A Pinch of Satire: Bake Sale Causes Uproar at Berkeley

Campus Republicans at the University of California Berkeley have reportedly received threats after creating a novel form of protests against California schools considering race in admissions. The students created a sale of baked goods priced according to their race: white men for $2.00, Asian men for $1.50, Latino men for $1.00, black men for $0.75 and Native American men for $0.25. All women will get $0.25 off those prices.

The Associated Students of the University of California, held an emergency Senate meeting late Sunday to pass a resolution that “condemns the use of discrimination whether it is in satire or in seriousness by any student group.”

I have difficulty with a condemnation (and certainly physical threats by some individuals) over satire. There is a good faith disagreement over race criteria in admissions. This group found a way to dramatize the unfairness and arbitrariness of such policies. It is not actual discrimination but a satire to drive home their point. What do you think?

UPDATE: if the bake sale was not a hit with some people as a political idea, it proved a great marketing ideal. The bake sale sold out.

Source: CNN

121 thoughts on “A Pinch of Satire: Bake Sale Causes Uproar at Berkeley

  1. Brilliant way to start a conversation over the issue I say. If a “discounted” segment of that population gets offended by paying less, it’s an opportunity to ask that individual why they are offended and go from there. “Do you feel you deserve to pay a lesser price than others?” [uncomfortable silence] “No.” “Do you see how admition guidelines can be as insulting as this price list?”

  2. I think Democratic students should set up their own bake sale: Whites of a certain class get everything free (legacy rules!) while all others are charged more than they can afford to pay (capitalism rules).

  3. This has been done several times before.

    If prices are to reflect the SAT score thresholds for admission by different racial groups, the “price” for Asians should be highest on the list. I believe that UC admissions, however, are race-blind.

  4. Since only 4 percent of the students at Berkeley are African American and less than 1 percent are Native Americans, how much of an advantage have these groups received? It does not look like much to me. Women are over represented on most campuses as more graduate high school with higher grade points.Women usually receive no special consideration in college admissions.

  5. What is the problem with this?

    If the liberal students were smart they would have found a bunch of native American women and “bought” the entire production and then had a bake sale of their own and used the profits to fund their club.

    Leave it to libs to go pass a law or a resolution instead of actually doing something. But I guess they felt good.

  6. The UC system goes by SAT scores more than any other admissions program.. They want five SAT scores including a couple of SAT II tests. My daughter was admitted to UCLA out of state so I know the system.

  7. Roco:

    “If the liberal students were smart they would have found a bunch of native American women and “bought” the entire production and then had a bake sale of their own and used the profits to fund their club.”

    *************************

    If you define “smart” as a the belief that the maniacal acquisition of money overrides any sense of principle and trumps everything else you’d be right. But then again that would make them “conservative” wouldn’t it? You win again, Roco!

  8. From the CNN article:

    Tim Wise, author of the book “White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son,” calls the bake sale a “sarcastic and rather smarmy slap at people of color.”

    “There are a lot of ways to make a point about your disagreement with affirmative action,” Wise told Lemon Saturday night.

    “I get the joke,” he continued. “How very original. It’s been done for 15 years. The point that I think needs to be made … is that by the time anyone steps on a college campus … there has already been 12- to 13-years of institutionalized affirmative action for white folks, that is to say, racially embedded inequality, which has benefited those of us who are white. And it’s only at the point of college admissions that these folks seem to get concerned with color consciousness.”

  9. Samatha Lee:

    If I reading your comment correctly, I suggest you have a lunch date with Roco. As to your point about admonishments, obviously you’re unaware of the notion of false dichotomy. The correct response from the purchaser from the historically discriminated upon group should have been that, as a matter of dignity and equality, he/she had no interest in purchasing anything from a bigot wearing false victimhood on his sleeve. These conservative students remind me of the Shah of Iran, who, after being deposed, complained that he was “forced” to wait for commoners in the Bahamas and Mexico even as he received his meal in posh restaurants. Why he never had to do that before! More is the pity for this young nobility and shame on them for their belief that their home run lives had nothing to do with the at bats of their ancestors and the cosy relations they enjoy with the umpires who look remarkably similar to them.

    Do you see how watering down perfectly simple matters of decency with arcane points of dubious logic can be just as insulting as this price list?

  10. mespo, you are the last person at this forum to be calling out others for their insensitivity. Anyone that calls out a person as a “gay porky pig” should stfu about tossing accusations of insensitivity and demeaning around.

    But once more, you are wrong even on the merits of your argument:

    I think you have the right to be insensitive, demeaning, historically blind, and callous, but no right to be free from the scorn of those who aren’t.

    Two groups have a fundamental disagreement, not about discrimination, but about remedies.

    And in fact the California Voters through Proposition 206, took up the position that UC admissions had to be race blind. And the voters, by direct vote, directly voted on that issue and voted directly to put that in place. THAT WAS 1996. (by direct vote actually)

    Governor Brown went to court over this in 2009, and in 2010, the California Supreme court rejected his arguments that portions of 206 were unconstitutional.

    Now in 2011, SB 185 is trying to overturn through the legislative process what the California Voters had voted into place just 15 years earlier, and which the California Supreme Court had agree was constitutional just a year before.

    I would say that is a terribly ripe issue for debate.

    According to your criticism, there is no way for the Republican group on campus to make any argument about this or hold any discussion without your claiming they are insensitive, demeaning, historically blind, or callous.

    THERE, you just ended the debate by not agreeing to listen, and by pre-deciding the issue.

    Wow, some progressive you are, and sadly, you are the very model of a modern major generally proclaimed progressive twit.

  11. Robert Shibley of FIRE discusses affirmative action bake sells here: http://thefire.org/article/5504.html and notes how FIRE has defended actions taken against the various students many times, including at other UC campuses.

    He also notes:

    The suppression of this type of protest of affirmative action at NEIU is particularly galling, however, considering that the university’s Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance student group has in fact held a similar “pay equity” bake sale to protest the income gap between men and women. (FIRE has never heard any reports of a pay equity bake sale being prohibited by a university—if you know of any recent instances, please write us.) The fact is that both protests must be allowed on a public university campus like that of NEIU. The argument most commonly used by universities to attack these protests is that selling baked goods for different prices based on sex, race, etc., is illegal discrimination. But these students aren’t setting up a Jim Crow Krispy Kreme—they’re engaging in a day-long political protest that uses discrimination in cookie pricing to protest race preferences in admissions. And from the amount of debate that these protests stir up, it looks like they’re pretty effective in stirring debate on the topic among students.

    One final thought: on campuses today, many students are subjected to mandatory “diversity orientation” programs that use discrimination against people on the basis of arbitrary characteristics (such as having blue eyes) to make a point about the unpleasantness and unfairness of race or gender discrimination. Many of these mandatory programs are odious and coercive, and should be ended. Yet if such programs are widely accepted in academia (and they are), there can be no basis for claiming that a real political protest such as an affirmative action or pay equity bake sale is illegal discrimination.

  12. Anon (11:53 am):

    “I would say that is a terribly ripe issue for debate.”

    ************************

    Me, too. It seems your idea of debate though is to pick on those historically oppressed by folks like you using childish publicity stunts that demean just about anybody who isn’t white, Anglo-Saxon, and a snot — and come to think of it, it demeans them too, since they’re the buffoons doing it. Good politics, too, in a cuturally diverse state with the Repubicans swirling around the drain.

    Keep talking anon. I always liked the clown show at the circus. (In case you’re wondering that was demeaning, the difference is you can sort of take care of yourself. Too bad the objects of the Young Republi-brats can’t. Those pasty-ass, privileged, white guy are always tough — until challenged.)

    By the way, how about a name there Braveheart so we don’t confuse you with well intentioned persons like the “anon” at 11:56 a.m.

  13. I’ve always liked Jerry Brown, and I have voted for him. Regardless, one of my earliest “political memories” was how he railed and campaigned against Proposition 13, but then when it passed, as governor, he actually flipped 180 degrees around and embraced it with open arms.

    http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2010/09/08/did-prop-13-godfather-howard-jarvis-endorse-jerry-brown-and-his-opponent-in-1978-or-neither/

    The tale has been often-told in California. During his first term as governor, Jerry Brown vehemently opposed Proposition 13. Called it a “fraud” and a “rip-off,” etc. When it won — backed by 65 percent of the vote — Jerry, literally almost overnight, went all rah-rah on it. He so embraced it that he was dubbed “Jerry Jarvis” after Prop 13 godfather Howard Jarvis (a REALLY odd mental image). An LA Times poll at the time found that a majority of respondents thought Jerry was originally for Prop 13.

    (I also adored Mike Royko, and actually loved his sobriquet, that he later regretted, of Governor Moonbeam. I always thought Moonbeam Jerry and his ideas and passion belonged in the US Senate.)

    Regardless, whether you agree with Proposition 209 or SB 185, I do think it’s pretty shocking, that 15 years after the voters voted in 209, one year after the State Supreme Court rules the proposition constitutional, with no real evidence the voter has changed its mind on the issue, that the legislature and governor work to overturn the proposition.

    I can see how that can be construed as leadership to be applauded. But I also think it’s a direct and flippant disregard of the voter.

    Proposition 13 did enormous harm to the State while fixing a significant tax injustice that was harming the elderly by forcing them to move from homes that had appreciated to the point they could no longer pay the property taxes. But Jerry Brown took the will of the people, and in an almost zen like manner, embraced it, and championed it.

    I find it notable how he can’t do that now with Proposition 209.

  14. Me, too. It seems your idea of debate though is to pick on those historically oppressed by folks like you using childish publicity stunts that demean just about anybody who isn’t white, Anglo-Saxon, and a snot — and come to think of it, it demeans them too, since they’re the buffoons doing it. Good politics, too, in a cuturally diverse state with the Repubicans swirling around the drain.

    I am going to need citations on how I’ve or folks like me have historically opposed those others. I think the historical situation is that my folks were rather historically in covenants, immigration policies and ovens the oppressed. But since you know that, I’ll just murmur once more about your enormous sensitivity towards others.

    By the way, how about a name there Braveheart so we don’t confuse you with well intentioned persons like the “anon” at 11:56 a.m.

    You’re such a dope mespo, and so clueless too.

  15. Fearless anon:

    “I am going to need citations on how I’ve or folks like me have historically opposed those others. I think the historical situation is that my folks were rather historically in covenants, immigration policies and ovens the oppressed.”

    ***********************

    It’s not your ethnicity that aligns you with the oppressors it’s your world view as disclosed in your comments. As for citations, hop on over to your local library and tell the folks you want a book on human psychology after you get one on history. BTW not clueless there anon, but I think revealing a scoundrel is a good thing.

  16. It’s not your ethnicity that aligns you with the oppressors it’s your world view as disclosed in your comments.

    So it’s my speech here at this forum that oppresses others. That should make it easy for you to find a few comments where I support policies that oppress other people. (And I think we all know just where to find comments from you that actively oppress others.) But yes, if you’re going to use language calling me an oppressor, you ought to put up or shut up and give us all some real citations. Should be trivial.

    Personally, I align myself with honest intelligent debate and dislike debaters who (constantly) try to pull fast ones with bullying, appeals to emotion, bending the truth, and many logical fallacies.

  17. Mespo:

    “If you define “smart” as a the belief that the maniacal acquisition of money overrides any sense of principle and trumps everything else you’d be right. But then again that would make them “conservative” wouldn’t it? You win again, Roco!”

    So it is OK to deny some one a position at a university because of their race? Some day that might backfire. But then again logical outcomes arent of too much concern to liberals. They just fuck it all up and try again another day in the hope the second, third or fourth time around works. Maybe when we spend enough money the economy will recover, maybe if we had spent 20 trillion on poverty it would be eradicated, maybe if we spend 2 trillion on health care it will be free to everyone. Yeah, you guys operate from principles alright. The principle of using some one else’s money for your delusions of grandeur.

    Take certain wealthy people on this blog, they scream bloody murder about what the conservatives are doing to the “poor” but I dont see them giving up their treasure to help the poor. They just want some one else to pay the bill.

    Limousine Marxists. Just dont take their jet and vacation home in Aruba when sharing the wealth.

  18. I think their point fails. Perhaps another point is made, though, that the people in question have to pay less, because on average, that is how much they make compared to the white man.

  19. @Jude,

    How about a tax return bake sell or perhaps less subject to gaming (I don’t know) a property tax based bake sell, or acreage owned based bake sell?

    Do those individual specific, class oriented discounts seem more reasonable to you than simply discounts based group characteristics that may not be shared by specific individuals within a group?

  20. anon,

    You don’t understand….That is different….You must be a real misogynist…or…some people don’t like to hear the message you are spouting….I think you are sinister….lol… Not to be confused with a Minister….

  21. Blouise,

    I taught in an affluent community. The parents of most of my students were college graduates. There were many who had advanced degrees. Their children had the benefit of having well-educated parents of means who provided them with a wealth of experiences–including travel and trips to museums–books, tutoring. Some of these parents paid thousands of dollars for SAT prep tutoring for their children. I should note that about 99.9% of these parents and children were white.

    What many middle class and wealthy white kids fail to realize is that most of them start the educational college race on the twenty, thirty, or forty yard mark of a 100-yard sprint as compared to most minority kids and poor white kids who do not share the same advantages.

  22. While there is a strong element of satire, protest, and judo in any of these bake sales, that’s not the only explanation. As can be explicitly seen in the over the top reactions to these bake sales, a lot of this going on as well:

  23. anon,

    You are messing with the wrong one. I hope that you can under stand that either you are with the sista or you are a misogynist. Which is your pleasure.

    You too can be an Ant-Feminist, sign up at the men haters club.

  24. Ouch, that hurt. Hurt so much I contemplated posting

    But I’m not one to hit low, so instead I’ll go with

    However, you’ll probably have the last word if you want it, as I have a doctor’s appointment (mysterious hair growth on my palms.)

  25. anon,

    You are in need of therapy….for those that have heard it…I’ll spare them…. So how many nom de plumes do you acquire in a day….

    I seem to get blamed….more than my share….but it is funny…Are you the Irish Lady….

  26. You are in need of therapy….for those that have heard it…I’ll spare them…. So how many nom de plumes do you acquire in a day….

    Only this one. I’m not the Irish Lady (I don’t think) and I don’t know what that was referring to. And I’m not “A. Moral V”.

    Though part of me feels I shouldn’t fess up to who I’m not in order to help buttress the importance of anonymity in discourse.

    So maybe I am them (but I’m not.) (really)

  27. Therapists have tended to kick me out and tell me that after all the money they spent, they dislike my takedowns of their education and philosophies and techniques, and think I’m especially ill-mannered to point out their hidden biases even in the “objective”, “neutral” stances.

    Got into a nice shouting match with one. She was a born again Christian marriage counselor — definitely not the right match for a Jewish couple (even divorced). She agreed with my ex that it was unnatural and inappropriate for me to give my six year old daughter a shoulder ride in the social hall of the synagogue during a simcha.

    Anyway, I’ve always been impressed with therapists, it’s the ultimate do nothing job. Sit down, stoned or drunk, behind their “client” and doodle away on pads that no one will ever see all while wearing their diapers.

  28. anon,

    I am good with your explanation….Only, if I did not get tagged with them…I wouldn’t care…but then again…I don’t really….

  29. Now……anon…..Don’t be so coy..Only you know if it was you or it was not…Others can think all they want….But you know….and I know….You know…

  30. AY,

    I have been watching this go on between you and stradavore for awhile. I agree with your posting and think that you are generally humorous. Just be careful not to offend the others on here. Her goal seems to be to discredit you in any way, shape, form or fashion. I do not know why she seems to have a bug on you, but it is what it is.

  31. Paper Hanger:

    probably a lovers quarrel of some sort.

    My best guess. That coin of love on the obverse and hate on the reverse.

    It is actually rather sad to see them bickering, I thought they used to get along quite well. It always saddens me when people argue. Especially when they appeared to be friends once.

    I guess ideology trumps friendship for some people. Very sad.

  32. anon.

    “So it’s my speech here at this forum that oppresses others. That should make it easy for you to find a few comments where I support policies that oppress other people…. But yes, if you’re going to use language calling me an oppressor, you ought to put up or shut up and give us all some real citations. ”

    ******************

    Nice try there, anon. Since you don’t give any consistent identifier on the blog, as I requested, there is no way to pin down the real “you” or “your comments.” However, not wishing to pass up the challenge to prove your real mind-set, I’ll just submit this little ditty you ostensibly penned today:

    “Therapists have tended to kick me out and tell me that after all the money they spent, they dislike my takedowns of their education and philosophies … Got into a nice shouting match with one….”

    What I find so revealing is not your bellicose personality (anyone here knows that), it’s that you refer to your “therapists” and not just your therapist. I get it now, you’re an equal opportunity crank and you need affirmation of that fact from many sources. Keep up the good work.

  33. We were friends once but not any more. Sometimes it takes awhile to get to know someone especially if you only see them in cyberspace. Don’t be too sad, Roco. It is for the best.

  34. Swarthmore mom:

    Obviously you have your reasons. I just thought you and Ay were pretty decent people and I am sorry you are on the outs.

  35. Roco, Well, it happened on the blog for everyone that reads it to see. What can I say? Some people manage to stay friends by not discussing politics and religion, but that does not happen here.

  36. Roco:

    “Yeah, you guys operate from principles alright. The principle of using some one else’s money for your delusions of grandeur.”

    *********************

    Well, certainly no grandeur in your “every man for himself” jungle. Tell you what, why don’t you count up every advantage you’ve had by race, socio-economic status, education, and family position, and then explain why in view of all of that society owes you the same starting point as somone’s without those advantages. In golf we call it giving a handicap; in football, it’s the first draft pick; in life, it’s affirmative action, and anyone who can’t make it home from third base after being put there by circumstances not under their control and for which they deserve no praise has no reason to complain if they get lapped by someone who ran harder. There is no equality of outcome in this country. A drive through any Rust Belt inner city will tell you that, or maybe just a cursory look at poverty statistics. We’re looking for equality of opportunity, my falsely put upon friend, and letting you start at Lap 50 in the 100 lap race because your Daddy got you there will not get us to a society that will survive. See Revolution, French.

  37. Roco, Lovers, never. The man has never even bought me a cup of coffee. We are both married and I am faithful to my loving husband.

  38. Is it too late to point out that not only is it cliche , but it’s cliche and makes absolutely no sense?

    In order to be a good analog for the policies they’re protesting, they’d need to sell based on a quota system.

    The only thing worse then telling the same joke over and over again is telling a joke that makes no sense over and over again.

  39. Mespo:

    I have had no advantages in life except being born in America. Give me your office email address and I will tell you about my “advantaged” life.

  40. Roco, Because I uphold the program’s traditions I won’t be talking about it anymore. You don’t need to make insinuations about things you know nothing about.

  41. SM:

    no worries. Mums the word. I am not making any insinuations. All I know is that you were cyber friends and had a falling out. I thought you 2 got along. I dont even know what sex AY is.

  42. Oh mespo, you’re so silly,

    Nice try there, anon. Since you don’t give any consistent identifier on the blog, as I requested, there is no way to pin down the real “you” or “your comments.” However, not wishing to pass up the challenge to prove your real mind-set, I’ll just submit this little ditty you ostensibly penned today:

    My pseudonym is 99.9998% as identifiable as yours. Quit whining.

    First you call me an oppressor and I point out that historically I am part of the oppressed group. So then you say, it’s what I write here that tells you that I am an oppressor. So I say, fine, point to what I’ve written that tells you that I am an oppressor.

    And so now you say, it’s not what I’ve written as “anon” that marks me as oppressor, but what I’ve presumably written as other people that tells you that “anon” is an oppressor. And you can’t even find things that other people have written that mark anon as an oppressor. NEITHER OF THOSE make any sense whatsoever.

    Jesus Christ mespo, pound the law, pound the table, stop pounding your lap.

    So your next tactic is a bit of ad hominem, projection, and internet psychoanalyzing from a few throw away sentences about the various marriage counselors my ex dragged us to.

    Honestly mespo, are you a lawyer? Because though I think most lawyers are the scum of the earth, I generally respect them for their ability to argue coherently within a single thread.

  43. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/04/software-works-out-whether-tha.html

    That’s what she said: Software that tells dirty jokes

    Double entendres have been making us laugh since the days of Chaucer and Shakespeare, but up until now computers weren’t in on the joke. Chloé Kiddon and Yuriy Brun, two computer scientists at the University of Washington, have developed a system for recognising a particular type of double entendre – the “that’s what she said” joke, in which seemingly innocent sentences can be transformed into lewd utterances by appending just four short words.

    The pair describe the “TWSS problem” as recognising when it is funny to follow a sentence with “that’s what she said” – they give “Don’t you think these buns are a little too big for this meat?” as one example. The equivalent in the UK is appending sentences with “as the actress said to the bishop” and is used in the same way.

  44. I think that the bake sale, as structured, is a good idea, has redeeming value
    1) has no effect on interstate commerce – an insubstantial infringement.
    2) encourages discussion – redeeming value
    3) can people self-identify their race? That would be perfect.

  45. I have absolutely no problem with the bake sale. Indeed, I have been more bothered by efforts on university campuses to regulate speech which is deemed offensive or hurtful to identifiable groups.

    Having said that, it does not appear that the Young Republicans have changed much since my college days in the late ’60s. In this instance, they are following in lockstep the “whites as victims” meme popularized by the right in recent years. Children of privilege frequently have a hard time understanding the fact that the starter’s gun fires earlier for some than for others.

  46. i believe the expression is “born on third base and braggin you hit a triple”.

    what were they sellin at the bake sale, wonder bread?

  47. “born on third base and braggin you hit a triple”

    That really sounds to me like Molly Ivins, but the googles tell me it’s from Barry Switzer, football coach, and referenced by Jim Hightower and Ann Richards and apparently never said by Molly Ivins. Oh well, up yours Googles.

    Regardless, it’s bullshit in this context, because the original context from Switzer, and the later contects about George are about the born rich.

    And there is nothing in the article to indicate this group of students is any richer or poorer than any other group of students.

    I don’t see these students bragging they hit a triple.

    I read about them saying this form of remedy is itself discriminatory. I don’t read them saying that other forms of remedies would be bad. I don’t see them denying their is or was discrimination or that other minorities don’t still have it rough.

    There is absolutely nothing in the article that describes the policies the campus republicans favor, or what their views on discrimination are.

    ALL OF THAT by anyone in this thread is projection and stereotyping.and says much more about your own beliefs than it does about theirs.

  48. It is amazing that memory has been reduced…Hint: 1) Republican; 2) Misogynistic; 3) Askance….and You refuse to apologize…

    ……Upholding the Traditions…Indeed….

  49. Upholding the Traditions….Indeed…lol…selectively…

    Swarthmore mom
    1, September 26, 2011 at 5:19 pm
    We were friends once but not any more. …………..

    ……………Sometimes it takes awhile to get to know someone especially if you only see them in cyberspace. ……..

    I could not agree more….

    Poof……..

  50. Elaine,

    That has also been the story of my life. Yet, through some twist of fate, a lucky break perhaps, I became acutely aware of the disparate conditions within this society at a very early age and, as soon as I was able, began to work to correct those conditions. Most within my social-economic circle were not as fortunate as I and remained totally unaware and blind to the disparity that was all around them.

    What I do, I do not out of a sense of guilt or, god forbid, pity, but out of a sincere desire to bring fairness and equality to every citizen. What some call a level playing field.

    In all honesty that bake sale made me angry as hell but I learned a long time ago that anger accomplishes nothing. Ridicule, however, occasionally does work with the ignorant, which is why JonnyC’s post appealed to me.

    And then, of course, there is karma … karma accepts no excuses … even ignorance doesn’t mitigate the karmic chain. In every philosophy, religious or secular, reaping what one sows is acknowledged.

  51. Roco:

    “you dont know anything about me little Lord Fauntleroy.”

    ***********************

    I know quite a bit about you, Roco. For example, I know you can read and write coherently. That tells me you have benefit of an education. I know you got that education through the efforts of some persons or through your own initiative, telling me that you have persons who loved and cared for you and who valued an education or that you have been taught the value of hard work to improve yourself. Was that through self-revelation? I know you care about issues and can use evidence to make your points, and while we disagree quite often, you rarely stoop to personal attack or obsess over a irrelevant prior remarks. That tells me you have been raised to believe you have a responsibility to make the world better and can use logic in your work. That learned talent came from someone in your life as empathy and rationality are rarely the product of the genes. I know you are drawn to dialog, have computer proficiency, and have no fear in espousing your views in a forum not always recptive to your commentary. That tells me you have the courage of your convictions and that someone has served as your role model in that character trait. Finally, I know you take criticism to heart, telling me you have some recognition that you don’t know it all and recognize that everyone can learn from another. That takes some degree of scholarship and dimunition of ego which is the product of a contemplative life. Given that, I must assume you have made your way in the world finnacially and need not work every waking hour just to make ends meet. So, you see, you are not quite the mystery you claim to be.

    Now imagine for a moment you had none of these advantages. Imagine you were raised by persons who had no regard for these values. Think about your likely station in life. Still think you would have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps? Wonderful image, unless you have no bootstraps to begin with. I may be Lord Fauntleroy, who rose from poverty through no merit of his own save his bloodline yet had genuine compassion for those less advantaged and worked to impress that compassion on his grandfather, Earl of Dorincourt. His method was so simple as be genius. By assuming the curmudgeonly old man was a great benefactor, he compelled him to become one so as not to disappoint his admiring grandson. Were I to accomplish as much as that fictional character, I would consider mine a worthwhile life. I therefore thank you for the compliment — whether intended or not.

  52. anon:

    That bold face shouting sort of fits doesn’t it. HTML mistake? Well, maybe, or just another Freudian slip to discuss with your newest therapist. Maybe we should get some quotes from some of them on your mind-set. Fascinating stuff, i’m sure.

  53. Yes, undoubtedly you’re right mespo, you can tell so much from one missing “/”, especially on a html enabled blog that doesn’t permit preview.

    Likewise, we can tell so much from when you write “gay porky pig” and then spend days attacking me for pointing out how insensitive, arrogant, and stereotyping that was.

    We can tell from your argument fail on this particular thread how often you resort to smears when you got nothing. How often you run away when asked to provide evidence. How you can’t put a logical argument together, or even remember that argument an hour or so later. And how you can’t even comprehend the nature of a simple comment when you think one “anon” is different from the “anon” that posted just before or just after the “anon” you like.

    But I think you’re right, my missing a slash in my html is evidence of an enormous character flaw on my part.

    But since we now know you demand perfection, then there really is no excuse on your part for posting that “gay porky pig” comment about a guy with a weight problem and a slight lisp and then refusing to express the slightest regret over it except that you’re a gay bashing homophobic bigot that hides behind the skirts of giants.

    We can’t rule it out as an irrelevant, regrettable, not a big deal past remark, because here you are, projecting and psychoanalyzing me over a missing “/”.

    On the other hand, you certainly come off as stalkerish enough, and obsessed enough, that I can well believe you when you say you want to talk to my newest therapist.

    You seem like just the snot nosed little big brother friendly pissant lawyer that would want that information to better abuse people you dislike that you consider as oppressors. Why not root around in their business? Greater good.

    Well, I consider that none of my business.

    If you said you were seeing a therapist, I would not make snarky little wise-ass remarks about it and wonder what the two of you said, I’d say I hope you are finding value and progressing through that.

    And had you read what I wrote and were able to understand it, it might inform you a bit more about the nature of my relationship with those therapists and whether they are ongoing or not.

  54. anon.:

    If you said you were seeing a therapist, I would not make snarky little wise-ass remarks about it and wonder what the two of you said, I’d say I hope you are finding value and progressing ….

    ******************

    I wouldn’t either and your last sentence is exactly what I’d say. You, however, didn’t say that. Instead you said lots more and went to great lengths to explain to us your complete mastery of these professionals with your “takedonwns of their education and philosophies and techniques.” You then treated us to even more bravado with your observation that “Anyway, I’ve always been impressed [sic] with therapists, it’s the ultimate do nothing job. Sit down, stoned or drunk, behind their “client” and doodle away on pads that no one will ever see all while wearing their diapers.”

    One wonders if you’re saying they need you more than you need them. It sure looks like it, and if that’s the case a man with you impeccable credentials in making psychological diagnoses surely knows we’re talking about a differential diagnois involving at least the possibility of egomania or narcissistic personality disorder. Bet you heard those words through the banter with your shrink. Come on what is it? Professional envy?

    Keep talking anon, you’re quite the case study.

  55. mespo, there’s a difference that most humans understand between my making remarks about my own therapy, and you make remarks about a person’s therapy when you are having a dispute with them.

    Why am I telling you this? You’re Mr. Sensitivity and would never make an ugly insensitive remark.

    One wonders if you’re saying they need you more than you need them. It sure looks like it, and if that’s the case a man with you impeccable credentials in making psychological diagnoses surely knows we’re talking about a differential diagnois involving at least the possibility of egomania or narcissistic personality disorder. Bet you heard those words through the banter with your shrink. Come on what is it? Professional envy?

    Really, again with your internet psychoanalysis, and even when you still haven’t read what I wrote about who these therapists were?

    You’re quite the little stalker.

  56. I admit, I thought it funny, and usually I don’t get republican humor. I think Roco has the right idea, find a way to play with it and make your point.

  57. anon:

    “Really, again with your internet psychoanalysis, and even when you still haven’t read what I wrote about who these therapists were?”

    *********************

    I read who they are. They’re professionals who said you have a problem. You reject those opinions because you are smarter than they. It’s really quite simple and quite revealing.

  58. mespo,

    Some day I’d like to go watch you in court. You must be Hell on Wheels come cross-examination. And no, I’m not calling you Helen . . .

  59. Go with the flow mespo, just what problem did these marriage counselors say I have?

    Oh yeah, the born again Christian told me that giving a six year old a shoulder ride was inappropriate because her vagina was too close to my neck. A six year old. In a synagogue’s social hall. During a simcha.

    Yeah, you must be hell on wheels on cross examination.

  60. Mespo, I can see how you might think the best defense is a good offense, which is why you go after me for going through marriage counseling, but all you need to do to deflect everyone from your homophobic statements Mark, is say, I was a total dumbshit that moment for calling Bachman a gay porky pig, and I apologize to the community.

    Since you’re an arrogant fuck lawyer, you can’t do that simple task we expect of every other grownup in 2011.

    So carry on with your cross counselor.

    I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you, what was that you said?

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/14/bachmann-attacks-perry-for-giving-girls-anti-cancer-vaccine-a-retardation/#comment-267900

    Apologies in advance but, query: Will continued public dancing with an obviously gay Porky Pig lead to retardation?

    Man o man, Mark, that comment of yours, and my pointing out what a bigoted hypocritical homophobe you are really has your undies in a twist.

  61. Mark Esposito, mespo727272,

    Dude, you made some ugly remarks. When this was pointed out, instead of acknowledging them, and apologizing, you first went on the ignore path, then the attack path.

    And though you now attack me for some throw away comments I made about my experiences in marriage counseling with some therapists.

    Though you pick at statements I made about therapists,

    Well, I stand by those statements, and I am still proud I went to marriage counseling with my ex, although I largely found the therapists useless and futile. And you’re right, it is to my deep regret, and it is my long lasting shame that I could not make my marriage work.

    How about you Mark Esposito, mespo727272, are you as proud and stand by your statements calling Marcus Bachmann “an obviously gay porky pig?”

    Are you still proud of that statement Mark? Because the way you hit back against me, makes me suspect you’re deeply ashamed of being caught making that statement. But being an unethical coward with no integrity, instead of taking responsibility, you flail instead at the messenger.

    So go ahead Mark, Counselor Esposito, ask any question you wish about my marriage. Impugn away.

    It’s not like honest Americans haven’t seen your tactics or your type before.

    And I honestly hope you never find yourself in the sort of marital dilemma and custody battle I have found myself in repeatedly.

    PIck away Mark.

  62. Children of privilege frequently have a hard time understanding the fact that the starter’s gun fires earlier for some than for others. -Mike Appleton

    Very nicely put…

  63. AN,

    I agree with this statement totally….But, something missed by a lot of folks…is…in that particular mind set…it is “Justified Entitlement”….. I know a child/man that, I won’t consider a friend…more of an acquaintance or I just know them…he used to be just devious….He thought nothing of shooting people in the ass with a pellet gun…that was his entertainment….he had nothing else to really prove….well…inside of his mind he did….even though he is from the upper crust….he is a mercenary…his mind set just flat out scares the hell out of me…But I am sure that their are more folks out there than we realize….

    I know a OBGYN that had nothing better to do than become a Dr….He lives off of old oil money…and this has been since the late 60’s/ early 70’s….He chose a different path….His kids not so much..

  64. “…even though he is from the upper crust….he is a mercenary…his mind set just flat out scares the hell out of me…But I am sure that their are more folks out there than we realize….” -AY

    AY,

    Regarding your last point, oh yeah… definitely more than we realize. An apt phrase, “justified entitlement”… There are way too many who seem to feel that that they are justifiably entitled to do whatever the hell they want.

  65. I side with the college kids and anon, while vehemently disagreeing with Meso.

    “Starting gun goes off earlier for some.”
    I do not find this to be an accurate analogy anymore. I assert that whites and other minority races, specifically blacks because of the long standing history of discrimination in the USA, are now on equal footing with white americans in most everyway. In regards to college education a person with any kind of handicap (this case a variety of factors such as income, living area, etc etc supposedly caused by being born in to minority communities) can easily access this system and whites have been doing it for a long time before. Furthermore Affirmative action perpetuates negative singular type views of minorities and actually gives credit to bigots and more harm to the minority groups than good. This situation will, I beleive, improve within two generations to the point that Affirmative action will no longer be neccesary and seem to lawmakers like a relic of a by gone age.
    College falls on the family, because it is expensive. The financial aid system currently expects a large contribution from your family, measures the income of a whole household, when determining what amount if any will be awared to a student in federal funds. This becomes important because ultimately income and the priority of college to your family, decide whether a student, if born in to poverty, attends college at all. There a thousands of white families in poverty as well as black family. In pure amount, impoverished white families around the country outnumber significantly the amount of impoverish black families. Not statistics, raw numbers. Any person in the income bracket could obtain the full amounts of federal grants which can pay for an entire community college education and there is absolutely nothing stopping a person of any race from using a library computer to access the internet and apply for federal aid. None. So all people of all color have access to the same starting funding and essentially a whole basic college education based upon an application in which you can choose not to disclose race.
    Culturally, white males in the USA have attending college as the cherry on top of the education, not even for vocational training. It used to be a symbol of the upper class white man but, for the reasons discussed above, can no longer be. Its more accessible than ever. Why are these basic tools not utilized by minorities as frequently? Because it hasnt been their family’s tradition to attend college. When the FAFSA calculates your income, decides that your family needs to contribute a given amount and none has been saved, there is nothing a student can do outside of loans. White culture has, as I stated, held college education highly for over one hundred years in the USA. Many families save for their children to attend college and have for the same span of time. THOSE families will contribute when FAFSA time rolls around but in a culture in which, only three or four generations ago, the entire population was slaves there will be no such thinking and the numbers support this conclusion.
    Because minority students are not well respsented at high level education one may be led to beleive they are being kept out through a policy of discrimination. Not only does that sound absurd in 2011 for an internationally recognized and respect college or just a local public community college it ignores the fact that the majority of students attending high level colleges come from far above poverty, or average income households. Not being privileged does not mean that a person is not equal. White privilege is a misnomer because the vast majority of the underpriveleged are white. I already stated above that every person of any race has the chance to get an education and get out of poverty for their familie’s future’s sake. Not every person, regardless of race, can avoid to attend Yale and win prestige for their family. Not mention debt, college is impractical now because of the cost.

    The concept of AA is also outdated because being against it, a common conservative political view, ingraines in those with poor reasoning an opinion against AA without understanding the implications of it. This breeds biggotry and why I dont hold support of AA and the branding of posters like anon against fools like Meso because you will often find bigots in these politcal circles. Its only the symptom of an outdated idea chaffing those ready to do away with it for the greater good. The old system of racism is LITERALLY dying out and within generations there wont even be anyone from the civil rights movement left. Think of how foreign an reprehensible slavery is to you. So will the idea of education being inequal.
    It also enforces these single view stereotypes of minority groups as being less capable and generally inferior to whites and neeeding a ‘hand up’ in the world. We now live in a Post-Race era (not my term, I forget the name of the speaker I’m referencing here but I’m no plagarist) which means that as many different people as there are that belong to a race, there are that many ways to “be” that race. One doesnt have to adhere to stereotypes, the cultural of their race or any other tropes in this modern world. Any person can be themselves and race is an aspect of that, not a definition of them as a person as it once was. However we as a society are easily reminded of such stereotypes and AA unfortunately implies negative and singular views of minorities.
    All the slaves are dead. I think the last child of a slave died recently. White guilt is somethign created by academia and perpetuated by AA and other things. Blacks are on the top of music, sports, and entertainment and show no sign of slowing their explosion. Mass education access and the internet ensure that future generations will not be able to forget the tradgedy of slavery and other acts of discrimination but acknowledgment that such groups are EQUAL is a powerful thing. As Martin Luther King Jr. said “We may all have gotten here on different ships but we’re all in the SAME BOAT NOW.”

    For all of the reasons, Meso, you are a limosine marxist and a general douche. Anon sees a therapist and cant argue well, so what? You’re still wrong.

  66. Josh Brock:

    Of course, history and social statistics prove you’re wrong about the ravages of discrimination and even in 2011, but you are right about anon’s totally inability to argue coherently. You are right that academia continues to point up the discrimination in our society but you could learn as much from watching the news and the right’s treatment of our first African-American President. I suppose we should disregard the scholarly work of learned people and take your rant as true. Like most people with any sense, I’ll decline. One thing I must acknowledge in your favor however is the ease at which you can see to type your screed through a white hood. Quite impressive.

  67. mespo727272 writes:

    “I think you have the right to be insensitive, demeaning, historically blind, and callous, but no right to be free from the scorn of those who aren’t.”

    Indeed, just as you and others of your ilk have every right to be self-righteous, illogical, naive, and resentful, but no right to be free from the scorn of those who are not.

    By the way, nice sleight of hand, there, in your use of the word “scorn”. You’ll note that the post does not mention mere scorn, but actual threats. Perhaps physical threats and violence are unacceptable form of “scorn”, for you? The impeccably impartial and rigorous logic you employ when, while hiding behind your computer, you accuse others of wearing “white hoods”, is also most impressive. Your faction is quite fortunate to have you.

  68. Josh, check your own tables, they don’t show major gains for anyone in a protected class. I’m not sure what they’re supposed to show.

  69. “I assert that whites and other minority races, specifically blacks because of the long standing history of discrimination in the USA, are now on equal footing with white americans in most everyway.” (Josh Brock)

    I read the rest of this post but in the end the sentence quoted sums up the author’s point of view quite nicely. It’s all bullshit of course, but convenient bullshit never-the-less. Convenient in that it pretends equality has been attained and thus no longer has to be addressed. Fear is assuaged. News flash … More equality is coming … read it and weep.

    “Josh, check your own tables, they don’t show major gains for anyone in a protected class.” (Lotta)

    Uh-oh … how inconvenient.

  70. Lotta:

    Josh sees what he wants to see and Rhages hears what he wants to hear. Sometimes he sees things that aren’t even there like threats being reported by rich, white victims on some Facebook page. What better way for panty-waist neocons to get some publicity coated with sympathy than citing threats that may or may not be real by outraged California liberals. Too good to be true? Sorry but Republicans, young and old, will stoop to anything to win. Their cries of “Wolf!” fall on deaf ears here. See the gospel according to Atwater, Lee.

  71. I’m a black male attending University right now and I have to say… I completely agree with what these guys did. Despite my ambivalent views on Affirmative Action (I won’t lie and say I’ve never appreciated the “black boost”, but if it were to disappear I won’t be upset at all if my merits alone aren’t enough to secure that job, graduate degree etc…) I find any such protest that actively seeks to change the status quo commendable.

    Perhaps it’s less so if the organizers of this bake sale are the “privileged WASP-types” that everyone alleges they are (it may be mentioned in the article if this is true, but I must confess I skimmed).

    What I find most interesting about the discussion of this issue though is the arguments on the side of those who are offended by this bake sale because it (to paraphrase) trivializes the struggles of impoverished minorities. I was raised in a home where both of my parents worked, though neither graduated from college, and made sizable incomes. I was not in poverty and my parents’ combined annual income was over well above middle class when I was growing up (think $75,000 a year). Yet I still reap the benefits of AA merely because I’m black. Being black does not make me underprivileged, and, indeed, the whites whose parents split earlier than mine did (when I was a teenager in my final year of high school) or, indeed, who only ever had one parent struggling to pay for rent and food, much less college, could more greatly benefit from a special admissions boost or scholarship opportunities etc.

    As it stands, AA seems like an affront to those 60% of blacks who receive the benefits of more promising futures when they are not growing up in complete poverty, and, indeed, to those whites who are below the poverty line. Opportunity should not be based on a general idea of poverty amongst races and genders being present, but instead on the actual individual. A child who is born and raised in poverty is unlikely to have the same opportunities in life as a child raised in wealth. This does not mean that we should assume all impoverished youths are black, or that all wealthy youths are white.

    Racism may continue to perpetuate because of instances where poor whites have to work harder to gain jobs that middle class blacks were given merely because of our skin color, or, in the case of females, because of their gender.

  72. Broke:

    Thank you for anecdotal proof that the policies adopted by progressives in the Country since the 1960’s have worked. What we haven’t done so well is to explain to its beneficiaries the reasons for the movement in the first place. Since you are currently in college you have the opportunity to find out how really bad it was. I bet your parents can help you understand it, too. Everyone deserves a boost now and again especially those sytematically held back for racial and cultural reasons.

  73. Broke:

    as a white conservative who is against race and gender preferences, I find I agree with Mespo on this. I was a kid in the 60’s so most of my knowledge is anecdotal but from what I can glean from speaking with older people and from what I have read, blacks were not treated all that well by certain segments of our population. Especially in the south. And so I think we needed to have things like affirmative action to “jump start” blacks to help them “catch” up.

    I believe they have caught up 40 years later and it is time to end affirmative action. Blacks dont need it and are more than capable of holding their own in any field of endeavor they choose. If you look at any field you see blacks at or near the top, for gods sake one of the top earners in bass fishing is black, law, medicine, finance, philosophy [my 2 favorite philosophers are Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, both are brilliant men and the idea they need any help to compete on an even playing field with whites is an insult to them], to say nothing of sports and entertainment.

    In my opinion the finest actors in Hollywood today are Morgan Freeman and Lawrence Fishburn, Denzel is pretty good too.

    Which leads us to another thought, where the market is pretty free, Hollywood and sports, blacks have risen to the top and far surpassed whites. Is there any doubt they could do the same in other fields of endeavor? I have none, and I would say there is the possibility that affirmative action is holding them back by creating a stigma “oh he/she is black they did such and so just because of race.” I would personally like to be known as the guy that did it on his own merits.

    But with all that being said, I think we needed to do it but it is past time for it to be abolished.

  74. Roco:

    I wish I could have strolled you around Southside Virginia in 1967 when I was a kid to see the segrerated bus stops, restaurants, stores and even pharmacies. I would have liked to let you see the hooded white guys strolling around on Sundays as black congregations were letting out with their implicit threat of violence. You’d get a much firmer feel for how bad it was then in the South and the progress both morally and politically we’ve made.

  75. Mespo:

    I have a pretty good idea how bad it was, my wife’s grand parents owned a large farm Near Emporia, Virginia. I have also read a few books on the subject. It makes me weep when I think about how blacks were treated in that time in our history and I hate racism with a passion, it is pernicious and evil. To judge another human being on DNA is, well, nothing short of what the Nazis did. It is a form of collectivism and you know how much I hate that.

    But it is time to start judging people on their own merits as human beings and not on skin color.

    A hooded white guy in front of a black church should have been shot and taken to the city dump for the feral dog’s evening repast.

  76. Roco:

    We agree on the goal then, just not the means of effecting it. I’ll agree to your way if you agree to mine should yours fail. That seems fair to me.

  77. “What we haven’t done so well is to explain to its beneficiaries the reasons for the movement in the first place. Since you are currently in college you have the opportunity to find out how really bad it was. I bet your parents can help you understand it, too. Everyone deserves a boost now and again especially those sytematically held back for racial and cultural reasons.”

    I can never truly understand how bad it really was, as much as my parents tell me their struggles and the struggles of their parents. Indeed, many times I find myself questioning whether my mother really had it as bad as she says (truth be told I’m fairly certain she didn’t as she got a cushy government job right before graduating college and has been there for 3 decades without the slightest worry of job security). But you know what? That’s the proof that society HAS changed. When people of my generation start asking ourselves “is it really fair that minorities get a boost” it’s proof that we haven’t the slightest idea of how difficult it was for the people who were not afforded the benefits of Affirmative Action. We have no idea how hard it was because we as a generation growing up in the 1990s-2000s did not experience this. So why should we reap the benefits of hardship we did not overcome?!

    Current Affirmative Action policies should be centered solely on people who practice religions not very positively perceived by the general populace (Muslims come to mind), people who are poor, regardless of race or gender, and people who aren’t allowed to marry their significant other merely because they are both of the same gender. But blacks? Maybe I’m merely lucky and have never had the displeasure of meeting someone so overtly racist that I could not only tell they hated my guts because I was black, but that I was also denied an opportunity because of the color of my skin. I like to think, though, that the world has changed, and thus we should not continue to offer benefits to people merely because of the color of their skin.

    That’s why I agree with this bake sale. They should do another where worthwhile AA is examined, however, and poll students about their current income (they’ll be college students, so all pretty poor I guess) and put the lowest incomes in a bracket where they receive large discounts, and those who have higher incomes pay normal price. That would be a boost both much needed and much appreciated in today’s society.

  78. mespo727272 1, September 26, 2011 at 8:55 am

    I think you have the right to be insensitive, demeaning, historically blind, and callous, but no right to be free from the scorn of those who aren’t.

    anon : 1, September 26, 2011 at 11:53 am

    mespo, you are the last person at this forum to be calling out others for their insensitivity. Anyone that calls out a person as a “gay porky pig” should stfu about tossing accusations of insensitivity and demeaning around.

    But once more, you are wrong even on the merits of your argument:

    “I think you have the right to be insensitive, demeaning, historically blind, and callous, but no right to be free from the scorn of those who aren’t.”

    Two groups have a fundamental disagreement, not about discrimination, but about remedies.

    mespo727272: 1, September 29, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Roco:

    We agree on the goal then, just not the means of effecting it. I’ll agree to your way if you agree to mine should yours fail. That seems fair to me.

    Lot’s of other extraneous mespo bullshit redacted. Credit where credit is due, mespo can learn new things.

  79. Broke:

    You have the benefit of a sheltered life, two loving parents, and a myriad of opportunities. You’re the exception, my young friend, and not the rule. That’s why anecdotal evidence is always suspect and why experimenter bias is a problem. Come with me one day to Gilpin Court or Blackwell or Creighton Court here in Richmond and I’ll show you the other side of African-American progress. You’ll get a fast education and maybe a persepctive. You could also read Michael Harrington’s book, The Other America. Not much has changed for some. You might then see why these bake sales are insults from punks who possess neither the perspective nor the decency to help instead of harp. Jumping somebody when they’re down isn’t funny and it isn’t American.

  80. mESPO:

    what is your opinion as to why the people you mention in Richmond have not made progress?

    There are a good many poor white people who havent made progress either and it isnt because of racism.

    Personally I think it is some of what you say about not having loving and supporting parents encouraging them to do better but how do you improve that? That isnt a problem that can be remedied by affirmative action or by government fiat.

    Poverty is terrible but many, many people rise out of modest circumstances and achieve great things. America is full of those examples, I used to read about those people when I was kid, Lincoln, Carnegie, Edison, Hamilton and many others. I see progressive policies impeding people’s rise out of poverty and preventing them from achieving their full potential.

    Good steel has been worked to be able to sustain great stress without breaking. People are the same, and I know it is a bad cliche, but adversity that you come through does put starch in your spine.

    As you are a lover of quotes:

    “What does not kill me, makes me stronger”.

    (That doesnt mean I agree with him on the rest of it.)

    True then true today.

    If you have reached your breaking point, we as a society should step in and help. But it should be a last resort. People are quite adept at working things out for themselves if they have to.

  81. Rocco, Anon, SNL did a skit some eons ago wherein a couple of little girls (Radner was one of them) were talking to their granny (Curtain i believe) about their naughty bit. The question was asked, why did god give women more naughty bits than boys and the answer was that collecting most of the naughty bits in one place was more convenient for when one was looking for them. Not particularly funny but deep.

    Our society at one time kept the money in the hands of a much smaller segment of society. Caucasian males made the most because we were on an economic upswing and because others were legally prohibited from getting close to it.

    Concurrent with those minorities and women moving beyond false barriers to economic equality Ronald Reagan was elected and a deliberate plan to redistribute wealth upward began. Whatever economic grief has befallen the White males of society has not come from any preference to minorities, it’s come from an deliberate contraction in the size of the pie. It’s short-sighted and superficial to buy into the argument that preferences or to blame for a lack of potential earning power.

    Your outlook has been manipulated in that regard to deflect your energy and anger from the people that have actually stolen the future. If the social dynamic had stayed exactly the same regarding economic opportunity (and much of that depends on education opportunity) the economy would still be broken and caucasian males would still be sitting around pissed off. The difference is that they would know who their real enemy was.

    (Ummmm, think of the naughty bits as your economic enemies.)

  82. Broke: “As it stands, AA seems like an affront to those 60% of blacks who receive the benefits of more promising futures when they are not growing up in complete poverty, and, indeed, to those whites who are below the poverty line.
    ——-
    I can, as a practical matter agree with this.

    Opportunity should not be based on a general idea of poverty amongst races and genders being present, but instead on the actual individual.
    ——-
    I agree with this in major part

    A child who is born and raised in poverty is unlikely to have the same opportunities in life as a child raised in wealth. This does not mean that we should assume all impoverished youths are black, or that all wealthy youths are white. ”
    ——–
    Raw numbers would support the statement that Caucasians have more people in poverty, have more teenage mothers, have less health insurance, have more abortions, have less education, have more of all those bad things because as a defined group they are the largest. It;s the % that tells the tale though.

    I am a crazy liberal, I think and believe that your first two points are most appropriate for action on a grand social scale. The government should put most emphasis on primary and secondary education and in doing that any college level education concerns would melt away. I also believe that we should not ration college educations by ability to pay and should adopt the model in many European countries that make education through the college level is free or so heavily subsidized that anyone can get one without accruing 250K in college loans.

    These days we practice our slavery economically (actually, more-so overtly I should say) and what better way to enslave those in a new generation of potential wage earners (that might actually be able to make some money) than turn them out of college with a debt that will render them no more than indentured servants for much of their lives.

    Just call me crazy.

    I enjoyed reading your postings, they were well done and logical. I think the “religions not positively perceived’ statement as a criterion for AA is incorrect but that’s appropriate for a whole different thread. :-) Thanks for your insights.

  83. Lottakatz:

    The problem is too many people who think giving bail-outs to Wall Street bankers is a good idea. And giving huge loans to companies who are not going to make it based on the market at this time.

    I could care less who makes more than me, I figure my earning potential is based on how well I can serve the public. If someone does a better job, they make more money than I do. And rightly so. The problem with most people, at least in my opinion, is they do not want to do what is necessary to keep up and would rather government give them loans or bail them out.

    This type of thing hurts the poor and middle class by limiting access to capital and markets. Who can compete with that kind of crap going on. But as a socialist you want more of that type of thing, the only difference is the recipient. While I applaud your sentiment of providing more access to the poor and others, I want to totally eradicate this system of goodies given to one preferred class or another. How about government get totally out of the goodie providing business?

    I think that would help the disadvantaged more than redirecting monies from one privileged class to another.

  84. lottakatz:

    “accruing 250K in college loans”

    a four year education at instate tuitions for a public school is probably around $80,000.

    the 250 k would be for a top 20 school or other private college.

  85. Concurrent with those minorities and women moving beyond false barriers to economic equality Ronald Reagan was elected and a deliberate plan to redistribute wealth upward began. Whatever economic grief has befallen the White males of society has not come from any preference to minorities, it’s come from an deliberate contraction in the size of the pie. It’s short-sighted and superficial to buy into the argument that preferences or to blame for a lack of potential earning power.

    Your outlook has been manipulated in that regard to deflect your energy and anger from the people that have actually stolen the future.

    As OS might say, you assume / presume too much about me. And perhaps Roco too.

    The usual spiel I write, because I am never sure which word to use, and because I want to echo back feminist phrases is that it is presumptuous, arrogant, condescending, patronizing to tell people why they hold certain beliefs. And more so when, as mespo does to Broke, you tell a member of some certain group, that you are not a member of, that their views of that group are not as accurate, or authentic as your own.

    At any rate, LottaKatz, thank you for your bogus arrogance, you make me quite literally make me feel like a teenager again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

    This issue predated Reagan by a long shot, but thank you for playing.

  86. This issue predated President Reagan by a long shot, but thank you for playing, and in California, we had my favorite Governor by far, Governor Jerry Brown.

  87. http://news.salon.com/2011/10/05/the_unfree_speech_movement/singleton/

    Gary Kamiya, co-founder of Salon, writes:

    Obama’s crucial point was that the anger and fear of both blacks and whites was legitimate. On the one hand, whites needed to recognize that racial discrimination, past and present, did “not just exist in the minds of black people,” but was a real issue that had to be addressed. But blacks, too, needed to break out of their programmed responses to white grievances. “[T]o wish away the resentments of white Americans, to dismiss them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing that they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.”

    Obama’s message has apparently not gotten through to the University of California at Berkeley. As the hysterical reaction to a recent “Diversity Bake Sale” shows, the place that gave birth to the Free Speech Movement (and my alma mater) is not capable of talking freely about race.

    Last week, the U.C. Berkeley College Republicans – not a group I ever thought I would find myself defending — staged what they called an “Increase Diversity Bake Sale,” to protest a bill, S.B. 185, that would allow public California universities to consider race, ethnicity and gender in admissions. The bill, which Gov. Jerry Brown has indicated he may sign, is an attempt to get around Proposition 209, which California voters passed in 1996 and which prohibited preferential treatment of minorities by the state.

    In the bake sale, cupcakes were offered at different prices to different racial and ethnic groups. For whites, the price was $2; for Asians, $1.50; for Latinos, $1; for Native Americans, 75 cents. Women got an additional 25 cents off.

    The cupcake sale was an obvious, and dead-on, political satire. The purpose of S.B. 185 is to give “underrepresented minorities” – blacks and Latinos – preference in admissions. To comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings outlawing racial preferences in college admissions, the bill disingenuously asserts that it will not give such preferences, but that is an obvious ruse: Its author, state Sen. Ed Hernandez, has stated that its purpose is to increase black and Latino enrollment at California public universities. If it did not give those groups an advantage in admissions, it would be pointless. The Academic Senate of the University of California recognized this in a letter to the U.C. administration recommending that the university remain neutral on the bill. The bill’s intention is to give blacks and Latinos a discounted admission to California colleges. The bake sale, which offered discounted cupcakes to blacks and Latinos, is an exact equivalent. If the bake sale is offensive, then racial preferences themselves are offensive.

    Regardless of your position on affirmative action, the bake sale was completely within the bounds of acceptable satire. It was not like one of those fraternity pranks where a bunch of yahoo rich white kids dress up in blackface and pretend to be ghetto gangbangers. Yet many U.C. students, the U.C. student government and the U.C. administration reacted to the bake sale as if the Ku Klux Klan had erected a gigantic burning cross in Sproul Plaza.

    Enraged counter-protesters decried the bake sale as “racist.” The student organizers of the parody were threatened, and there was talk of defunding their organization. The student senate voted 19-0 to condemn the bake sale.

    Most egregiously, U.C. Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau and two top administrators felt impelled to send out an open letter to the campus community, condemning the bake sale as “contrary to the Principles of Community we espouse as a campus.”

    The terrible offense the creators of the bake sale were guilty of? Hurting people’s feelings. “This event has moved the campus community into dialogue, because it was hurtful or offensive to many of its members,” the letter – also signed by Gibor Basri, vice-chancellor for diversity and inclusion, and Harry LeGrand, vice-chancellor for student affairs – piously intoned. Remarkably, this letter did not even attempt to argue that there was anything objectively offensive about the bake sale. The mere fact that it offended some students was considered sufficient grounds to condemn it; whether it was actually offensive, or racist, or beyond the pale in any way, was deemed irrelevant by U.C. Berkeley’s top brass. “The issue is not whether one thinks an action is satirical or inoffensive; the issue is whether community members will be intentionally — or unintentionally – hurt or demeaned by that action.”

    If he actually followed this absurd position to its logical conclusion, Chancellor Birgeneau would have to spend all his time firing off open letters. He would have to rebuke pro-Israeli groups for hurting Palestinians’ feelings, and vice-versa. He would have to criticize opponents and supporters of abortion rights for making their adversaries feel bad. In fact, if he really wanted to defend the feelings of the campus community, he should send an open letter to California voters, telling them that by passing Proposition 209 they did something very hurtful.

    But of course Birgeneau will not send any of those letters. Because his hypocritical letter is really only concerned with protecting the feelings of one group: underrepresented minority students. Its implicit message: It is not permissible to talk about race except in approved ways. Any deviation from the script will be censured.

    Is this any way to run a university? And is it any way to advance racial dialogue?

    As then-Sen. Obama pointed out, affirmative action remains one of the most divisive issues in American society. White anger over it has been one of the key factors behind the rise of the American right. Even many of its most articulate defenders, like Orlando Patterson and Glenn Loury, acknowledge how flawed, problematic and morally troubling it is. It needs to be talked about. By trying to make it off-limits to free discussion, U.C. Berkeley has abdicated its proud heritage as a bastion of free speech and succumbed to a stifling racial politeness that does no one any good – least of all the minority students whose allegedly delicate feelings it is at such pains to protect. College is supposed to be a preparation for life, and life is full of arguments and confrontations, some of which can hurt one’s feelings. Condescension and paternalism are not solid foundations for racial progress.

    The sanctimonious approach to race in the chancellor’s open letter reflects the anodyne, Mom-and-apple-pie celebration of “diversity” that has become a quasi-official American orthodoxy. There is nothing necessarily wrong with the fact that American institutions, from the government to big corporations, now actively promote racial inclusion, harmony and understanding. But when racial “diversity” becomes a sacred cow, one that trumps everything else, true diversity – diversity of opinion – is threatened. Colleges and universities are one of American society’s last lines of defense of that vital diversity, which also goes by the name of freedom. They must hold the line.

    Gary Kamiya is a co-founder of Salon

  88. Control yourself!Who but Jack would do such a thing? What’s your goal in life.Do you realize that all of these shirts are half off?Are you going to have a party? You forget to write down the date of your departure.A lovely day£¬isn’t it? You’d better look before you leap.He paused for a reply.Their interest is listening to others.

Comments are closed.