About time
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/21/10466979-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions-supreme-court-to-hear-case
QuoteAffirmative action in college admissions? Supreme Court to hear case
By NBC News, msnbc.com staff and news services
Updated at 1:04 p.m. ET: WASHINGTON -- In a potentially momentous case, the Supreme Court will once again confront the issue of race in university admissions in an appeal brought by a white student denied a spot at the flagship campus of the University of Texas.
The court said Tuesday it will return to the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision endorsing the use of race as a factor in freshmen admissions. This time around, a more conservative court is being asked to jettison that ruling and outlaw affirmative action in the university setting.
A broad ruling in favor of the student, Abigail Fisher, could threaten affirmative action programs at many of the nation's public and private universities, said Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick.
The high court agreed to hear an appeal by Fisher, who was a high school senior when she applied but was rejected for admission in 2008 to the University of Texas at Austin.
Fisher filed a lawsuit with another woman who was also denied admission. They contended the university's race-conscious policy violated their civil and constitutional rights. By then, the two had enrolled elsewhere.
Live Poll
Should colleges be allowed to consider race in deciding whether to admit a student?
Yes
No
Not sure
View Results
The other woman has since dropped out of the case and the state has said that Fisher is a senior at Louisiana State University whose impending graduation should bring an end to the lawsuit. But the Supreme Court appeared not to buy that argument Tuesday.
Most entering freshmen at Texas are admitted because they are among the top 10 percent in their high school class. The Texas policy applies to the remaining spots and allows for the consideration of race along with other factors.
Texas had dropped affirmative action policies after a 1996 appeals court ruling. But following the high court ruling in 2003, the university resumed considering race starting with its 2005 entering class.
Texas said its updated policy does not use quotas, which the high court has previously rejected. Instead, it said it takes a Supreme Court-endorsed holistic approach to enrollment, with an eye toward increasing the diversity of the student body.
Before adding race back into the mix, Texas' student body was 21 percent African-American and Hispanic, according to court papers.
By 2007, the year before Fisher filed her lawsuit, African-Americans and Hispanics accounted for more than a quarter of the entering freshman class.
Fisher contends the university's admissions policies discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of her constitutional rights and the federal civil rights laws. She says many minority students who were admitted had lower grades and test scores than she did.
Her attorney urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its last ruling on the issue in 2003, when it reaffirmed that a diverse student population can justify use of race as one factor to help minorities gain admission to public universities and colleges.
But the makeup of the high court has changed since then. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who approved of the concept, has been replaced by the generally more conservative Samuel Alito.
Also, Justice Elena Kagan has taken herself off this case, because she worked on the issue while still at the Justice Department as a solicitor general. That takes a potential vote in favor of affirmative action off the court.
In its 2003 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a University of Michigan Law School's use of race to favor minority applicants in the admissions process. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the government has a compelling interest in diversity in public universities. That case was Grutter v. Bollinger.
At issue in both cases is whether and to what extent the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" permits race to be used as a factor in efforts to achieve greater diversity in higher education. For more than three decades, the Supreme Court has said that although race may be one of numerous factors taken into account, it cannot be the predominant consideration in an admissions process.
Advertise | AdChoices
Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar and dean of the University of California Irvine's law school, has called the Fisher case "potentially momentous." He says there are almost surely four votes -- John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Alito -- to overrule Grutter. That means the outcome could rest with Justice Anthony Kennedy's vote.
Fitzpatrick said two other states, California and Florida, use "top 10" plans similar to Texas' plan, although California law explicitly prohibits the consideration of race.
"But the vast majority of schools that are selective are using affirmative action, though they don't like to advertise it for fear of being sued," he said.
A three-judge federal appeals panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit upheld the Texas program at issue in a January 2011 decision, saying it did not violate the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause.
The Supreme Court could hear the case in October or the first week of November, in the final days of the presidential campaign.
Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative law group that filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case, applauded Tuesday's announcement as "good news for everyone who believes in equal rights and equal opportunities."
"Using race in admissions decisions, to achieve diversity, amounts to stereotyping people by their race," PLF attorney Joshua P. Thompson said in a statement. "In the real world, shared skin color does not automatically translate into shared backgrounds or beliefs. Racial diversity in a student body does not guarantee a diversity of experience and perspectives. It is unrealistic and wrong to try to pigeon-hole people by their race."
The case is Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 11-345.
The Associated Press, Reuters and NBC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pete Williams contributed to this report.
Hey Guller, $50 says this decision doesn't go 5-4 to ban affirmative action. :whistle:
Good, 'bout time those colored folk got treated like everyone else.
Well, Mary will certainly vote to keep affirmative action alive. That's how she rolls, you know. Susaye is probably for it as well, and Scherrie against. So it will come down to Diana Ross to either tip the balance or deadlock them in a tie. Unless, of course all of the other former members of the group get a vote too. Then it's all up in the air.
Since Kagan has reportedly recused herself over this question, what would happen if the decision is split 4-4?
A 4-4 split they'd issue a "per curiam" decision which are typically quite short, a dissenting opinion can be attached to this. It does not carry precedential weight so really whatever the prior court ruled on the issue would stand. It's unlikely it will go 4-4 though, Kennedy isn't as hard line against AA as the Roberts/Thomas/Scalia/Alito contingent, but I believe he's also never voted in favor of AA in any SCOTUS ruling he's been involved in that touched on the issue, so it looks likely it'll be 5-3.
Anyway, SCOTUS horse betting doesn't interest me so much.
I've never liked Affirmative Action, I guess I've always struggled with the concept of "collective rights" over individual rights. On some levels I totally recognize that groups that have suffered massive and historic racism and discrimination can't have "equality of opportunity" without some sort of leg up. They were essentially held back so much by both de jure and de facto discrimination that it's really set them back for many generations and I understand a desire to address that. But I have a hard time squaring that with saying a more qualified white teenager doesn't get into a school over a black teenager. You're punishing tomorrow's generation for the sins of my parents generation.
That being said, it's always been difficult for me to just say we shouldn't have affirmative action at all. I think having it at the college level makes the liberals who run universities feel good about themselves, and I do think it is a social good in that it creates more benefit than harm (the harm being non-minority kids of today's generation who weren't part of that institutional discrimination but who get disadvantaged by the policy.) However, what has always worried me is affirmative action is like coming up to a dude who had his leg chopped off by a hacksaw with infection consuming almost his entire body and putting a band-aid on his forehead.
America has historically discriminated against minorities and this creates a situation in which even today's minorities are disadvantaged. However, the most disadvantaged minorities need help in K-12 far more than they need sweetheart college admissions criteria. If you send these kids to gang and crime infested schools with the worst teachers and the most dangerous facilities sure the few high achievers that actually want to go to college will benefit from affirmative action but you've basically done nothing for the 90% that are so fucked up by the K-12 system in bad minority neighborhoods in this country.
So to me the biggest issue is, if we want to try and correct historic discrimination, sweetheart college admissions are well and good but mostly just window dressing. A few exceptional minorities will take advantage and use it to boost themselves out of squalor, then the middle and upper class minorities who grew up in suburbs and had great childhoods who don't need those advantages will get to use them to get one over on the whites they grew up with. The actual minorities that need help the most basically get screwed, by far the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are middle and upper class minorities, kids who have all the same advantages growing up as white kids who additionally get a better chance of college admission at their chosen school.
Unfortunately, even the small number of inner city kids who through some miracle make it to college and get in because of affirmative action flunk out within the first two years. Unfortunately the help they needed came far too late, and when it arrived it wasn't enough to give them stable lives, the study habits and self discipline they need to stay in college. If you really want to correct historic discrimination you need to essentially equalize the quality of schools in both the wealthiest and poorest school districts.
Note that I said "equalize the quality" that probably means spending far more money on the poorest school districts, not spending the same amount of money. That's part of the reason this approach isn't followed, but another part of the reason is you can't just throw money at it, you have to do more. What? I don't know. But I know shitty inner city schools already receive massive amounts of funding (I think D.C.s are usually near the top in ranks of highest spending per student) and are still god awful.
Most States have some equalization regime built in. I know some States have a rule where the average teacher pay in the county with the highest paid teachers can't be more than 10% higher than the average teacher pay in the county with the lowest paid teachers (and the State government will allocate dollars to county school boards to equalize such things) but that varies from State to State obviously and I don't know how much equalization goes on for things like facilities repair/construction/maintenance.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 21, 2012, 08:47:54 PM
Good, 'bout time those colored folk got treated like everyone else.
:D
This is bad news for us Hispanics.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 21, 2012, 10:35:16 PM
This is bad news for us Hispanics.
You're colored folk too. So dont feel left out. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 21, 2012, 08:38:22 PM
About time
Please; you're the whitest-looking Puerto Rican I've ever seen.
I look very Spanish. Goth-Alanian, really. :shifty:
Race based affirmative action is just ridiculous and needs stamping out.
Why should a rich, privileged black kid get preferential treatment over a poor white kid from a horrible area with a crappy family situation?
Affirmative action based upon socio-economic concerns needs greatly increasing of course.
Meh. I've gotten more anti-AA lately. I believe that we've seen that it's just too close to the slippery slope. AA's sole purpose is restorative, but what's the ending strategy? At what point would we be able to objectively look and say "affirmative action has served it's purpose; it's time to phase it out?" Conversely, what happens if we set an ending standard that can't be attained? In either case, the risk of simply substituting one privileged class for another in perpetuity seems unacceptable.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 21, 2012, 09:35:42 PM
I've never liked Affirmative Action,
Of course not. You're white.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 22, 2012, 01:23:56 AM
At what point would we be able to objectively look and say "affirmative action has served it's purpose; it's time to phase it out?"
When you can look in the mirror and say, you know, I really wish I was a Nigger/Spic/Miscellaneous. They have it soooo made.
Until you can answer that honestly, it hasn't really served its purpose.
I wish I was Hispanic. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 06:23:38 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 22, 2012, 01:23:56 AM
At what point would we be able to objectively look and say "affirmative action has served it's purpose; it's time to phase it out?"
When you can look in the mirror and say, you know, I really wish I was a Nigger/Spic/Miscellaneous. They have it soooo made.
Until you can answer that honestly, it hasn't really served its purpose.
You had to bring race into it, didnt you?
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2012, 06:51:29 AM
You had to bring race into it, didnt you?
You know it, Shontae.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2012, 06:51:29 AM
You had to bring race into it, didnt you?
Seedy can't help it. He's Irish, and therefor not white, but still not accepted by the blacks or Hispanics. Only the Portuguese acknowledge kinship with the Irish.
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2012, 07:12:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2012, 06:51:29 AM
You had to bring race into it, didnt you?
Seedy can't help it. He's Irish, and therefor not white, but still not accepted by the blacks or Hispanics. Only the Portuguese acknowledge kinship with the Irish.
I am the Great Incandescent Hope.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 06:39:29 AM
Sure you do.
SRSLY.
1. Latina chicks are hot. Also wise. :)
2. I like rice and beans.
3. We'll eventually have a Latino majority anyway, so if you can't beat em, might as well join em.
4. Affirmative action. :cool:
Oh also, I'm drinking cafe cubano RIGHT NOW.
Well, aren't you diversified.
Quote from: Caliga on February 22, 2012, 07:34:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 06:39:29 AM
Sure you do.
SRSLY.
1. Latina chicks are hot. Also wise. :)
2. I like rice and beans.
3. We'll eventually have a Latino majority anyway, so if you can't beat em, might as well join em.
4. Affirmative action. :cool:
El Sharape and Taco Bell dont count.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 06:23:38 AM
When you can look in the mirror and say, you know, I really wish I was a Nigger/Spic/Miscellaneous. They have it soooo made.
Until you can answer that honestly, it hasn't really served its purpose.
There we go, then. I dunno about Baltimore, but I've done that exact thing before. Not having to take accountability for anything (at least locally) could be worth its weight in gold.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 22, 2012, 08:18:00 AM
There we go, then. I dunno about Baltimore, but I've done that exact thing before. Not having to take accountability for anything (at least locally) could be worth its weight in gold.
:lol:
It doesn't really count when it is one of those white kids bemoaning a specific policy without thinking it all through. What's next? Where's White Pride at y'all?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 21, 2012, 09:35:42 PM
Note that I said "equalize the quality" that probably means spending far more money on the poorest school districts, not spending the same amount of money. That's part of the reason this approach isn't followed, but another part of the reason is you can't just throw money at it, you have to do more. What? I don't know. But I know shitty inner city schools already receive massive amounts of funding (I think D.C.s are usually near the top in ranks of highest spending per student) and are still god awful.
I agree with you, but what bothers me is that I don't think anyone believes that if we got rid of AA we'd see more of a push to help out minority students. It's either a crappy bandage or nothing.
I also find the histrionics over affirmative action by some white people to be a bit much. My Dad still rants that some black guy stole his spot in law school, because, you know, affirmative action exists. Yes, it's a misguided policy whose benefits are overrated. But it's not this huge injustice.
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
It doesn't really count when it is one of those white kids bemoaning a specific policy without thinking it all through. What's next? Where's White Pride at y'all?
It's always the same with Whitey; decades of drinking the GOP Kool-Aid, they're convinced that 89% of the federal budget goes to 12,000 single black women, Harvard is required to admit 350 black people for 412 freshman spots, and food stamps are delivered personally, all of them individually addressed, gilded and embossed, to Ms. Shanique Jones-Bey of Newark, NJ.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 09:17:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
It doesn't really count when it is one of those white kids bemoaning a specific policy without thinking it all through. What's next? Where's White Pride at y'all?
It's always the same with Whitey; decades of drinking the GOP Kool-Aid, they're convinced that 89% of the federal budget goes to 12,000 single black women, Harvard is required to admit 350 black people for 412 freshman spots, and food stamps are delivered personally, all of them individually addressed, gilded and embossed, to Ms. Shanique Jones-Bey of Newark, NJ.
Well, as a typical Republican I abhor racism. Of course, as a typical Democrat you are in favor of racism. Little has changed on that over the last 150 years.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Well, as a typical Republican I abhor racism.
Unless, of course, the President is black.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lyuxts21K51qz5tgbo1_r1_500.png&hash=4509adf959bc1bddbdf79befe74d48984c7660ee)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Well, as a typical Republican I abhor racism.
Unless, of course, the President is black.
Only Democrats focus in on race, I couldn't care less. I abhor his corruption, incompetence, ideology, and arrogance.
Like most Democrats you have to invent motives based on race since you're incapable of thinking outside those terms. You are the very definition of racism.
I have to think of a great Republican, who was murdered by a Democrat, who talked about his dream of people being judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
Unfortunately, you are still incapable of doing so.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Well, as a typical Republican I abhor racism. Of course, as a typical Democrat you are in favor of racism. Little has changed on that over the last 150 years.
Sounds like you are trying to pretend racism doesn't exist. You can stick your head in the sand but that doesn't make problems magically disappear.
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2012, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Well, as a typical Republican I abhor racism. Of course, as a typical Democrat you are in favor of racism. Little has changed on that over the last 150 years.
Sounds like you are trying to pretend racism doesn't exist. You can stick your head in the sand but that doesn't make problems magically disappear.
Of course it exists, just ask Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice, constantly attacked in the most vulgar of racist terms. Alas, it is mostly amongst those on the left, who insist we have to be racist in order to combat racism. And all the efforts they devise to combat racism are actually institutionalizing and reinforcing racism. Just like the institutions Democrats supported in the past.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:11:33 AM
I have to think of a great Republican, who was murdered by a Democrat, who talked about his dream of people being judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
You're absolutely right; and the worse part is, Charles Guiteau wanted to be a federal employee. Damn public unions!
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:14:48 AM
Of course it exists, just ask Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice, constantly attacked in the most vulgar of racist terms.
Nobody gives Condi Rice shit for being black.
They give her shit for being a dyke.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:11:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Well, as a typical Republican I abhor racism.
Unless, of course, the President is black.
Only Democrats focus in on race, I couldn't care less. I abhor his corruption, incompetence, ideology, and arrogance.
Like most Democrats you have to invent motives based on race since you're incapable of thinking outside those terms. You are the very definition of racism.
I have to think of a great Republican, who was murdered by a Democrat, who talked about his dream of people being judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
Unfortunately, you are still incapable of doing so.
The GOP is falling apart and defunct. Needs a total facelift and realignment. They will not have the White House in the next term. I bet you they will not have it anytime soon. Dems have Hillary in the wings.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:14:48 AM
Of course it exists, just ask Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice, constantly attacked in the most vulgar of racist terms. Alas, it is mostly amongst those on the left, who insist we have to be racist in order to combat racism. And all the efforts they devise to combat racism are actually institutionalizing and reinforcing racism. Just like the institutions Democrats supported in the past.
Yeah that doesn't actually make sense unless you are headed in the direction of Paul that the Civil Rights Act of 64 helped to increase racial tensions.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2012, 09:11:38 AM
I agree with you, but what bothers me is that I don't think anyone believes that if we got rid of AA we'd see more of a push to help out minority students. It's either a crappy bandage or nothing.
AA is a token gesture. It allows people to be admitted and then fail so institutions can avoid making real reforms that allow people to succeed even when coming from disadvantaged backgrounds.
QuoteI also find the histrionics over affirmative action by some white people to be a bit much. My Dad still rants that some black guy stole his spot in law school, because, you know, affirmative action exists. Yes, it's a misguided policy whose benefits are overrated. But it's not this huge injustice.
I also find the histrionics over AA, like this, to be a bit much. It is unjust, but that really only matters to one if justice matters to one. Ending it will also result in injustices, and so the question one has to solve is which injustice one can best live with. I guess I oppose AA because I can live with hypothetical group injustice more than actual individual injustice. I don't feel very strongly about it, though.
There are 5 blacks and 6 Hispanics in my medical school class of 155. I think Texas (or maybe just West Texas) still needs affirmative action.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:11:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Well, as a typical Republican I abhor racism.
Unless, of course, the President is black.
Only Democrats focus in on race, I couldn't care less. I abhor his corruption, incompetence, ideology, and arrogance.
Like most Democrats you have to invent motives based on race since you're incapable of thinking outside those terms. You are the very definition of racism.
I have to think of a great Republican, who was murdered by a Democrat, who talked about his dream of people being judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
Unfortunately, you are still incapable of doing so.
But you like republicans corruption, incompetence & arrogance? ( I assume, you actually like crazy religious freaks ideology)
Quote from: Ideologue on February 22, 2012, 12:06:32 AM
I look very Spanish. Goth-Alanian, really. :shifty:
Yeah? I look like a German Jew. I'm the guy the affirmative action rep glares at.
Until I smile, of course, at which point his CARES MELT AWAY
Funnily enough, here's an interesting snippet from a post-communist perspective: a class/social background AA at colleges here during the 1945-1989 era is universally considered to be one of the most opressive, unjust and totalitarian aspects of the commie social policy. That and sending independent farmers to gulags.
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
There are 5 blacks and 6 Hispanics in my medical school class of 155. I think Texas (or maybe just West Texas) still needs affirmative action.
Have you considered the possibility that motivation and ability are not evenly distributed?
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
There are 5 blacks and 6 Hispanics in my medical school class of 155. I think Texas (or maybe just West Texas) still needs affirmative action.
True. Someone needs to take in ethnically (but not otherwise) qualified candidates even if it causes them to more create crappy doctors who allow more patients to die, in order to make sure that quotas are met. Kinda shitty for the better-qualified candidates (especially those who will be tarred with the incompetence of the ethnically-only-qualified doctors) and the patients who needlessly die, but the alternative is to not meet quotas.
Too bad no one in Texas is clever enough to think of a way to increase the pool of qualified Hispanics and "blacks" so that quotas can be met without lowering standards.
If I were black or Hispanic, I wouldn't want to stop in Texas to use the restroom on my way through the state, let alone attend school.*
*Without a football scholarship, of course. Then it's OK.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
There are 5 blacks and 6 Hispanics in my medical school class of 155. I think Texas (or maybe just West Texas) still needs affirmative action.
Have you considered the possibility that motivation and ability are not evenly distributed?
Sure. Also being born into a upper middle class suburban neighborhood is not evenly distributed or being a child of a doctor (which a good chunk of the class always is) is not evenly distributed.
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
There are 5 blacks and 6 Hispanics in my medical school class of 155. I think Texas (or maybe just West Texas) still needs affirmative action.
True. Someone needs to take in ethnically (but not otherwise) qualified candidates even if it causes them to more create crappy doctors who allow more patients to die, in order to make sure that quotas are met. Kinda shitty for the better-qualified candidates (especially those who will be tarred with the incompetence of the ethnically-only-qualified doctors) and the patients who needlessly die, but the alternative is to not meet quotas.
Too bad no one in Texas is clever enough to think of a way to increase the pool of qualified Hispanics and "blacks" so that quotas can be met without lowering standards.
I don't see the connection between admitting more blacks and Hispanics and creating more shitty doctors. Beyond a basic cutoff, there isn't conclusive evidence that higher MCAT scores or higher GPAs upon admission correlate to how well or poorly you will perform as a physician 10 years later.
Also, minority doctors are much more likely to practice in areas that we considered medically underserved (aka black and Hispanic neighborhoods). Receiving competent medical treatment from a "ethnic-quota" doctor is better than having too few doctors to serve an area because whites don't like to work there.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Little has changed on that over the last 150 years.
Yes, very little.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F01%2FElectoralCollege1860.svg%2F500px-ElectoralCollege1860.svg.png&hash=ad72ce4613dfb43ec396dab2a411dea693ce0d73)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F24%2FElectoralCollege2008.svg%2F500px-ElectoralCollege2008.svg.png&hash=440ce66f6e432d8c72e1e0e41262ee15ec65d410)
Well, Texas has gotten more electoral votes. <_<
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 12:58:57 PM
Sure. Also being born into a upper middle class suburban neighborhood is not evenly distributed or being a child of a doctor (which a good chunk of the class always is) is not evenly distributed.
That's an argument for socioeconomic AA, not ethnic AA.
I hate that map. My part of Wyoming used to be in Nebraska :(
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
Don't tell that to Hansy; the GOP of 2012 is still the same as the GOP of 1864.
They have flipped to a degree but on some issues they haven't. The GOP of 1864 had some radical abolitionists in it but they were the fringe of the party. Lincoln was not himself abolitionist nor were the party mainstream, but they were happy to receive their votes. The Whigs and the GOP that succeeded them were very much about commercial interests and international trade, which is still a core part of being a Republican versus being a Democrat. Very little else has remained the same, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 01:39:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
Don't tell that to Hansy; the GOP of 2012 is still the same as the GOP of 1864.
I'll give Hansy some credit. He may have the intelligence of a brain damaged flea, and sanity of the old cat lady, but even he knows that you don't want to be associated with the GOP of 2012.
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 01:07:01 PM
I don't see the connection between admitting more blacks and Hispanics and creating more shitty doctors. Beyond a basic cutoff, there isn't conclusive evidence that higher MCAT scores or higher GPAs upon admission correlate to how well or poorly you will perform as a physician 10 years later.
But, if you need to create more doctors of type X, then you have to lower standards. A highly-qualified argument that standards don't necessarily predict (though it is certainly possible that they predict) isn't much of a counter.
QuoteAlso, minority doctors are much more likely to practice in areas that we considered medically underserved (aka black and Hispanic neighborhoods). Receiving competent medical treatment from a "ethnic-quota" doctor is better than having too few doctors to serve an area because whites don't like to work there.
This would be a convincing argument if (a) it were true that minority (but otherwise fully competitive) doctors are much more likely to stay in undeserved areas, and (b) under-served areas actually were mostly Hispanic and "black" neighborhoods, but neither of these assertions appears to be true. In fact, less qualified (i.e. further from Golden Boy" status, even if not inferior in knowledge or technique) doctors of whatever ethnicity seem to practice in areas we call under-served, and those under-served areas are more likely to be rural than urban.
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2012, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 01:07:01 PM
I don't see the connection between admitting more blacks and Hispanics and creating more shitty doctors. Beyond a basic cutoff, there isn't conclusive evidence that higher MCAT scores or higher GPAs upon admission correlate to how well or poorly you will perform as a physician 10 years later.
But, if you need to create more doctors of type X, then you have to lower standards. A highly-qualified argument that standards don't necessarily predict (though it is certainly possible that they predict) isn't much of a counter.
You're totally right. From now on medical school student bodies should primarily consist of whites and Asian upper middle class kids whose families can afford $5000 MCAT preparation courses to inflate their MCAT score and don't have to work during college so they can inflate their GPAs. This creates better doctors and doesn't simply select for better test takers.
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
You cherry-picked one election year, albeit the most recent. Looking at the maps for the previous several presidential elections, the "voting blocks" are a bit different, save for maybe New England and New York.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 01:39:53 PM
Don't tell that to Hansy; the GOP of 2012 is still the same as the GOP of 1864.
Sure. The Grand Ol' Party and the Gummy Ol' Party for the geezers with WMBs.
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2012, 04:53:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
You cherry-picked one election year, albeit the most recent. Looking at the maps for the previous several presidential elections, the "voting blocks" are a bit different, save for maybe New England and New York.
It's not really cherry picking when you chose the last Presidential election.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2012, 04:53:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
You cherry-picked one election year, albeit the most recent. Looking at the maps for the previous several presidential elections, the "voting blocks" are a bit different, save for maybe New England and New York.
It's not really cherry picking when you chose the last Presidential election.
And it's not like 2000 or 2004 looked all that much different.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2012, 04:53:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
You cherry-picked one election year, albeit the most recent. Looking at the maps for the previous several presidential elections, the "voting blocks" are a bit different, save for maybe New England and New York.
It's not really cherry picking when you chose the last Presidential election.
Or the dates implied by the guy you're refuting.
I took a look at Presidential election results. The one in 1964 is pretty interesting. Several states that hadn't gone Republican since reconstruction (and one state that never went Republican), went Republican. I wonder why. It's almost as if the Republican Presidential candidate did something so wildly popular in the deep South, that they went against age old tradition. I wonder what that something might have been...
Didn't the Dems win almost every state in '64?
Quote from: sbr on February 22, 2012, 07:53:44 PM
Didn't the Dems win almost every state in '64?
Raz doesn't know what he is talking about, of course.
Jimmy Carter swept every southern state but Virginia in '76. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing.
The Democrats dominated the Southern delegation to Congress until '94, and the majority of southern state legislatures until 2010.
What has changed that all the yankee republicans have moved south, turning the south into a republican stronghold, while turning the north Democrat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
If I were black or Hispanic, I wouldn't want to stop in Texas to use the restroom on my way through the state, let alone attend school.*
*Without a football scholarship, of course. Then it's OK.
Black, white, whatever--what would be the point of attending college in Texas if you don't play football?
Quote from: sbr on February 22, 2012, 07:53:44 PM
Didn't the Dems win almost every state in '64?
Yes. Goldwater took only Arizona (his home state), Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 22, 2012, 07:53:44 PM
Didn't the Dems win almost every state in '64?
Raz doesn't know what he is talking about, of course.
Jimmy Carter swept every southern state but Virginia in '76. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing.
The Democrats dominated the Southern delegation to Congress until '94, and the majority of southern state legislatures until 2010.
What has changed that all the yankee republicans have moved south, turning the south into a republican stronghold, while turning the north Democrat.
An alternate theory is that the Democratic machine in the South was very strong, and tended to be conservative to begin with. The local Democratic parties had been clashing with the national party since the 1940's. The people of the Southern states were supporting their local candidates who were segregationist while neglecting the national party that had become anti-segregationist. After a failed experiment as their own national party under Wallace, they followed the lead of people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and found a happy place in the GOP. Same people, same ideas, different party.
Quote from: dps on February 22, 2012, 10:52:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
If I were black or Hispanic, I wouldn't want to stop in Texas to use the restroom on my way through the state, let alone attend school.*
*Without a football scholarship, of course. Then it's OK.
Black, white, whatever--what would be the point of attending college in Texas if you don't play football?
Actually you changed his statement. I'd go with:
Black, white, whatever --what would be the point of ever being in Texas?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2012, 11:25:09 PM
An alternate theory is that the Democratic machine in the South was very strong, and tended to be conservative to begin with. The local Democratic parties had been clashing with the national party since the 1940's. The people of the Southern states were supporting their local candidates who were segregationist while neglecting the national party that had become anti-segregationist. After a failed experiment as their own national party under Wallace, they followed the lead of people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and found a happy place in the GOP. Same people, same ideas, different party.
How can you suggest that all the same people were in place in the 40s and the 60s? That's just doesn't stand up to basic reason.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2012, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 12:58:57 PM
Sure. Also being born into a upper middle class suburban neighborhood is not evenly distributed or being a child of a doctor (which a good chunk of the class always is) is not evenly distributed.
That's an argument for socioeconomic AA, not ethnic AA.
Maybe although I'm not sure. I'm not sure that historically being white and poor but you at the same disadvantage of being black and poor.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 12:06:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2012, 11:25:09 PM
An alternate theory is that the Democratic machine in the South was very strong, and tended to be conservative to begin with. The local Democratic parties had been clashing with the national party since the 1940's. The people of the Southern states were supporting their local candidates who were segregationist while neglecting the national party that had become anti-segregationist. After a failed experiment as their own national party under Wallace, they followed the lead of people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and found a happy place in the GOP. Same people, same ideas, different party.
How can you suggest that all the same people were in place in the 40s and the 60s? That's just doesn't stand up to basic reason.
I didn't say all the people. Some of them died. But you know guys like Strom Thurmond lasted for nearly a century.
And must I bring out the Southern Strategy Quotes, again?
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
What has changed that all the yankee republicans have moved south, turning the south into a republican stronghold, while turning the north Democrat.
Seriously? Is this utter horseshit the best you got?
Indeed. What really happened is that those yankee Republicans gave birth to rebellious hippies, who have in turn, transformed into "environmentally/socially-conscious" baby boomers, who have themselves given birth to jaded, cynical Gen-X'ers, who are just now raising emo punks, hipsters and animetards.
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 02:20:06 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
What has changed that all the yankee republicans have moved south, turning the south into a republican stronghold, while turning the north Democrat.
Seriously? Is this utter horseshit the best you got?
Just look at internal migration patterns in the US, or is that too much thinking for your part? The massive population influx into the South from the North has utterly remade the southern states.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 23, 2012, 02:32:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 02:20:06 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
What has changed that all the yankee republicans have moved south, turning the south into a republican stronghold, while turning the north Democrat.
Seriously? Is this utter horseshit the best you got?
Just look at internal migration patterns in the US, or is that too much thinking for your part? The massive population influx into the South from the North has utterly remade the southern states.
Some migration obviously happened. However, to take the leap of faith that: 1) Migration was overwhelmingly Republican and 2) That migration was significant enough to flip the Southern states from Democrat strongholds to Republican strongholds is the kind of utterly unsupported reasoning I'm pounding on here.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 22, 2012, 01:42:52 PM
The GOP of 1864 had some radical abolitionists in it but they were the fringe of the party.
Majority? No. But fringe? That's what eLearning from Beck University does to the brain.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 23, 2012, 02:32:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 02:20:06 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
What has changed that all the yankee republicans have moved south, turning the south into a republican stronghold, while turning the north Democrat.
Seriously? Is this utter horseshit the best you got?
Just look at internal migration patterns in the US, or is that too much thinking for your part? The massive population influx into the South from the North has utterly remade the southern states.
Some counties in North Carolina, but that still doesn't explain Pennsyltucky.
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 02:41:58 AM
Some migration obviously happened. However, to take the leap of faith that: 1) Migration was overwhelmingly Republican and 2) That migration was significant enough to flip the Southern states from Democrat strongholds to Republican strongholds is the kind of utterly unsupported reasoning I'm pounding on here.
Much as I hate to agree with you, you are correct to challenge the concept that today's Southern Republicans were yesterday's Norrthern republicans, rather than yesterday's Southern Democrats. I live in a part of Virginia relatively untouched by flight from the north, and most of the people I talk to are staunch Republicans; those older than about 50 will concede to once having been staunch Democrats, before the "party abandoned them." Election results in this area bear that out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 07:02:11 AM
Some counties in North Carolina, but that still doesn't explain Pennsyltucky.
Pennsyltucky = no joke. Between Philly and Pittsburgh you've got Alabama North right there (exception: Harrisburg).
If most people on this forum heard my dad's parents speak (natives of the region), they would think them to be Southerners.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2012, 04:53:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
You cherry-picked one election year, albeit the most recent. Looking at the maps for the previous several presidential elections, the "voting blocks" are a bit different, save for maybe New England and New York.
It's not really cherry picking when you chose the last Presidential election.
Unless you think all future elections will be exactly like 2008, then yeah it is.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2012, 11:06:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2012, 04:53:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty scary, actually, to see how close of a mirror image these two maps are. It has been 150 years, and the voting blocks are still pretty much the same, only their parties flip-flopped.
You cherry-picked one election year, albeit the most recent. Looking at the maps for the previous several presidential elections, the "voting blocks" are a bit different, save for maybe New England and New York.
It's not really cherry picking when you chose the last Presidential election.
Unless you think all future elections will be exactly like 2008, then yeah it is.
I don't think cherry picking really applies as a term when you pick what is essentially the current day. That said, yes it is important to establish that things might change from that, but it isn't inherently dishonest to compare today with the past.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
Raz doesn't know what he is talking about, of course.
Jimmy Carter swept every southern state but Virginia in '76. What does that tell us?
Never,
never run an offensive lineman for President.
QuoteWhat has changed that all the yankee republicans have moved south, turning the south into a republican stronghold, while turning the north Democrat.
:huh:
:blink:
Here I was thinking all along that the core of GOP support in the South was evangelicals and descendants of the Wallace-ites that Nixon brought in; turns out it's really the hordes of millions of Thurston Howell IIIs who left Newport and Park Avenue for Pascagoula and Mobile.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2012, 02:36:04 PM
Never, never run an offensive lineman for President.
At least not one from that school... :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2012, 02:42:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2012, 02:36:04 PM
Never, never run an offensive lineman for President.
At least not one from that school... :P
Indeed. Once you've been an offensive lineman for Michigan, it is hard to get excited about taking the step down to being a mere President of the United States. Better to find a football player from any other team, for whom the move to POTUS is a step
up. You'll get more energy that way.
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2012, 07:41:52 AM
Pennsyltucky = no joke. Between Philly and Pittsburgh you've got Alabama North right there (exception: Harrisburg).
If most people on this forum heard my dad's parents speak (natives of the region), they would think them to be Southerners.
South Jersey, too. One of the reasons the state seems so heavily divided is that the southern half of the state had a massive influx of Kentuckians after the Civil War.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 11:27:39 AM
I don't think cherry picking really applies as a term when you pick what is essentially the current day. That said, yes it is important to establish that things might change from that, but it isn't inherently dishonest to compare today with the past.
I guess that depends on whether you want to derive anything meaningful from it. If he was just saying, "Hey, look how cool it is that these two maps are pretty similar" then that's fine. But I don't think that was his intent.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 02:55:13 PM
Once you've been an offensive lineman for Michigan, it is hard to get excited about taking the step down to being a mere President of the United States.
Oh, brother. :lol: Someone a shovel.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2012, 02:36:04 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 22, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
Raz doesn't know what he is talking about, of course.
Jimmy Carter swept every southern state but Virginia in '76. What does that tell us?
Never, never run an offensive lineman for President.
QuoteWhat has changed that all the yankee republicans have moved south, turning the south into a republican stronghold, while turning the north Democrat.
:huh:
:blink:
Here I was thinking all along that the core of GOP support in the South was evangelicals and descendants of the Wallace-ites that Nixon brought in; turns out it's really the hordes of millions of Thurston Howell IIIs who left Newport and Park Avenue for Pascagoula and Mobile.
Their rule is unbearable. They make us play badminton with them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 02:55:13 PM
Once you've been an offensive lineman for Michigan, it is hard to get excited about taking the step down to being a mere President of the United States.
Oh, brother. :lol: Someone a shovel.
No one has ever accused Michigan men of being humble.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2012, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 11:27:39 AM
I don't think cherry picking really applies as a term when you pick what is essentially the current day. That said, yes it is important to establish that things might change from that, but it isn't inherently dishonest to compare today with the past.
I guess that depends on whether you want to derive anything meaningful from it. If he was just saying, "Hey, look how cool it is that these two maps are pretty similar" then that's fine. But I don't think that was his intent.
I think you are being deliberately difficult.
Since maps seem to be in vogue, here is a human development index map for US states:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe2%2FAmerican_Human_Development_Index_by_State.jpg&hash=2da0d5e8dd4710505f0191fbb622c17cee547472)
It appears that 19 of the 20 states with the most developed humans voted for Obama. :hmm: Maybe all underdeveloped humans migrated away from the North?
I don't understand what I'm looking at here.
I don't understand New Jersey and most developed. :mellow:
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 05:08:46 PM
Since maps seem to be in vogue, here is a human development index map for US states:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe2%2FAmerican_Human_Development_Index_by_State.jpg&hash=2da0d5e8dd4710505f0191fbb622c17cee547472)
It appears that 19 of the 20 states with the most developed humans voted for Obama. :hmm: Maybe all underdeveloped humans migrated away from the North?
SC: bottom of barrel. Surprise.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 05:15:00 PM
I don't understand New Jersey and most developed. :mellow:
I do understand it. Highly developed people are better at understanding things. :)
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 05:40:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2012, 05:15:00 PM
I don't understand New Jersey and most developed. :mellow:
I do understand it. Highly developed people are better at understanding things. :)
I'm from Massachusetts and California and live in New York. I've a good set of indexes. :P
Highly developed people say "indices." :cool:
Can you imagine SC if I didn't live here? It'd be, like, 1.
Seriously, what does the map represent?
The map: vector of life expectancy at birth, expected years of education, and "standard of living, as indicated by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity."
In fairness, at least one of these factors is irrelevant to DG's point.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
Seriously, what does the map represent?
Human development index by US state, oddly enough.
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 06:54:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
Seriously, what does the map represent?
Human development index by US state, oddly enough.
I don't know what that means. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 07:32:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 06:54:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
Seriously, what does the map represent?
Human development index by US state, oddly enough.
I don't know what that means. :(
I guess your story about living in Missouri checks out.
A Slav looking down on a native born American? :rolleyes:
That's grounds for revoking his H-1B.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 07:32:38 PM
I don't know what that means. :(
You can wiki it, or you can just read the pertinent info that I pulled from wiki in the post right above the one you quoted.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 23, 2012, 07:42:14 PM
A Slav looking down on a native born American? :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.moviefanfare.com%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FBill-the-Butcher.jpg&hash=2d798c6a2415a41da7d8510ed03e7881a8bf2437)
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 07:39:15 PM
I guess your story about living in Missouri checks out.
St. Louis is rad.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 23, 2012, 07:46:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 23, 2012, 07:42:14 PM
A Slav looking down on a native born American? :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.moviefanfare.com%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FBill-the-Butcher.jpg&hash=2d798c6a2415a41da7d8510ed03e7881a8bf2437)
Yeah, DDL was awesome in that movie.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 23, 2012, 07:47:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 07:39:15 PM
I guess your story about living in Missouri checks out.
St. Louis is rad.
It does have higher then average radiation levels.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 23, 2012, 08:13:43 PM
Yeah, DDL was awesome in that movie.
It'd be really cool to be able to do that thing he does with his eye with the end of a knife, but you could only do it once.
Twice, if you're an idiot.
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2012, 05:08:46 PM
Since maps seem to be in vogue, here is a human development index map for US states:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe2%2FAmerican_Human_Development_Index_by_State.jpg&hash=2da0d5e8dd4710505f0191fbb622c17cee547472)
It appears that 19 of the 20 states with the most developed humans voted for Obama. :hmm: Maybe all underdeveloped humans migrated away from the North?
Or more probable, given internal migration patterns, the "human development index" is bollocks.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 23, 2012, 08:13:43 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 23, 2012, 07:46:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 23, 2012, 07:42:14 PM
A Slav looking down on a native born American? :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.moviefanfare.com%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FBill-the-Butcher.jpg&hash=2d798c6a2415a41da7d8510ed03e7881a8bf2437)
Yeah, DDL was awesome in that movie.
I didn't like that for PC reasons they reversed the sides on the draft riots.
A friend of mine said something interesting on this topic.
He is a totally by the book whiny student socialisty sort and I don't agree with him but- he says the point of affirmitive action is bigger than individuals, its not about helping black kids, its about creating a society where poor black kids can see role models of succesful black people.
I can see his point but...yeah, as I've said I'd base it on socio-economic stuff rather than race.
Gangs of New York I never much cared for.