reports about the actual diversity on our public campuses.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 11, 2005
12:23 AM | Email This
1. I am confused as to why they would need these bills........ the stats look the same to me, am I missing something?
2. I am confused as to why they would need these bills........ the stats look the same to me, am I missing something?
"Sound Politics Blogger advocates violence against anti-racism reformers....."
In order to do the greatest good and have lasting effect, it is wise to consider carefully what we say. Otherwise we are open to exageration and distortion by those who reach to a much lower standard.
4. liberalism covets racism.
5. Racism seems to be one of the unfortunate, recurring themes of human history. It is hard to get rid of it and stay rid of it. So it's not surprising to me that the Democrats are trying to reinstitute it.
My two sons (not in college) are bi-racial. Where would they fit into the "race" profile? To place them in one category you deny one-half of their racial heritages. I was told that the government would consider them as "minorities," and ignore their "White (I prefer Caucasian) half." I only bring this up because there are more and more children with mixed racial heritages. This skews the stats somewhat, doesn't it?
I have a novel idea: How about classifying all students as "Members of the Human Race" and end this racial profiling, with its inherent institutional racism?
7. I've seen radios in the store, but I haven't seen "talkshow radios" there before. Can I buy one???
8. oops--Wrong category posted to. Ignore above post.
"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers.
Hmmm. I started with one opinion, then decided to go check my numbers first. (You folks are merciless against lefties that come unprepared with facts.)
Even with my personal belief that the vast majority of the "other/unknown" category are white (sorry, JG, but "Caucasian" is a category that does not cover all white people), the numbers don't show a problem.
Comparing the demographics data provided by university with the data in the 2000 census, it looks like minorities are doing pretty well.
(Side note. I made a very cursory look at the numbers. It could still be that the "devil is in the details".)
I'll be interested to see how hard these people actually push for this. It may well be a token set of bills designed to keep our far left wing happy, but with no real desire to actually pass them.
You know, kind of like the annual attempts to ban flag burning or mandate school prayer are for the right wing.
Let's pass another initiative: Ban the profiling based on race, meaning, the state cannot ask for a person's race nor can government publish data that segregates based on race. Basically, all references to an individual or group's race is removed from all government literature and documentation.
That will be a truly colorblind government.
I enjoyed reading your post this morning. That is, until I reached your Parthian shot at the end.
Let us be careful about distinctions here.
HB 1586 is clearly designed to reimpose racial preference in academic enrollment. To wit: a de facto declaration that non-white races are too stupid to get into colleges on academic merit, and so the government must "help them out."
You know, that whole 'racial profiling' bit. I guess racism is an acceptable practice only as long as the Democrats are the ones imposing it, eh?
Isn't this the same party that forced the WASL down our throats, and who are now doing all they can to exempt underachieving (read: public school-educated) students from taking the test? That wasn't a move to appease the radical left. WASL was supported by virtually the entire WA Dem Party.
Let us be perfectly clear here. Show me one piece of legislation where it is either explicitly or implicitly stated that prayer in public school should be made MANDATORY.
The only legislation mentioning prayer in schools that you are likely to find will have its origins from the Democratic Party, and every single one will be a call to ban prayer and to punish individuals who pray in school.
Do Democrats read history?
Name one- just ONE- significant piece of legislation authored by Democrats that does NOT imply the inferiority of non-white races or Christians with regard to academics, employment, or social progress.
I think everyone here (except liberals) will agree that prayer in public schools should NOT be mandatory, but should at the very least be TOLERATED.
And if someone wants to burn the flag, I don't care. At least we will know where that person stands. But you cannot burn the flag and at the same time wrap yourself in it, thus claiming that you have carte blanche to undermine the constitution that protects you.
It really is simple. You either support and embrace the Constitution and the idea that all men are indeed equal, or you do not. You either embrace the principles upon which this nation was founded, or you do not. You either embrace justice, or you do not.
If you do embrace justice and equality, then you will agree that there is no such thing as "acceptable prejudice", because NO prejudice is acceptable.
Your last statement implies that your desire is to have it both ways, and that is not acceptable.
You must make your choice. If you believe in the causes espoused by the Democratic party, then stick with it. Nobody here is going to tar and feather you for that.
But one thing I have noticed in the Democratic party is their unwillingness or inability to state their beliefs clearly and succinctly.
Why is it so hard for Democrats to say "Yes" or "No"?
I'll tell you why: because the attitude and agenda of the Democratic Party is so completely aligned against the will of the American people that it is indefensible.
(Note: if anyone is still looking for the missing link, perhaps they should look within the Democratic Party. It is filled with humans who walk and yet lack spines.)
Please do not patronize me with the statement that the Democratic Party does not reflect the far left liberal agenda. They just selected Howard Dean as the chairman. They are ramrodding an unprecedented number of bills through legislation to impose more STATE control over individuals, and are voting strictly along party lines. Any dissenters within the party are threatened with swift and severe political retribution.
Sounds like a leftist liberal party to me.
Another observation: Democrats have the tendency to start dialogue by agreeing with a statement "in principle", while ending the conversation with some barb aimed at the opposition. (Your last post is a case in point.)
I don't want you to agree with me "in principle." I want you to clearly state whether or not you agree, PERIOD. If you don't agree with me, FINE. I accept that, and I respect you for that. Just grow a backbone and acquire the intestinal fortitude to give a straight answer instead of wasting your time and mine.
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
Let's pass another initiative: Ban the profiling based on race, meaning, the state cannot ask for a person's race nor can government publish data that segregates based on race. Basically, all references to an individual or group's race is removed from all government literature and documentation.
That will be a truly colorblind government.
Ah, but that we were in a perfect world. I would love to agree.
Unfortunately, we still have some race-based problems, and more than that, we have the perception that we have race-based problems.
Now for the good news. Because we ask for this information, we have hard data to refute those perceptions that are incorrect.
We also have hard data to identify the problems that are still real, so that we can find ways to address them.
Still this old "child of the '60s" is pleased at how far we have come. Racism is far from dead, but it's certainly on the ropes.
13. Racism is far from dead, but it's certainly on the ropes
The only place where racism is not all but dead as a significant force is in America is among the liberal elites who want to impose racial preferences in employment, public contracts and academic admissions.
"I enjoyed reading your post this morning. That is, until I reached your Parthian shot at the end."
Hey, I'm a Democrat, I admit it and I'm proud of it. Perhaps I should have put a little winking smiley ;-) after the statement, but I considered it understood. I try to keep may partisan shots polite, and ignore a number of them aimed at Demorcrats that are far less than polite. Give me a break, ok?
Democrats (not all, but we'll work with generalities here) do not consider that minorities are less able than whites. We consider that the opportunities presented them through education and economics are often less than whites, and that some consideration should be made of that situation.
It's a subtle, but important difference. The nice thing about having hard data is that we can see that the situation here does not require any particular action.
Now, for "But you cannot burn the flag and at the same time wrap yourself in it, thus claiming that you have carte blanche to undermine the constitution that protects you."
Yes, you can. That's the beauty of our system. It protects the most unpopular of us.
Now, as to complaining about my rather mild barb, please read these quotes from your post:
"I guess racism is an acceptable practice only as long as the Democrats are the ones imposing it, eh?"
"Why is it so hard for Democrats to say "Yes" or "No"?"
"I think everyone here (except liberals) will agree that prayer in public schools should NOT be mandatory, but should at the very least be TOLERATED."
"Do Democrats read history?"
While I agree that my skin will have to be somewhat tougher than yours on this board, (hey, I knew it was a Republican crowd when I logged on) my barb was pretty easy going compared to yours.
I have stated, and will state again for any record that anyone wishes to make on the matter. Most Republicans are people of good will that simply have viewpoints, priorities or opinions that are different from most Democrats.
So, lighten up a bit on your own partisanship. I assume the Republicans here are secure enough in their opinions to take at least a mild partisan barb from this old "leftie". ;-)
15. (Yipe! Spell check, John. Spell check!) ;-)
I spoke to John Carlson the other day when he was covering this on the air. My point to him was the irony of the Law of Unintended Consequences of Affirmative Action:
My oldest child is an intelligent white male who graduated from WSU and will be graduating from law school this spring. We spoke about this issue when he was home over the holidays and the gist of the conversation was that he LOVES Affirmative Action.
He said 'Mom, I've benefited from it (Affirmative Action) every single day of my college and law school life.' When someone admitted by anything less than their qualifications turns in a paper, a project, writes a brief or presents a case, in comparison, "they make me look like a '***' genius, Mom". He says because of those comparisons, his grades are (more) awesome which will lead to more success in job hunting and better salary opportunities.
How sad the do-gooders don't realize the harm they are causing to the very folks they are trying to "help".
But hey, on behalf of that son and the other 2 following him...THANKS!
17. Are union construction workers part of the liberal elite? You will find that defining a liberal elite is far more difficult than you may imagine . However, name calling and labeling are much easier, like re-labeling the neo-cons the "neo-feudalists". That conveys a whole host of negative images and I think I will use it from now on.
John Barelli: "sorry, JG, but "Caucasian" is a category that does not cover all white people."
John, please explain, I may be wrong. I always thought that Caucasian (I know, it is a old term) included people with fair skin tone, AND some people who have brown tones.
Which "white people" does it not include?
And if Caucasian has somehow become inaccurate or politically incorrect, why are we not using terms like European-American to distinguish which "white people" are being referenced?
Just a general question : Why all the concern over racial distinctions in the first place, when racial purity rarely exists anymore. Thanks.
19. I have three sons in college right now...and I can honestly say the only people that there is an organized bias against are young white men.
If some of you don't beieve me just wait till your kids apply to college. Racial preferences are alive and well, believe me....especially at the more competitive schools like U.C. Davis......and the race of choice to discriminate against is Anglo.
"The funny document was produced by the "House Office of Program Research", which advertises itself as a "nonpartisan, legislative staff office that provides research, legal, and administrative services to House committees".
"Nonpartisan" doesn't necessarily mean "apolitical". A rule of thumb is that when any organization calls itself "nonpartisan", it usually means they're slanted too far to the right or left for either of the main political parties. Moveon.org calls itself "nonpartisan", after all.
The Liberals are intent on giving Whites the advantage when it comes to college education!
If the Democrats are able to turn the clock back to racial preference in college admittance....then the universal perception will be that only whites truly earned their right to attend college..and the other races were merely chosen as tokens...
If the Dems are successful - the perception will give whites the definite advantage!
Perception is everything when you are seeking employment after college! As the parent of multi-racial children, what the Dems are proposing is pure racism - intended to give the appearance and perception that my children are not strong enough academically to achieve admittance on their own merits!
My children will be listed as *white* or will leave that box blank!
Come now, let us reason together:
As you clearly have demonstrated, not all who call themseves Democrats are outright socialists or radical leftists. And not all who call themselves Republicans are radical bible-thumping free-market capitalists. But anyone who calls himself/herself "Democrat" or "Republican" has first personally aligned himself/herself with the overall agenda. That includes you and me. And I maintain that when a person states affiliation with either party, he or she is also tacitly stating his or her approval and support for the agenda and philosophy that the party promotes.
The philosophy of a political party by any any name represents certain values. Those values determine the course of the party's agenda and the objectives the party wants to achieve. Thus the members of a party join not because they agree merely on principle, but because the party embodies the person's core values.
When it comes to making clear distinctions between parties it is perfectly appropriate to identify, compare and contrast the core values between the opposing parties. That is what thinking individuals do when choosing the party with which they will align themselves.
It is exactly like choosing the ship aboard which one will book passage. The choice is ultimately influenced by determining whether or not the ship is going to take one where one desires to go. And just as it would be sheer foolishness to book passage aboard a ship that will take one someplace other than where one wants to end up, it is equally foolish to invest one's intellect and energy in a political organization that will not promote one's core values.
Imagine for a moment walking up the gangplank with a fellow passenger at a mid-voyage port of call, who turns and tells you, "Even though I paid a great deal to sail aboard this ship and I agree in principle with the crew's decision to sail, I do not agree with the crew's choice of final destination." And then the passenger turns right around and continues walking up the gangplank and boards the ship. Your logical reaction would be to immediately ask the person, "Why on earth did you buy a ticket in the first place? And if you know that this is not taking you where you want to go, why then are you going aboard yet again!?" Would you not immediately conclude that the fellow was a complete fool? Of course- and rightly so.
Equally, if one declares affiliation to a certain poitical party, but at the same time expresses that the core philosophy and direction of the party does not reflect one's personal values, then I would submit that perhaps one has booked passage aboard the wrong ship. The philosophy and goal of a political party is by nature an object of personal investment.
I am a Republican because, after devoting much time and thought to comparing the philosophies and agendas of the various political parties, I have concluded that the Republican Party reflects my personal values- that this ship is going to take me where I want to go.
Therefore, I can accurately conclude that partisanship is not a reflection of mere blind allegiance to one's political party, but rather is the result of sober, carefully-reasoned decision; and partisanship has everything to do with one's personal values. To divorce one's values from the party with which one affiliates is to epitomize blind allegiance. If one does not believe as the party believes, what is the point of declaring one's affiliation?
So then the practice of referring to a party and its actions as a single entity is entirely justified and reasonable. While I agree that I MUST frame my comments with proper personal respect, I reject the argument that my previous statements about Democrats are merely barbed generalizations.
Democrats have no problem at all with painting Republicans with a broad brush because the vast majority of Republicans share the same values. Thus, it is not necessarily wrong to say that Republicans are opposed to racial preference, for example, because the vast majority of Republicans are indeed opposed to racial preference.
But the Democrat leadership and spokespeople do NOT say that Republicans are merely against racial preference; instead, they publicly accuse Republicans of being racist and call us bigots.
But historically, the Democrats have taken great and vocal offense when Republicans describe them as pro-racial preference, and the record clearly shows such to be the case. (And God forbid anyone- especially the opposition- dare call racial preference what it really is: racism!) But we do not call the Democrats racist; rather, we say that their policy of racial preference is unfair and unethical- which it clearly is.
So let us dispense with the nonsense about how wrong it is to paint Democrats with a broad brush. Clearly, if one did not ultimately agree with the agenda, one would be unwise to go along for the ride.
Affirmative action began as a remedy to address wrongs SO THAT Blacks and others could PROVE themselves equal, a chance previously denied them as a whole. (Minorities already knew they were equal!)
Forty years and two generations later, affirmative action is used to affirm INequality and SEPARATENESS and DIVISION. It hammers home the message, 'You are a victim. You are oppressed. You are NOT equal, you can never get ahead on your own without help."
I think that's a horrible thing to teach a child, let alone a whole culture of children. Minorities have proven their equality. Let us go on TOGETHER. End affirmative action.
ER Nurse: "And not all who call themselves Republicans are radical Bible-thumping free-market capitalists."
Only the smart Republicans. Sorry, I could not resist, so maybe I am not so smart afterall. Your point on Democrat/Republican stereotypes is well taken.
Just for the record, I also happen to be one of those radical bible-thumping free-market capitalits.
And I am very picky about the things I endorse. As are you, I gather.
"Democrats have no problem at all with painting Republicans with a broad brush because the vast majority of Republicans share the same values. Thus, it is not necessarily wrong to say that Republicans are opposed to racial preference, for example, because the vast majority of Republicans are indeed opposed to racial preference."
Actually, Republicans cover a wide range of political viewpoints on a wide range of topics. Some Republicans do indeed "sign on" to the entire party platform. Others do not. There are Republicans in the forefront of the Gay Rights movement, in the Pro-Choice movement and in the anti-war movement. Many of the "affirmative action" programs were either promoted by or at least approved by Republicans. Not all Republicans. But some.
There are Democrats in that strongly believe that homosexuals are committing a mortal sin, that abortion is wrong no matter the circumstances and that strongly support the war with Iraq. Some Democrats strongly believe that race-based preferences are the wrong way to cure any ills. We've got a pretty big tent over here, and we argue a lot. I think that's good.
Both parties have wings that go well beyond what the majority of the members of the party believe in. If you don't think that the Republicans have their own, then I suggest that you are deliberately choosing not to see them. Just as an example, I will refer you to the "Council of Conservative Citizens" (cofcc.org) No, they are not a Republican sponsored organization, but influential Republicans have worked closely with them and they have generally supported Republican candidates. Please don't get too annoyed. I know that the Republican party does not stand for what those people believe in.
Broad brushes don't work with either party, although each is often willing to use one on the other.
I am a Democrat. Does that mean that I think racial preferences are somehow a "good thing?" No, it does not. My conversations with other Democrats also indicate that they do not like what they, and occasionally I, see as a need for them to overcome other race-based problems. Not problems inherent in the races themselves, but in the economic and educational opportunities provided to people in those races.
Indeed, most, if not all Democrats will also admit that the racial demographics we use are an inherently inaccurate measure. A wealthy minority member that has been educated in the best schools and has the economic ability to afford any university is in a far better situation than a white child living in poverty and ignorance.
But, poor tool that it is, it is the tool we have to work with. We are unwilling to simply ignore the problems until a better tool is found.
I was serious when I expressed pleasure in the fact that the demographics I see indicate that racial preferences seem unnecessary in this case.
Some Republican "leaders" commonly paint Democrats as socialists and even occasionally communist. Listen to Michael Savage some afternoon. (The man makes Rush sound like a liberal.) He paints Democrats as deliberately evil.
Some Democrat "leaders" do the same to Republicans. If my apology for that helps, you have it.
Even the actual leadership from both parties try to put the other in the worst light. Sometimes I think they need to get out more often and actually speak to the people they're talking about.
So, friends? Or at least honorable adversaries?
ERNurse: "Just for the record, I also happen to be one of those radical bible-thumping free-market capitalists."
I would prefer "Bible-believing." Which also means respecting the free will of others to disagree, even though I do go into an anti-liberal rant at times (occasionally justified or at least understandable).
Actually I would rather be wise than smart, and a little humility wouldn't hurt either.
Re: Race statistics at WA Universities.
The situation regarding race (and gender) numbers at public universities is even stranger than your post indicates. I can only testify to the policies at the UW in 2002 but I doubt that has been changed or is any different at the other public universities in Washington state.
During my undergraduate tenure at the UW there was great panic among "progressive" elements about the decrease in minority enrollment (a decrease that has since naturally corrected itself), so I attempted to track down exactly where and how the UW creates its demographic statistics.
First of all, I learned that all of these numbers are based on the "voluntary" disclosure portion of the application for admission. There us NO WAY for the university the verify the truthfullness/or accuracy of the claims made by applicants.
Note that despite the fact that the university in NOT supposed to admit based on race it collects this inoformation from prospective applicants not from those whom it admits or those who actually register for classes. Also important to note is that the UW admission application for undergraduates allows hispanic, asian, and american indian students to give VERY specific ethnic/cultural information in identifing their race/culture/ethnicity BUT there is NO bi-racial/mixed race category (I guess that "one drop of blood" is still the standard at UW) and the white and black categories have no sub-groups for ethnicity at all.
Furthermore, after I-200 passed the only categories that soared were the "asian" and "other" categories while the black, the various hispanic, and american indian categories generally decreased. The most rational explaination of this seems to be that the sort of mixed race students (or those who could credibly claim a prefered race/ethnicity based on a surname) who claimed to be a particlar race to get a leg-up before I-200
selected "other" after it was no longer a benefit. Of course, a few "white" probably chose the "other" category to protest race based admissions pre and post I-200, but it seems unlikely that this group would account for the large increase in the "other" category. Also, it was never explained to me how they categorize students that mark multiple boxes. I could never get a straight answer on that one. For example, if a student reports a Afro-Cuban-Irish-Seminole background are they counted as white? as black? as hispanic? or as indian? or are they counted for every category? An interesting question that must have an interesting answer.
Also, during my first year UW the office of the registrar sent an email to all students (including myself) that had chosen not to indicate race or ethnicity to encourage us (again) to disclose our race. When I enquired about this I was informed that virtually all students had complied with the "request" and that nearly all were, in fact, white. I suspect the reason for this is that students with a multiple racial/ethnic background who intentionally chose to leave their race/ethnicity blank and then were pressured to disclose again probably chose, of the available options, "white" to spite the whole process.
The real upshot of the whole silly process is that if proportional admissions policies were implemented then white males would benefit the most as they are most underrepresented (in total numbers, if not in terms of percentage) in the student population and white females and asian-americans of all genders would suffer becuase they are overrepresented.
Of course if the UW, in particular, was truly interested in making a college education accessable to the diverse people pf Washington state it would cut back on the huge numbers of international students, the smaller number of out of state undergrads. It would also cut back on graduate programs that enhance the reputation of the university but eat up a huge amounts of scarce resources per capita educating students who are not from Washington and few of whom stay here when they finish school. One could also mention the tuition that has risen are many multiples of the rate of inflation for decades and which presents a significant difficulty for prospective students who are not by virtue of family resources fairly well off.
Re: Larry's post.
Non-partisan means non affiliated with a political party NOT non-idelogical, and it never has meant anyting else. Most self-designated "non-partisan" organizations are genuinely public service oriented and tend to reflect the idelogical leaning of the general population from which they draw their members and supporters. The reason why extreme groups like MoveOn claim the mantle of non-partianship (falsely I might add) is that they know that the vast majority of Americans respect the good works done by such groups and they want to tap into that sympathy. MoveOn is a parasitic aberation of this concept not an exemplar of it.
It should also be noted that some groups (NRA and Boy Scouts come to mind) have become marginalized because the massive leftward shift of the Democrat party over the last two generations has radicalized that party's policy goals and alienated it from those organizations. However, this in not a testament to the radical nature of the organization but to the idelogical embalance of the modern Democrat party.
30. Those state-provided statistics are really sleazy. Glad you caught them on it. That's huge. What will these people do next??
I have heard Michael Savage, and I must admit that he is a bit much for me, too. However, I openly admit to enjoying Rush, Hannity, Tony Snow, and Laura Ingraham. While Ruch can be a bit bombastic, he is usually spot-on with his analyses. Tony has more inside knowledge of D.C. politics in his little finger than I could ever hope to have. And Laura- I mean, wow. She's as sharp as they get.
But enough gushing.
My question is this: if the most vocal of the parties are not reflecting the core values of the membership, why does the membership not do something about it?
For example, I know that there has been a great deal of contention over Howard Dean coming aboard as DNC chairman. Take into account, too, that the most visible and vocal Democrats are Nancy Pelosi, What's-His-Name from Nevada, Barbara Boxer, Kennedy, and Kerry . They are as far left as a person can possibly be.
Do these people represent the core values of Democrats? If they don't, then why on earth are they still around? I know that individual Democrats do not choose the DNC chair. But if the people are not representing you, why don't you guys just vote them out of their positions? (I have my suspicions, and they revolve around the same situation we have here.)
And as far as Republicans go, we have McCain, Luger, Hagel and that new bum from Indiana. The only problem is, they are not extreme right but far more to the left than even most Democrats.
What extreme right Republicans can you name? (Not a challenge, but I am genuinely curious about your take on it.)
I am really enjoying this exchange, and I am learning a lot. Thanks for your patience. I hope that you're getting something out of it, too.
JG- You're absolutely right. But my mother-in-law, who thinks my wife and I are absolutely insane to believe as we do, calls us "right-wing bible-thumping fundamentalists."
I am a bible-believing Christian. I am a sinner saved by grace. I have nothing that God did not give me first. And I would rather be wise than smart, too. As I am sure you are aware, I have been too quick at times to speak. I can seriously relate with Peter. I tend to put my foot in my mouth more times than I like to admit. Peter and I are going to have an interesting chat when at last I get to meet him (that is, after spending the first million or so years with Jesus).
Paul Hamar, thanks for shedding a lot of light on the UW. I understand the ramifications of such policies much better now.
Several (o.k. many) years ago while attending Everett C.C. I checked the wrong box, and I received a survey letter in the mail about 2 days later asking if my instructors were meeting my needs as a minority student, etc. (I am not a memeber of a "protected minority"-just a wasp).
I threw the letter away, but I found the letter offensive, in that I thought every student should be treated equally.
ERNurse(Off Topic): Yes, and I want to have a few words with Adam and Eve, too. Probably the two smartest people ever and look what they started.
(Oh, I know if it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else who started this mess we are in. Can't even blame that one on the liberals. Thank God, literally, there is a solution.)
Reading back on this thread, I am amazed at how far I have wandered off topic. I had a wonderful OT conversation with JohnBarelli that reminded me of the need to pay attention and to season my conversation with grace.
So back to the topic: One thing that MLK said that has stuck with me was when he (paraphrased) looked forward to the day when people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the merits of their actions. I want that to happen too.
What we are seeing in this House Bill is an example of man's attempt to correct moral wrong, and it cannot work because it is impossible to legislate change within the human heart. No matter how noble the motive may be, any attempt to do so will become marred by human insufficiency. Our best attempts are futile without divine rule and guidance.
I think we all agree that equal opportunity is not wrong. But this bill is an example of going about it the wrong way.
If we want to promote equal opportunity, let's do it by giving everybody a chance to prove for themselves that they are capable of achieving great things instead of handing great things to them that they will be incapable of sustaining.
Thanks for your patience. I have much to learn.
34. ERNurse, I am obviously prone to tangential thoughts and conversations. My off topic note was only to mean that I was aware that I was diverging from the topic. I realize I need to stay more focused also.
My comment about wandering off topic was strictly aimed at only myself. I hope that I did not come across as critical of anyone else.
The great thing about this forum is that as long as we are respectful, everyone seems to be patient with everyone else.
Also, considering my tendency to wander, I will be the LAST person to chastise others about going off-topic.