Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Is Barack Obama pushing for race based quotas under his stimulus bill?

When I showed the Jesse Helm's famous "hands video ad" a few months ago, liberals tried to redirect the topic of the video and attack Helm's instead. Unfortunately for liberals, they have to resort to such tactics due to their inability to address an issue or topic straight on. Today I'm bringing back the "hands ad" that was created for the Helm's campaign for another reason. This story has gotten absolutely ZERO press coverage from the national media. It is what it is and is to be expected from the Obama worshiping media. Anyways, one of Obama's top economic advisors made some remarks that completely validates the Helm's ad. It is no surprise that liberals are big supporters of Affirmative Action, they can care less that it's actually reverse discrimination. I would go further and say that Obama's win was based primarly on race mainly affirmitive action. Any job should be given to an applicant based on the qualifications of the applicant and nothing else. Liberals seem to get their signals crosses when determining "right" from "wrong". I want you all to take a look at the Jesse Helm's hands ad, and then look at the video of Obama's economic advisor Robert Reich. Tell me if the Helm's ad illustrated exactly what Reich wants too do and is it right.




This is Robert Reich speaking on Obama's stimulus package.



See any similarities?

17 Comments:

Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tyrone, I thought you were against the governments stimulus "bailout" package? Shouldn't you be more concerned about stopping the bill altogether?

I'm going to let you in a little secret. First off, President Obama is a very smart guy. In addition, he has surrounded himself with some of the savviest political minds in the country.

When Robert Reich spoke before congress, his pitch was scripted. He knew that a Democratic majority was in place, and that Democratic majority would be in support of "affirmative action" if proposed that some of the funds be spent in that manner.

On the other side of the aisle, he knew that there is, in general, an opposition to further stimulus/bailouts packages.

In American congressional politics there are two ways to quell your opposition. One, is to "throw the other side a bone". (aka, give them something they want). Two, is to throw out a "red-herring", which is to get them talking and thinking about something else.

So now you have the Republicans and their constituency in an tizzy over race-based money being included and spent in the bill. I'm sure Boehner and his fellow Repub's and being bombarded with emails, phone calls, and letters about the "quotas." The bill itself has become a secondary issue. What we'll have to wait and see, is if the Repub's throw their constituency a "bone", or a red herring!

Tell me this Tyrone, are there any Republican congressmen who would challenge the bill on the merits that it's does to much for minorities and/or discriminates against White men?

Nevertheless, Robert Reich has this to say to his detractors.

4:57 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

p allen "Tyrone, I thought you were against the governments stimulus "bailout" package? Shouldn't you be more concerned about stopping the bill altogether?"

Duh allen, of course I'm against the pork bill. It's not a "stimulus" bill because it does absolutely nothing to address the core of our country's economic engine, which is the "PRIVATE SECTOR".As for trying to stop the bill all together, how can I stop the mutt and his marry band of flunkies in congress on top of this legion of zombies in the media? I'm just curious to hear your answer on that one allen. I need a good laugh. I came out on record against the original $700 billion "tarp" program that was changed as soon as it was passed in order to become a "bailout" fund instead. I've been against all the bailouts from the start allen,

p allen "
I'm going to let you in a little secret. First off, President Obama is a very smart guy. In addition, he has surrounded himself with some of the savviest political minds in the country."

Maybe if Barry released his grades and we all knew his I.Q, that claim of yourS could be verified as a fact allen, you think? An illusion and reality are two completely different things allen.

p allen"When Robert Reich spoke before congress, his pitch was scripted. He knew that a Democratic majority was in place, and that Democratic majority would be in support of "affirmative action" if proposed that some of the funds be spent in that manner."

So you are making excuses for Reich allen? Color me shocked. I'm from the school of though allen that discrimination is wrong regardless of the motives. That's just me of course. It must be that moral compass of mines kicking in again allen.

p allen "
In American congressional politics there are two ways to quell your opposition. One, is to "throw the other side a bone". (aka, give them something they want). Two, is to throw out a "red-herring", which is to get them talking and thinking about something else.

The first example you gave was actually a description of "negotiating". One party gives away a contingency in order to get what they truly wanted,

p allen "So now you have the Republicans and their constituency in an tizzy over race-based money being included and spent in the bill. I'm sure Boehner and his fellow Repub's and being bombarded with emails, phone calls, and letters about the "quotas." The bill itself has become a secondary issue. What we'll have to wait and see, is if the Repub's throw their constituency a "bone", or a red herring!"

Republicans are calling about the bill in general allen, you always seems to forget about the BIG PICTURE allen. What Reich said wasn't a negotiating tactic allen, it was funny of you to try and frame it as such though. The Senate Republicans are absolutely worthless. The House Republicans are the only wants standing up for their principals

6:02 PM  
Anonymous Neddy said...

Just a general query regarding your view of affirmative action:

Please explain how the tie-breaker going to the medicocre black or latino candidate over the mediocre white candidate is any WORSE than the tie-breaker going to a white Ivy League legacy with mediocre grades over a similarly mediocre white candidate without the family name and connections.

Thx.

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyrone, did you see this newsclip about the judge who claims to have "negroitis"? I'm sure she was angry at herself and projecting outward. But where does this victimhood mentality come from? What kind of role model is she? How common is it to get away with stuff by claiming racism?

The AP story: (1:07)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HvbiECOAdY

A longer version: (3:14)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHiPoWvm8Qs

9:28 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

neddy "Just a general query regarding your view of affirmative action:Please explain how the tie-breaker going to the medicocre black or latino candidate over the mediocre white candidate is any WORSE than the tie-breaker going to a white Ivy League legacy with mediocre grades over a similarly mediocre white candidate without the family name and connections.Thx.

Let me explain it like this neddy. If I had a pool of candidates in which to hire for 10 positions, I will pick the best qualified period to fill those position. If If the pool of candidates consisted of mediocre of different races, I would try to pick the least mediocre REGARDLESS OF RACE. That is the perfect illustration of "equality" I can give.

6:37 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"If If the pool of candidates consisted of mediocre of different races, I would try to pick the least mediocre REGARDLESS OF RACE. That is the perfect illustration of "equality" I can give." (Tyrone)
<
<
THAT is indeed the surest path to doing the BEST business.

As the saying goes, "You can't get silk out of a sow's ear," and you can't get exceptional work from mediocre and unmotivated people.

7:06 PM  
Anonymous Neddy said...

If only the world were so simple, CB. Do you really think Mike Tomlin would be coaching in the Super Bowl this weekend if it weren't for the NFL's Rooney Rule? No way in hell.

Tomlin wasn't hired because he was black. But someone had to be led in the right direction to even include him in the candidate pool.

Provisions like that get the ball rolling and give a chance for those with sharp young minds -- and sharp old ones, too, for that matter -- who might otherwise get overlooked due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination.

We all look forward to the day when we as a society won't need the little nudge toward true equal opportunity. Affirmative Action is not perfect, but for now, it is still a positive force.

And if that means that average or over-priveleged dime-a-dozen white guys have trouble climbing the ladder, so be it.

9:09 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

Neddy "If only the world were so simple, CB. Do you really think Mike Tomlin would be coaching in the Super Bowl this weekend if it weren't for the NFL's Rooney Rule? No way in hell."

Have you ever heard the old saying "you can't see the forest for the trees" Neddy? That's describes you perfectly to a tee. You said that Tomlin wouldn't hbe coaching in the Super Bowl this weekend with it wasn't for the Rooney rule right" In your short sighted view of the issue of race, you forgot one critical factor that is the main reason Tomlin is coaching in the superbowl.

Tomlin EARNED IT BASED ON HIS ABILITY AS A COACH!!!

You couldn't even see that neddy. To you Tomlin is just a poor hapless, inept black that can't succeed because of the color of his skin. You also failed to mention that the two other black coaches that made it to the Superbowl "Tonny Dungy and "Lovie Smith all EARNED THEIR WAY to the super bowl based on their abilities. Funny how they're are people in our society that claim they want a "color blind society", yet they cry bloody murder when society doesn't promote or highlight a non white person just for the sake of fulfilling a "quota". They are in essence talking out of both sides of their mouths. Funny how I look at Mike Tomlin and see a coach, you neddy see a victim that needs "protecting". You're "assuming" that the NFL owners are nothing more then a bunch of "white rich racists". The problem with race seems to come from people on the left. This is 2009 not 1965. I don't know what decade you think this country is in from a racial perspective.


Needy "Tomlin wasn't hired because he was black. But someone had to be led in the right direction to even include him in the candidate pool."

First you said if it weren't for the "Rooney Rule" Tomlin wouldn't have been in the Superbowl, now you're saying that he wasn't hired because he was black. Please needy make up your mind!! Stick to one position and defend it.

Neddy "Provisions like that get the ball rolling and give a chance for those with sharp young minds -- and sharp old ones, too, for that matter -- who might otherwise get overlooked due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination."

Please explain the definition of "involuntary discrimination". I don't believe any racial or ethnic group ever "volunteered" to be discriminated against. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. So you believe that they're is still "institutional" racism in America in 2009? Can you give me some examples?

Neddy "We all look forward to the day when we as a society won't need the little nudge toward true equal opportunity. Affirmative Action is not perfect, but for now, it is still a positive force."

I don't believe you do look to that day. I have a news flash for you neddy, social engineering doesn't work. Racism isn't something that can vanish with a law or bill. Racism is an ideology that is taught. Affirmative Action is nothing more then reverse discrimination pure and simple. Trying to justify a wrong won't make it wright regardless needy.

11:22 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Neddy, you sure did open a can of worms with that one. In this territorial realm of cyber-space, the mere mention of Affirmative Action is greeted with condemnatory language at best, if not, utter contempt.

JMK;"So you believe that they're is still "institutional" racism in America in 2009? Can you give me some examples?"

I work in a "public institution" (Public School System) that has a student population of almost 100,000.

In a 2006 study done by the "K-12 Public Education Michigan" showed; "Eighty-two percent of Detroit-area blacks attend schools in only three nearly all-black school districts -- Detroit, Highland Park, and Inkster."

The local high school I work at has a 97.4% Black student population.

I'm sure you will call it something else, or attempt to place the blame on the people themselves. Either way, I have my opinion, you'll have yours....

JMK;"Racism isn't something that can vanish with a law or bill. Racism is an ideology that is taught."

Really?? Won't vanish...huh? If you believe that, you shouldn't have any problem recognizing "institutional racism"!!

2:21 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

As they say in Boston, "It sure seems that PAA has a wicked-bad man-crush on JMK," as he's now attributing Tyrone's quotes to me.

Well, great minds do tend to think alike, so I'm flattered by the juxtaposition.

At any rate, I'm far more interested in THIS: "Tomlin wasn't hired because he was black. But someone had to be led in the right direction to even include him in the candidate pool.

"Provisions like that get the ball rolling and give a chance for those with sharp young minds -- and sharp old ones, too, for that matter -- who might otherwise get overlooked due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination.

"We all look forward to the day when we as a society won't need the little nudge toward true equal opportunity. Affirmative Action is not perfect, but for now, it is still a positive force." (Neddy)
<
<
THAT'S Not what passes as "affirmative action" today, not at all.

Such things go under the heading "OUTREACH," and there's nothing controversial about that.

What IS controversial, because it's morally and ethically wrong is "race/gender-based preferences."

Not only is there no need nor justification for them, they violate the precepts of "equality befiore the law" and "equal opportunity."

Equality of opportunity does NOT imply any equanimity of outcome, ONLY that we all get to compete on the same standard...the same standardized exam, for instance.

OUTREACH to different groups = GOOD.

PRESUMED INCOMPETENCE (implied in race/gender-based preferences and different passigngrades on standardized exams, ie. the NYPD's 1993 60% passing rate for black candidates, 65% for Hispanics and 70% for whites and Asians) = BAD.

Let's scrap preferences in favor of straight outreach!

6:22 PM  
Anonymous Neddy said...

People call cola "Coke" or "Pepsi," JMK. I don't care if you call it Affirmative Action or Outreach, deep inside that cold conservative heart you know that the inclusion of minorities into the selection pool is the moral and correct thing to do.

Tomlin was elevated to the short list because he was black.

He got hired because his employers easily got past his skin color.

Is this more acceptable than selecting someone JUST BECAUSE of their race? Of course. But I don't really have the time to remind you how for many years, decades, etc., minorities were straight-up denied opportunity because of what they looked like.

I really don't have the patience to pretend that once upon a time everything was fair and equitable, and now the liberals have gone and ruined everything.

Come up for some air.

4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would go further and say that Obama's win was based primarly on race ..."

President Obama's victory was about governing, not race. He was NOT elected just because he was black. That is a false and ridiculous statement.

And if it were the case, Sharpton or any of MLK's lieutenants from the 60s, like Jackson, would have been nominated and elected years ago.

If a white blogger writes that Obama is president mainly because he's black, they'd get flamed for being "racist."

You shouldn't get a pass for such ignorance, either.

6:36 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"People call cola "Coke" or "Pepsi," JMK. I don't care if you call it Affirmative Action or Outreach, deep inside that cold conservative heart you know that the inclusion of minorities into the selection pool is the moral and correct thing to do." (Neddy)
<
<
WRONG Neddy!

It's not mere semantics...racial preferences are based on the premise of assumed incompetence...and they serve no useful purpose.

Do standardized exams discriminate against blacks or ANY other ethnic group?

Do physcial exams, like those required by most Police and Fire Departments discriminate against women?

They're not designed to and really, since the standard or rim is the same 10' for all of us, they DON'T.

Tomlin and Rivera were both interviewed by the Steelers.

Tomlin won the job by blowing the Steelers away in the interview process.

That tends to prove that the private sector's highly subjective interview process works.

My wife was born and raised in Jamaica. She came to this country at 26 years of age with a Chartered Accountancy.

She's worked for ten years for a predominantly black accounting firm, and since then two Big Four firms and has ALWAYS gotten an interview anywhere she works.

Sure, she sometimes claims to feel somewhat isolated because there aren't many other blacks in Manager, Senior Manager and Partner positions, but the interview process seems fair enough and they're open....certainly she's never had a problem getting one.

So, bottom-line IS the four-part CPA exam "discriminatory" against blacks?

Even IF a larger percentage of blacks fail the CPA exam than do whites and Asians, that DOESN'T prove discrimination, as there are far too many other variables at play.

So there's a HUGE difference between those who support race and gender-based preferences and folks like you and I who only support outreach.

Today's preferences are NOT rationalized by "past discriminations," those who support them, make no bones about the "presumed incompetence" behind them.

7:32 PM  
Anonymous Neddy said...

The process of surrendering undue privilege is a bitch, JMK. Maybe 40 acres and a mule wasn't such a bad idea after all.

I'm glad your wife is successful and has no major complaints in her job.

She likely wouldn't have had that job in the United States 50 years ago.

Or 40 years ago.

Or probably not even 30 years ago.

Is it time to end Affirmative Action? Maybe almost time. But not yet.

11:53 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

Neddy you started by espousing OUTREACH, which was decent, then you descended into defending preferences which is malevolently insipid.

I've never enjoyed any privilege, NOR did my Dad's grandfather, who was denied opportunities because of his religious background ("You don't have the Mason's ring")...nor did my father.

He and Gus Beekman (the first black Chief-of-Department) came into the FDNY around the same time, Chief Beekman about 1951, my Dad in 1953...both scored in the top 10 of the applicants on a far more rigorous standardized entrance exam the ones given today.

If they weren't a barrier to my Dad and Gus Beekman, they aren't barriers to ANY of us today...and I mean THOSE earlier, tougher standards wouldn't be "undue barriers" to any group today.

So Gus Beekman took the FDNY's entrance exam about 60 years ago and scored high, then took at least four promotion exams (Lt, Capt, Battalion Chief and Deputy Chief) before then being tabbed for appointment to Staff Chief and ultimately scored the highest on the Chief-of-Department's exam.

My Dad took thos same promotion exams and rose up through the staff Chief rank to the Manhattan Borough Command....proving that two guys from groups seriously out of favor not long ago, rose through the ranks starting way back in the 1950s (about 6 decades ago)!

I chalk up to ignorance that some folks don't know about all that...it's readilly available with a minimum of research.

Is "disparate impact" - fewer members of one group passing various exams than others - indicative of "discrimination"?

Not at all.

Today, 98% of the Navy's aviators (Navy pilots) are white and male, but there's no indication that any part of that long and arduous process, from the rigorous standardized exams and physical tests to the agonizing training that washes out appx 70% or more of those who attempt that course, is "discriminatory" toward any ethnic groups or to women, who now make up less than 1% of the Navy's aviators.

Standardized exams are NOT and have never been discriminatory to any group, except to those who believe in "presumed incompetence" of others.

9:57 PM  
Anonymous Neddy said...

Again, JMK, I am appreciative of your personal examples and I'm in no way trying to belittle them.

But the truth about American social history is a LOT more than a bunch of stories of "my dad and Gus Beekman" or Navy pilots, and the mere coincidence that all but 2 percent just happen to be white. As if we're supposed to believe that African-Americans and Latinos simply don't have an interest in flying warplanes.

I won't deny that standardized exams are a powerful tool. I'm not saying they should be outright eliminated. They set "standards," obviously. But they also tend to favor the status quo, favor those from higher-income backgrounds, and are NOT the end-all-be-all indicator of potential success.

Disparate impact cases, by the way -- whether they're about race, religion, sex, age, etc. -- are frustatingly complex and expensive. And YES, in many cases they DO right the wrongs of INSTITUTIONAL discrimination.

Yes, I favor outreach. AND I also believe that undue privilege continues to stunt this country's true potential. Until we address our concerns about our national educational system, Affirmative Action will, and should, have a role in this country.

2:34 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"As if we're supposed to believe that African-Americans and Latinos simply don't have an interest in flying warplanes." (Neddy)
<
<
I don't know what the reason is for that statistical anomaly. I discount "discrimination" because since it CANNOT be proven, it cannot be presumed.

Standardized exams aren't perfect, but they don't have to be.

NO standard devised by men will ever be perfect.

They ARE, without question, far "fairer" than subjective interviews.

Disparate Impact has been out of favor with the courts the past decade. I doubt we'll see a resurgence of that injustice down the road.

What's wrong with "disparate impact?"

Virtually EVERYTHING.

Disparate impact can ONLY be used to argue in favor of "proportionalism" and propertionalism CANNOT be doled out group by group.

Instead proportionalism demands that EVERY group be rigorously represented by its exact proportion of the population it takes into account.

Today, our medical schools and engineering programs are often 60% or more peopled by Asian students.

That's a group that represents about 6% of the population.

Not ONLY is the disproportionate number of Asians represented in so many medical, computer science and engineering schools NOT A PROBLEM, seeking to redress that anomaly through proportionalism would have a terrible effect, as it would put ethnicity OVER merit/ability.

Equality of opportunity and equnaimity of result are two distinct and antithetical concepts. Equality of opportunity ONLY offers everyone a chance to compete on the SAME set of standards.

Equality of outcome, or equanimity of result discards merit/ability in favor of ethnicity and that kind of proportionalism CAN'T stop with one group - the Russians, Poles, red-headed Latvians and one-eyed Syrians ALL must be "proportionally represented" once we go down that road.

It's best that we stay with standardized exams. They're easier to administer. They're "fair," in that every candidate is competing on the same standards...the same 10' rim.

As much as I'm skeptical about the subjective interview process, the case YOU brought up (Mike Timlin with the Steelers) seems to PROVE that the interview process, as subjective as it is, works too, in cases where standardized exams are impractical.

8:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home