First, I think that gender and race are very different for these purposes. For the case of gender, I'm willing to accept that some differences in outcomes are partially the result of innate differences.
Second, are you saying that schools should only try to remedy inequality that has resulted from preferential treatment by schools? I haven't encountered that opinion before.
That's not what I'm advocating. Legally, I think private schools should be able to do anything they wish, while public schools should be barred from giving preferential treatment on the basis of immutable characteristics to anyone. Public schools should be allowed to give preference to specific characteristics of individual applicants, and this can include having had an upbringing that does not provide the same opportunities as others, and this will often account for race?
Is your argument that any racial disparity must be either due to innate differences or racial animus?
That seems like a pretty arbitrary thing born from an imagined scenario. But I guess if that is already the status quo I don't see a reason to demolish that.
Just unmitigatedly Happy First Century Estonian Republic, from Finland!
Estonia 100!
I so much appreciate that Finland has such good neighbours. I think very positively about the Scandi-nations, and Estonia - for example: if Finland cannot make a sports event, I will root Nordics and Estonia next.
I think it super awesome that Scandi Free Movement was there decades before Schengen. And hope Estonia can forgive what was a justified fear of falling on the painful side of the iron curtain. I wish we could have shown better solidarity.
Not sure what Finland State gave as a gift to Estonia yet - very annoyed about exceedingly Fennocentric google results!
For any Estonians here - thanks for being our Closest Neighbour with SE! And was our gift any good?
PS. I sort of think that if EU - members all has such close sympathy for near regions, maybe it could be more constructive and less bickering.
Is your argument that any racial disparity must be either due to innate differences or racial animus?
I'm saying that economically significant racial disparities are obviously unfair and should be remedied. The only way that they could be fair is if they were rooted in innate differences, which is not something that I (or any people here, I hope) believe.
Furthermore, I'm making a case for not focusing so much on how this unfairness emerged, because that often prompts white Americans to say, "I don't own slaves/feel racial animus/whatever, so why should I have to do anything about racial inequality?"
Is your argument that any racial disparity must be either due to innate differences or racial animus?
I'm saying that economically significant racial disparities are obviously unfair and should be remedied. The only way that they could be fair is if they were rooted in innate differences, which is not something that I (or any people here, I hope) believe.
Furthermore, I'm making a case for not focusing so much on how this unfairness emerged, because that often prompts white Americans to say, "I don't own slaves/feel racial animus/whatever, so why should I have to do anything about racial inequality?"
Well, a lot of groups, Slavs oppressed by Bolshevik communism, Jews, Asians archived equality with the average American in less than one generation. You don't need affirmative action to fix it. The problem is cultural.
For example, Argentineans in USA.
- Poverty status. The share of Argentineans who live in poverty, 11%, is lower than the rate for the general U.S. population (16%) and the rate for Hispanics overall (26%). - Income. The median annual personal earnings for Argentineans ages 16 and older were $30,000 in the year prior to the survey—greater than the median earnings for all U.S. Hispanics ($20,000) and similar to the median earnings for the U.S. population ($29,000). - Educational attainment. Argentineans have higher levels of education than the Hispanic population overall and the U.S. population overall. Four-in-ten (40%) Argentineans ages 25 and older—compared with 13% of all U.S. Hispanics and 29% among the U.S. population—have obtained at least a bachelor’s degree. source http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/06/19/hispanics-of-argentinean-origin-in-the-united-states-2011/
You can argue that since Argentinians tends to be whites or castizos(3/4 white and around 1/4 native american) they suffer less racism(is truth) but for USA government doesn't matter if you are a German descendant from Patagonia or a Afro-Caribbean, both are considered "hispanic" in USA but i think that Argentinians do better in USA due cultural factors not racism.
I am not familiar with affirmative action, but it seems to have a fundamental problem In That it asserts equality of outcome is desirable without offering any supporting evidence for this. Except maybe some ideological one.
@FinneousPJ: We're not talking about abstract or fine-grained equality of outcomes here. We're talking about this: Is it really necessary to explain why this situation is undesirable?
Affirmative action was necessary (to the extent that it was even implemented) because one group of people was enslaved until 1863. Then, for another ONE HUNDRED YEARS, the people who were freed from slavery had, essentially, no rights at all, especially in the former Confederacy. Only just over 50 years ago did African-Americans even get legal equal status in this country. For the first 200 years this country existed, they were either property, or second-class citizens (and the second-class definition is being very charitable until the Civil Rights Act was passed). Bottom line: African-American families had NO WAY to acquire generational wealth until VERY recently in the history of this country, as the chart in the post above indicates. So are we really arguing that 50 years of Affirmative action is equal to 200+ years of slavery and systematic oppression?? One cannot possibly understand the United States and it's political divides without understanding how deeply central to them the issue of slavery, Jim Crow, racism, and the white backlash to the Civil Rights movement is. It's the original sin, and it's rot is still sitting at the root of the tree.
@FinneousPJ: We're not talking about abstract or fine-grained equality of outcomes here. We're talking about this: Is it really necessary to explain why this situation is undesirable?
Yes, it is really is necessary and furthermore it is necessary to demonstrate "affirmative action" is the proper solution before implementing it.
What USA consider "Latino" is just silly. For example, queen Maxima of Netherlands(all of his children are blondes) will be considered "latina/hispanic" if she goes to USA using Argentine papers, but she will be considered white if she goes to USA using Dutch papers. No other country in world consider "latino" as a race including Mexico. In fact the majority of Mexicans self identify as mixed race.
Affirmative action was necessary (to the extent that it was even implemented) because one group of people was enslaved until 1863. Then, for another ONE HUNDRED YEARS, the people who were freed from slavery had, essentially, no rights at all, especially in the former Confederacy. Only just over 50 years ago did African-Americans even get legal equal status in this country. For the first 200 years this country existed, they were either property, or second-class citizens (and the second-class definition is being very charitable until the Civil Rights Act was passed). Bottom line: African-American families had NO WAY to acquire generational wealth until VERY recently in the history of this country, as the chart in the post above indicates. So are we really arguing that 50 years of Affirmative action is equal to 200+ years of slavery and systematic oppression?? One cannot possibly understand the United States and it's political divides without understanding how deeply central to them the issue of slavery, Jim Crow, racism, and the white backlash to the Civil Rights movement is. It's the original sin, and it's rot is still sitting at the root of the tree.
A lot of groups in USA din't needed affirmative action to archive equality for example Slavs oppressed by Bolshevik communism, a lot of Slavs moved to USA without any money, without being able to speak English and in less than one generation archived equality.
Also, how you will "determine" what is a black guy? Obama is half black. A person needs to be 1/4 or 1/2 to have affirmative action? If a tall, blonde, blue eyed guy discover to be 1/64 black he can use affirmative action?
What USA consider "Latino" is just silly. For example, queen Maxima of Netherlands(all of his children is blonds) will be considered "latina/hispanic" if she goes to USA using Argentine papers, but she will be considered white if she goes to USA using Dutch papers. No other country in world consider "latino" as a race including Mexico. In fact the majority of Mexicans self identify as mixed race.
Affirmative action was necessary (to the extent that it was even implemented) because one group of people was enslaved until 1863. Then, for another ONE HUNDRED YEARS, the people who were freed from slavery had, essentially, no rights at all, especially in the former Confederacy. Only just over 50 years ago did African-Americans even get legal equal status in this country. For the first 200 years this country existed, they were either property, or second-class citizens (and the second-class definition is being very charitable until the Civil Rights Act was passed). Bottom line: African-American families had NO WAY to acquire generational wealth until VERY recently in the history of this country, as the chart in the post above indicates. So are we really arguing that 50 years of Affirmative action is equal to 200+ years of slavery and systematic oppression?? One cannot possibly understand the United States and it's political divides without understanding how deeply central to them the issue of slavery, Jim Crow, racism, and the white backlash to the Civil Rights movement is. It's the original sin, and it's rot is still sitting at the root of the tree.
A lot of groups in USA din't needed affirmative action to archive equality for example Slavs oppressed by Bolshevik communism, a lot of Slavs moved to USA without any money, without being able to speak English and in less than one generation archived equality.
Also, how you will "determine" what is a black guy? Obama is half black. A person needs to be 1/4 or 1/2 to have affirmative action? If a tall, blonde, blue eyed guy discover to be 1/64 black he can use affirmative action?
I'm not sure what you mean by "achieve equality", but it should be noted that black men, up until the mid-60s, stood the risk of gettting lynched or killed for having the temerity to vote or look the wrong way at a white woman. Also, everyone should familiarize themselves with the Tulsa Race Riot, to find out what happened when African-Americans "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps":
What USA consider "Latino" is just silly. For example, queen Maxima of Netherlands(all of his children is blonds) will be considered "latina/hispanic" if she goes to USA using Argentine papers, but she will be considered white if she goes to USA using Dutch papers. No other country in world consider "latino" as a race including Mexico. In fact the majority of Mexicans self identify as mixed race.
Affirmative action was necessary (to the extent that it was even implemented) because one group of people was enslaved until 1863. Then, for another ONE HUNDRED YEARS, the people who were freed from slavery had, essentially, no rights at all, especially in the former Confederacy. Only just over 50 years ago did African-Americans even get legal equal status in this country. For the first 200 years this country existed, they were either property, or second-class citizens (and the second-class definition is being very charitable until the Civil Rights Act was passed). Bottom line: African-American families had NO WAY to acquire generational wealth until VERY recently in the history of this country, as the chart in the post above indicates. So are we really arguing that 50 years of Affirmative action is equal to 200+ years of slavery and systematic oppression?? One cannot possibly understand the United States and it's political divides without understanding how deeply central to them the issue of slavery, Jim Crow, racism, and the white backlash to the Civil Rights movement is. It's the original sin, and it's rot is still sitting at the root of the tree.
A lot of groups in USA din't needed affirmative action to archive equality for example Slavs oppressed by Bolshevik communism, a lot of Slavs moved to USA without any money, without being able to speak English and in less than one generation archived equality.
Also, how you will "determine" what is a black guy? Obama is half black. A person needs to be 1/4 or 1/2 to have affirmative action? If a tall, blonde, blue eyed guy discover to be 1/64 black he can use affirmative action?
I'm not sure what you mean by "achieve equality", but it should be noted that black men, up until the mid-60s, stood the risk of gettting lynched or killed for having the temerity to vote or look the wrong way at a white woman.
Ukrainians was victim of the greatest genocide in human history and aren't considered whites by some "nordicists" and was prohibited of speaking his own language in his own country. Americans of Ukrainian ancestry aren't poorer like Blacks or "Mestizos"
Also there are a 'country' with mostly black population and very high income. Bermuda(British territory), exactly because they are very capitalist so if Blacks stop with victimism and start to become more capitalist, they will prosper.
What USA consider "Latino" is just silly. For example, queen Maxima of Netherlands(all of his children is blonds) will be considered "latina/hispanic" if she goes to USA using Argentine papers, but she will be considered white if she goes to USA using Dutch papers. No other country in world consider "latino" as a race including Mexico. In fact the majority of Mexicans self identify as mixed race.
Affirmative action was necessary (to the extent that it was even implemented) because one group of people was enslaved until 1863. Then, for another ONE HUNDRED YEARS, the people who were freed from slavery had, essentially, no rights at all, especially in the former Confederacy. Only just over 50 years ago did African-Americans even get legal equal status in this country. For the first 200 years this country existed, they were either property, or second-class citizens (and the second-class definition is being very charitable until the Civil Rights Act was passed). Bottom line: African-American families had NO WAY to acquire generational wealth until VERY recently in the history of this country, as the chart in the post above indicates. So are we really arguing that 50 years of Affirmative action is equal to 200+ years of slavery and systematic oppression?? One cannot possibly understand the United States and it's political divides without understanding how deeply central to them the issue of slavery, Jim Crow, racism, and the white backlash to the Civil Rights movement is. It's the original sin, and it's rot is still sitting at the root of the tree.
A lot of groups in USA din't needed affirmative action to archive equality for example Slavs oppressed by Bolshevik communism, a lot of Slavs moved to USA without any money, without being able to speak English and in less than one generation archived equality.
Also, how you will "determine" what is a black guy? Obama is half black. A person needs to be 1/4 or 1/2 to have affirmative action? If a tall, blonde, blue eyed guy discover to be 1/64 black he can use affirmative action?
I'm not sure what you mean by "achieve equality", but it should be noted that black men, up until the mid-60s, stood the risk of gettting lynched or killed for having the temerity to vote or look the wrong way at a white woman.
Ukrainians was victim of the greatest genocide in human history and aren't considered whites by some "nordicists" and was prohibited of speaking his own language in his own country. Americans of Ukrainian ancestry aren't poorer like Blacks or "Mestizos"
Also there are a 'country' with mostly black population and very high income. Bermuda(British territory), exactly because they are very capitalist so if Blacks stop with victimism and start to become more capitalist, they will prosper.
I'm sure not one African-American has ever thought of or heard that. We've now solved everything.
What USA consider "Latino" is just silly. For example, queen Maxima of Netherlands(all of his children is blonds) will be considered "latina/hispanic" if she goes to USA using Argentine papers, but she will be considered white if she goes to USA using Dutch papers. No other country in world consider "latino" as a race including Mexico. In fact the majority of Mexicans self identify as mixed race.
Affirmative action was necessary (to the extent that it was even implemented) because one group of people was enslaved until 1863. Then, for another ONE HUNDRED YEARS, the people who were freed from slavery had, essentially, no rights at all, especially in the former Confederacy. Only just over 50 years ago did African-Americans even get legal equal status in this country. For the first 200 years this country existed, they were either property, or second-class citizens (and the second-class definition is being very charitable until the Civil Rights Act was passed). Bottom line: African-American families had NO WAY to acquire generational wealth until VERY recently in the history of this country, as the chart in the post above indicates. So are we really arguing that 50 years of Affirmative action is equal to 200+ years of slavery and systematic oppression?? One cannot possibly understand the United States and it's political divides without understanding how deeply central to them the issue of slavery, Jim Crow, racism, and the white backlash to the Civil Rights movement is. It's the original sin, and it's rot is still sitting at the root of the tree.
A lot of groups in USA din't needed affirmative action to archive equality for example Slavs oppressed by Bolshevik communism, a lot of Slavs moved to USA without any money, without being able to speak English and in less than one generation archived equality.
Also, how you will "determine" what is a black guy? Obama is half black. A person needs to be 1/4 or 1/2 to have affirmative action? If a tall, blonde, blue eyed guy discover to be 1/64 black he can use affirmative action?
I'm not sure what you mean by "achieve equality", but it should be noted that black men, up until the mid-60s, stood the risk of gettting lynched or killed for having the temerity to vote or look the wrong way at a white woman. Also, everyone should familiarize themselves with the Tulsa Race Riot, to find out what happened when African-Americans "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps":
Of course that was decades ago. The Middle-Easterners who came here to the US also had a rough time but they don't seem to need affirmative action. To say the problem has nothing to do with culture is naive.
What USA consider "Latino" is just silly. For example, queen Maxima of Netherlands(all of his children is blonds) will be considered "latina/hispanic" if she goes to USA using Argentine papers, but she will be considered white if she goes to USA using Dutch papers. No other country in world consider "latino" as a race including Mexico. In fact the majority of Mexicans self identify as mixed race.
Affirmative action was necessary (to the extent that it was even implemented) because one group of people was enslaved until 1863. Then, for another ONE HUNDRED YEARS, the people who were freed from slavery had, essentially, no rights at all, especially in the former Confederacy. Only just over 50 years ago did African-Americans even get legal equal status in this country. For the first 200 years this country existed, they were either property, or second-class citizens (and the second-class definition is being very charitable until the Civil Rights Act was passed). Bottom line: African-American families had NO WAY to acquire generational wealth until VERY recently in the history of this country, as the chart in the post above indicates. So are we really arguing that 50 years of Affirmative action is equal to 200+ years of slavery and systematic oppression?? One cannot possibly understand the United States and it's political divides without understanding how deeply central to them the issue of slavery, Jim Crow, racism, and the white backlash to the Civil Rights movement is. It's the original sin, and it's rot is still sitting at the root of the tree.
A lot of groups in USA din't needed affirmative action to archive equality for example Slavs oppressed by Bolshevik communism, a lot of Slavs moved to USA without any money, without being able to speak English and in less than one generation archived equality.
Also, how you will "determine" what is a black guy? Obama is half black. A person needs to be 1/4 or 1/2 to have affirmative action? If a tall, blonde, blue eyed guy discover to be 1/64 black he can use affirmative action?
I'm not sure what you mean by "achieve equality", but it should be noted that black men, up until the mid-60s, stood the risk of gettting lynched or killed for having the temerity to vote or look the wrong way at a white woman.
Ukrainians was victim of the greatest genocide in human history and aren't considered whites by some "nordicists" and was prohibited of speaking his own language in his own country. Americans of Ukrainian ancestry aren't poorer like Blacks or "Mestizos"
Also there are a 'country' with mostly black population and very high income. Bermuda(British territory), exactly because they are very capitalist so if Blacks stop with victimism and start to become more capitalist, they will prosper.
I'm sure not one African-American has ever thought of or heard that. We've now solved everything.
Again. If you wanna affirmative action, why not simple affirmative action to poor people? A White south African who comes with nothing have no rights for "racial affirmative action" but a Bermuda citizen with very high income who is black have.
Also note that affirmative action to "hispanics" are broken too. "Castizo"(!/4 native american 3/4 european) or "Mestizo"(1/2 native and 1/2 white) who was born in north america is not considered hispanic but a Afro Caribbean and a German/Italian/Swiss/etc descendant born in Patagonia can have affirmative actions destined to "hispanics". I don't know about guys like Alberto Fujimori but i think that a Japanese descendant born in south america can use affirmative action too.
Even affirmative action to poor people have a problem because you can be poor in one city and middle class in other but at least is not that broken.
The only way that they could be fair is if they were rooted in innate differences
So are NBA demographics unfair? Do you think the number of Filipino nurses is a result of unfair practices? Do you honestly think that racial animus is the cause of all demographic disparities, rather than happenstance and cultural preferences?
Bottom line: African-American families had NO WAY to acquire generational wealth until VERY recently in the history of this country, as the chart in the post above indicates.
Many of us who come from immigrant families had no generational wealth either. Race is a very crude indicator if this is what you intend to measure.
Those in charge of public sector hiring and admittance in to public universities should use individualized indicia. Everyone deserves to be equal under the law, and that includes poor non-blacks from families of limited means.
So are NBA demographics unfair? Do you think the number of Filipino nurses is a result of unfair practices?
That was the reason for the "economically significant" qualifier in the antecedent you didn't quote. Again, I'm not concerned about fine-grained disparities that could be explained away by cultural preferences. I'm concerned about the huge differences in wealth, education, incarceration, health, etc., where one racial group is unambiguously disadvantaged compared to another.
Do you honestly think that racial animus is the cause of all demographic disparities, rather than happenstance and cultural preferences?
No. I didn't say that. I don't know why you keep thinking I think that.
What I am saying, to be more concrete, is:
1) It's unfair that the average white person in America has much, much more money than the average black person in America. 2) Something should be done about that.
I expected to get pushback on (2), especially when it comes to implementation details. I'm genuinely surprised that some people are, as far as I can tell, unwilling to stipulate (1).
No. I didn't say that. I don't know why you keep thinking I think that.
What I am saying, to be more concrete, is:
1) It's unfair that the average white person in America has much, much more money than the average black person in America. 2) Something should be done about that.
I expected to get pushback on (2), especially when it comes to implementation details. I'm genuinely surprised that some people are, as far as I can tell, unwilling to stipulate (1).
maybe they don't know an average black person or their monetary status. They are making assumptions based on the people they do know who happen to not be black.
"This is no accident. Besides facing discrimination in employment and wage-setting, for generations even those African-American families that did manage to earn decent incomes were barred from accessing the most important financial market for typical families: the housing market. Housing policies that prevented blacks from acquiring land, created redlining and restrictive covenants, and encouraged lending discrimination reinforced the racial wealth gap for decades. Richard Rothstein’s forthcoming book The Color of Law documents exactly how such policies at all levels of government robbed black families and communities of wealth."
How appropriate. Current President Donald Trump and his father, Fred, were sued in 1973 for systematically discriminating against black people in housing rentals. The Trumps eventually settled on terms that were regarded as a victory for the government.
No. I didn't say that. I don't know why you keep thinking I think that.
What I am saying, to be more concrete, is:
1) It's unfair that the average white person in America has much, much more money than the average black person in America. 2) Something should be done about that.
I expected to get pushback on (2), especially when it comes to implementation details. I'm genuinely surprised that some people are, as far as I can tell, unwilling to stipulate (1).
maybe they don't know an average black person or their monetary status. They are making assumptions based on the people they do know who happen to not be black.
"This is no accident. Besides facing discrimination in employment and wage-setting, for generations even those African-American families that did manage to earn decent incomes were barred from accessing the most important financial market for typical families: the housing market. Housing policies that prevented blacks from acquiring land, created redlining and restrictive covenants, and encouraged lending discrimination reinforced the racial wealth gap for decades. Richard Rothstein’s forthcoming book The Color of Law documents exactly how such policies at all levels of government robbed black families and communities of wealth."
How appropriate. Current President Donald Trump and his father, Fred, were sued in 1973 for systematically discriminating against black people in housing rentals. The Trumps eventually settled on terms that were regarded as a victory for the government.
Some of the legacy wealth disparity is due to the amount of single parent black families (mostly females who have to deal with raising kids and having a job or jobs at the same time). Whether that's largely due to cultural differences or poverty is open to debate. I think it's probably a bit of both myself.
Affirmative action will simple generate "racial resentment" in university and on market so employers will probably avoid hire minorities thinking that they joined on university by affirmative action... The solution is affirmative action to poor. You don't have a lot of problems involving fake racial declarations, don't generate racial resentment and help the poor.
In my country, affirmative action caused a lot of problems here. For example, some universities used "self-declaration" and a blonde guy joined university using affirmative action( here is the source. In Portuguese but you can understand with google translator - http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/educacao/2017/09/1921245-brancos-usam-cota-para-negros-e-entram-no-curso-de-medicina-da-ufmg.shtml ) and if the university tries to determine "who is black", there are a lot of problems. Someone can be considered "white" in Rio de Janeiro or Bahia and in Blumenau(Santa Catarina) can be considered mixed race or even black. In USA i think that there are a lot of problems(maybe wrong). For example, Obama is half white. A 1/4 black is black? And a 1/8? 1/16? How much black a person needs to be to be eligible to affirmative action?
With affirmative action based on economics is much easier to determine who is eligible to affirmative action.
The Democrats have released their memo! You can read it here. I thought the GOP's vote against its release would mean we would never see it, but apparently it was possible to release it, provided that it was partially redacted.
There are a lot of little details in the memo, but some major claims are that the Steele dossier was not the basis for the investigation, that the DoJ was transparent about the origins of the dossier, that FISA was never abused to spy on the Trump campaign for political gain, and that Strzok and Lisa Page had no role in the FISA warrants. The overarching argument, of course, is that the GOP memo was released to discredit the FBI for partisan purposes.
As for the DoJ being transparent about the origins of the dossier: while the DNC was not named as the source of funding for the Steele dossier due to the long-running practice of avoiding identifying people by name in these cases, they still made it clear that the purpose of the dossier was opposition research to discredit the Trump campaign. They did not hide the dossier's political purpose.
Affirmative action didn't cause racial resentment. The racial resentment started the moment the slaves were freed, and it happened again the moment African-Americans actually got equal rights. The argument here seems to be "sorry about those 200+ years, but now we have a clean slate, and I don't want to hear about your problems anymore". As if actively treating a certain race of people as less than human for that amount of time doesn't ingrain that perception in every aspect of society, and it can just be waved away with a magic wand. One group of people in this country were treated as both property and less than full citizens for the VAST majority of it's history. It is horrendously naive to think that can ever really be rectified or fixed. Our modern police forces, the 2nd Amendment itself, and the Electoral College all have tangible connections to protecting the institution of slavery, and then in maintaining the supremacy of white Americans since they were freed.
The Democrats have released their memo! You can read it here. I thought the GOP's vote against its release would mean we would never see it, but apparently it was possible to release it, provided that it was partially redacted.
There are a lot of little details in the memo, but some major claims are that the Steele dossier was not the basis for the investigation, that the DoJ was transparent about the origins of the dossier, that FISA was never abused to spy on the Trump campaign for political gain, and that Strzok and Lisa Page had no role in the FISA warrants. The overarching argument, of course, is that the GOP memo was released to discredit the FBI for partisan purposes.
It turns out that EVERY ONE of the 4 FISA judges who signed off on this surveillance were appointed by Republican Presidents, some as far back as Reagan. Quite the long-term conspiracy against Trump us liberals have going here. Beyond that, the Dem memo is nothing we didn't already know weeks ago, at least those who cared to look.
The Democrats have released their memo! You can read it here. I thought the GOP's vote against its release would mean we would never see it, but apparently it was possible to release it, provided that it was partially redacted.
There are a lot of little details in the memo, but some major claims are that the Steele dossier was not the basis for the investigation, that the DoJ was transparent about the origins of the dossier, that FISA was never abused to spy on the Trump campaign for political gain, and that Strzok and Lisa Page had no role in the FISA warrants. The overarching argument, of course, is that the GOP memo was released to discredit the FBI for partisan purposes.
It turns out that EVERY ONE of the 4 FISA judges who signed off on this surveillance were appointed by Republican Presidents, some as far back as Reagan. Quite the long-term conspiracy against Trump us liberals have going here.
To be fair, the Republicans didn't like Trump much either.
The memo mentions facts that corroborated the Steele dossier, but those facts were apparently redacted. Trump demanded the redactions before the memo could be released, so I'm wondering which parts of the dossier were redacted for which reasons.
for what it's worth, there is no affirmative action in Trump's white house and ...
* More than 90 percent of his picks for federal courts were white. 70 percent were male. * Only one Cabinet member, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, is black. * Trump administration shows that with over 1,000 mid-level political jobs filled by mid-year the appointees look much like the top leadership: mostly white and male. * Office of Personnel Management numbers analyzed by Reuters show that 88 percent of such appointees were non-Hispanic white and 62 percent were men.
Comments
Is your argument that any racial disparity must be either due to innate differences or racial animus?
Estonia 100!
I so much appreciate that Finland has such good neighbours. I think very positively about the Scandi-nations, and Estonia - for example: if Finland cannot make a sports event, I will root Nordics and Estonia next.
I think it super awesome that Scandi Free Movement was there decades before Schengen. And hope Estonia can forgive what was a justified fear of falling on the painful side of the iron curtain. I wish we could have shown better solidarity.
Not sure what Finland State gave as a gift to Estonia yet - very annoyed about exceedingly Fennocentric google results!
For any Estonians here - thanks for being our Closest Neighbour with SE! And was our gift any good?
PS. I sort of think that if EU - members all has such close sympathy for near regions, maybe it could be more constructive and less bickering.
Furthermore, I'm making a case for not focusing so much on how this unfairness emerged, because that often prompts white Americans to say, "I don't own slaves/feel racial animus/whatever, so why should I have to do anything about racial inequality?"
For example, Argentineans in USA.
- Poverty status. The share of Argentineans who live in poverty, 11%, is lower than the rate for the general U.S. population (16%) and the rate for Hispanics overall (26%).
- Income. The median annual personal earnings for Argentineans ages 16 and older were $30,000 in the year prior to the survey—greater than the median earnings for all U.S. Hispanics ($20,000) and similar to the median earnings for the U.S. population ($29,000).
- Educational attainment. Argentineans have higher levels of education than the Hispanic population overall and the U.S. population overall. Four-in-ten (40%) Argentineans ages 25 and older—compared with 13% of all U.S. Hispanics and 29% among the U.S. population—have obtained at least a bachelor’s degree.
source http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/06/19/hispanics-of-argentinean-origin-in-the-united-states-2011/
You can argue that since Argentinians tends to be whites or castizos(3/4 white and around 1/4 native american) they suffer less racism(is truth) but for USA government doesn't matter if you are a German descendant from Patagonia or a Afro-Caribbean, both are considered "hispanic" in USA but i think that Argentinians do better in USA due cultural factors not racism.
Is it really necessary to explain why this situation is undesirable?
EDIT: Well looks like the context was removed.
Also, how you will "determine" what is a black guy? Obama is half black. A person needs to be 1/4 or 1/2 to have affirmative action? If a tall, blonde, blue eyed guy discover to be 1/64 black he can use affirmative action?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Also there are a 'country' with mostly black population and very high income. Bermuda(British territory), exactly because they are very capitalist so if Blacks stop with victimism and start to become more capitalist, they will prosper.
Also note that affirmative action to "hispanics" are broken too. "Castizo"(!/4 native american 3/4 european) or "Mestizo"(1/2 native and 1/2 white) who was born in north america is not considered hispanic but a Afro Caribbean and a German/Italian/Swiss/etc descendant born in Patagonia can have affirmative actions destined to "hispanics". I don't know about guys like Alberto Fujimori but i think that a Japanese descendant born in south america can use affirmative action too.
Even affirmative action to poor people have a problem because you can be poor in one city and middle class in other but at least is not that broken.
Do you honestly think that racial animus is the cause of all demographic disparities, rather than happenstance and cultural preferences?
Those in charge of public sector hiring and admittance in to public universities should use individualized indicia. Everyone deserves to be equal under the law, and that includes poor non-blacks from families of limited means.
What I am saying, to be more concrete, is:
1) It's unfair that the average white person in America has much, much more money than the average black person in America.
2) Something should be done about that.
I expected to get pushback on (2), especially when it comes to implementation details. I'm genuinely surprised that some people are, as far as I can tell, unwilling to stipulate (1).
"This is no accident. Besides facing discrimination in employment and wage-setting, for generations even those African-American families that did manage to earn decent incomes were barred from accessing the most important financial market for typical families: the housing market. Housing policies that prevented blacks from acquiring land, created redlining and restrictive covenants, and encouraged lending discrimination reinforced the racial wealth gap for decades. Richard Rothstein’s forthcoming book The Color of Law documents exactly how such policies at all levels of government robbed black families and communities of wealth."
https://www.epi.org/blog/the-racial-wealth-gap-how-african-americans-have-been-shortchanged-out-of-the-materials-to-build-wealth/
How appropriate. Current President Donald Trump and his father, Fred, were sued in 1973 for systematically discriminating against black people in housing rentals. The Trumps eventually settled on terms that were regarded as a victory for the government.
In my country, affirmative action caused a lot of problems here. For example, some universities used "self-declaration" and a blonde guy joined university using affirmative action( here is the source. In Portuguese but you can understand with google translator - http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/educacao/2017/09/1921245-brancos-usam-cota-para-negros-e-entram-no-curso-de-medicina-da-ufmg.shtml ) and if the university tries to determine "who is black", there are a lot of problems. Someone can be considered "white" in Rio de Janeiro or Bahia and in Blumenau(Santa Catarina) can be considered mixed race or even black. In USA i think that there are a lot of problems(maybe wrong). For example, Obama is half white. A 1/4 black is black? And a 1/8? 1/16? How much black a person needs to be to be eligible to affirmative action?
With affirmative action based on economics is much easier to determine who is eligible to affirmative action.
There are a lot of little details in the memo, but some major claims are that the Steele dossier was not the basis for the investigation, that the DoJ was transparent about the origins of the dossier, that FISA was never abused to spy on the Trump campaign for political gain, and that Strzok and Lisa Page had no role in the FISA warrants. The overarching argument, of course, is that the GOP memo was released to discredit the FBI for partisan purposes.
As for the DoJ being transparent about the origins of the dossier: while the DNC was not named as the source of funding for the Steele dossier due to the long-running practice of avoiding identifying people by name in these cases, they still made it clear that the purpose of the dossier was opposition research to discredit the Trump campaign. They did not hide the dossier's political purpose.
* More than 90 percent of his picks for federal courts were white. 70 percent were male.
* Only one Cabinet member, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, is black.
* Trump administration shows that with over 1,000 mid-level political jobs filled by mid-year the appointees look much like the top leadership: mostly white and male.
* Office of Personnel Management numbers analyzed by Reuters show that 88 percent of such appointees were non-Hispanic white and 62 percent were men.
http://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-diversity-white-house-trump-huckabee-sanders-omarosa-748673