Saturday, September 29, 2007

African-American firms get less work

Conservative idea:
The people who do the best get the work.
If one group is not working at a level that is acceptable and causing them to not be successful, then they need some help learning and getting the skills to be successful

Liberal idea:
Minorities are not getting enough________ (insert anything), the govt should just give it to them.
Minorities are not getting enough contracts, create racist policies that force the city to give them contracts, if they are capable of doing the work or not.

I think the choice is clear. Provide help for women and minorities to achieve a work ethic and quality level that allows them to become successful. If they do not want to work hard enough or do what it takes to be the best, then you can't get the rewards.

Liberal policies reward being lazy. They reward you for being a minority, and that is all.
Don't have the skills, who cares, we will just GIVE you what you want.
Don't want to do the work, so what, the govt will give you what you want anyway.

Yet Hash and Jim don't understand how failed liberal social programs create a permanent underclass of people who don't want to work hard and gain the skills necessary to get ahead.

Instead I have to read racist shit like this:
Many firms certified as disadvantaged are minority- or woman-run. But the NAACP and minority-contracting officials say the race-neutral program has become too watered-down to help enough African-American firms. White male business owners who are deemed disadvantaged can participate in the program.

Ahhh...to liberals, ONLY blacks, Hispanics and women can be disadvantaged....Which party sees things based on color? Doesn't seem to be the Right. Seems like, once again, the white males get the shaft.

20 comments:

Jason H. Bowden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason H. Bowden said...

Game--

The left believes that any increase in equality, no matter how small, is worth any sacrifice, no matter how large.

If you make your case in terms of the incentives socialist policies create, I'm telling you, you will get nowhere with these loons. Socialists refuse to look at the world in terms of costs and benefits. Instead, socialists envision a solution to their problem (in this case racism), and anyone who thinks their cure is worse than the disease is denounced for having bad intentions, not caring enough, et cetera.

I would ask the left-- if whitey is so racist, why does the average Muslim-American make more than 20K a year than the average European-American? After 911, you'd think they'd be picked on the most, since all of us wingnuts supposedly want to kill all of the A-rabs, the progressives believe. Also, why does the same follow for the Chinese, Indians, and blacks from the Caribbean where there is also a legacy of slavery? Did the white people suddenly decide to cut these people some slack?

Face it. The chaos in our inner cities is a direct consequence of the Great Society, and the left knows it.

Jim said...

The left believes that any increase in equality, no matter how small, is worth any sacrifice, no matter how large.

False again, Jason. And how would you know what the left believes if you are not among them?

Jason H. Bowden said...

"And how would you know what the left believes if you are not among them?"

I used to be among them, and understand how they think. Though authenticity is no substitute for truth -- the left ultimately should be judged by its actions and deeds.

Realism said...

if whitey is so racist, why does the average Muslim-American make more than 20K a year than the average European-American? After 911, you'd think they'd be picked on the most, since all of us wingnuts supposedly want to kill all of the A-rabs

1. Because Muslim-Americans are well educated. 67% of them have a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 43.7 percent of Americans in general.
2. Because first generation immigrants are a self selected group that are extremely motivated and entrepreneurial.
3. Because the 6 years of discrimination is not equivalent to the 400 plus years of slavery, discrimination, and disenfrancisement that black people have suffered
4. Because Muslim-American immigrants are wealthier to begin with. That is, they were already wealthy when they came here.
BTW, the average income for Muslim Americans has fallen 6% between 2000 and 2005.

Also, why does the same follow for the Chinese, Indians,
Gee, I guess it could have something to do with the fact that they didn't have 400 years of programming and conditioning telling them that they were inferior, lazy and dumb.

and blacks from the Caribbean where there is also a legacy of slavery?
Because American blacks have more than a "legacy of slavery". They have an additional 125 years of rampant racism, propagated by conservatives, that was institutionalized and did not begin to abate until the Affirmative Action programs that you so detest began to reverse the damage.

I do think that today, racism has abated to the point where it is not as serious a problem as it used to be. In the 21st century, class discrimination is the new racism. I think it's stupid to make affirmative action programs strictly race based. There's no way that society should be giving preference to, let's say, the child of an affluent black doctor in the suburbs over the child of poor white family in the country with a 9th grade education.

Socio-economic status confers the same benefits or disadvantages today that race used to carry.

However, to argue that affirmative action programs were not necessary when they were instituted is to argue that there was no harm experienced by the victims of slavery and institutionalized racism.

The Game said...

Realism was 2 for 3:
number one: I think it's stupid to make affirmative action programs strictly race based.
The real indicator is socio-economic statis, it just happens that a much bigger percentage of minorities are poor than whites.

number two: However, to argue that affirmative action programs were not necessary when they were instituted is to argue that there was no harm experienced by the victims of slavery and institutionalized racism.

It is true that some people had to be forced to stop being racist...but that is not true for the most part today.

number 3: all the times realism blames racism for blacks not going to school and being socially and personally irresponsible.

That has to stop. I have gone over the reasons why already.

Jason is right and wrong when he says:
The chaos in our inner cities is a direct consequence of the Great Society, and the left knows it.

They don't know it

Realism said...

Game, look at it this way- you deal with children all the time.

If you have a child that is constantly receiving a message from all sides, from his parents, from teachers, from people who are respected in the community and from authority figures, don't they start to internalize it?

If that message is "you are stupid, you are lazy, you are inferior, there is no place in society for you to succeed", what type of decisions do you think that child will make? What type of parent do you think that child will make? What kind of neighbor?

Ron said...

Oh No! Game, I can't find much to argue with in your above comment! I completely agree that it is more a class issue than race these day. I also agree that while minority set asides were necessary for a while that at a certain point we need to take the training wheels off. I think we are at or near the point that we can at least start trailing it back some.
I also agree with realism. The constant pounding that the lower classes take about being lazy and stupid is a big part of the problem. When one works hard to get ahead and doesn't(that would be my case and I am a white) I can see where it would make many want to give up. There are many reasons why people don't get ahead like they did back when..well nearly before you were born, but that is another post entirely.

hashfanatic said...

They are brainwashed by the corporatists who feed them to think like neocons and demand, demand, demand...

Also the emphasis placed on competitive sports in ghetto schools, without emphasis on teamwork.

The prevalent attitude amongst all levels of African-American society in business is, "I've got mine!".

They are instructed (badly) by the moneychangers, who the blacks in business give props to for being good with a buck and crafty in business, but do not trust, in how to float an enterprise.

They see cutting corners, putting out inferior product at grossly inflated prices, deliberately not seeing jobs through to completion as following the moneychangers straight to the big time, while their crafty instructors in evil collect major consulting fees which are laundered through phony charities and religious foundations, and earn respect in the media for their openmindedness and "out-of-the-box" innovations...

Oh, well. If you didn't like it this way, you'd properly identify the culprits and refuse to put up with it....

Easier just to blame the jigaboo.

Jason H. Bowden said...

realism--

I do not know a single black person that was enslaved for 400 years. I do not even know a human being that has been alive for 400 years.

Blaming the situation in the inner city on the legacy of slavery is idiocy, given we didn't see the family breakdown, the rise in drug abuse, and the spike in violent crime until the Great Society. Before then, even though blacks were prohibited from many forms of economic advancement, they still had intact families. Note that this is what allows Muslims, Chinese, and Indians to advance in the United States.

Going back in history works against your conclusion, since Lincoln freed the slaves while anti-war Democrats opposed him, Eisenhower desegregated the schools, and George W Bush has the most diverse cabinet in American history. In contrast, anti-war Democrats opposed Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson resegregated the government, and the Democrats still have KKK members like Senator Byrd in their ranks today.

This is all irrelevant, however-- the black family was intact even through the 1950s, despite Democrat racism. The disintegration of inner city communities can be directly attributed to socialist entitlements of the 1960s. Game is 100% correct in this regard.

Jason H. Bowden said...

"They are instructed (badly) by the moneychangers,"

Oh geez, give the fascism a rest.

hashfanatic said...

You are the one who believes in merging government interests with business interests, jason.

You are the one who pushes real fascism as predatory capitalism and attempts to pass it off as democracy.

I'm only telling the truth others cannot bring themselves to admit to.

Your masters have had twenty-seven long years to corrupt and defile the nation and our culture.

It is, simply, time for a fundamental realignment of your "order".

Realism said...

I do not know a single black person that was enslaved for 400 years. I do not even know a human being that has been alive for 400 years.

So, you are claiming that the cultural, societal, and economic pressures of slavery had no lasting effects? That is real idiocy.

"Blaming the situation in the inner city on the legacy of slavery is idiocy, given we didn't see the family breakdown, the rise in drug abuse, and the spike in violent crime until the Great Society. " Gosh, Jason, refuting your lies is turning into a full time job. It's interesting that you chose the 1950's as an arbitrary cutoff. It seems like the huge sociological and cultural changes that occurred after WWII might make that decade a bit of an anomaly, don't you think? Let's look a little further back...

"According to an analysis of a 1910 census, black mothers with children were more than three times as likely to be living without a male partner in the household as were white mothers with children...There are longstanding cultural differences in the ways blacks and whites conceive of and carry out their family lives. In particular, African American culture places greater emphasis on ties to a network of kin that can extend over more than one household...During the seventeenth century, slaves had little opportunity to establish family units. Newly imported African slaves were often kept in sex-segregated quarters. In the Chesapeake colonies and the Carolinas, most slaves lived on plantations with fewer than ten slaves. These units were so small and so widely dispersed, and the sex ratio was so skewed (two women for three men) that it was difficult for slave men and women to find a spouse of roughly the same age. A high death rate compounded the difficulties slaves faced in forming families, since many slaves did not live long enough to marry or, if they did, their not live long enough to marry or, if they did, their marriages were brief"

So, notwithstanding the influence of millions of returning soldiers from WWII, which caused a spike in marriage rates among all races, the information I presented shows that since its inception, slavery has decimated the black nuclear (or should I say Nook-u-ler) family. Family structure is an aspect of culture that is propagated through generations, meaning that children often adopt the practices of their parents.

Other "memes" that were inherited were the sense of black inferiority and other stereotypes (such as black licentiousness, suitability for only physical forms of labor, and lack of intelligence) which were programmed into the black consciousness by white America.

I do agree that the forms of welfare which required the recipients to not have a male present in the household did contribute to the problem. However, it is putting the cart before the horse to claim that welfare cause the problem that it was created to address.

Going back in history works against your conclusion, since Lincoln freed the slaves while anti-war Democrats This is more misinformation that I never tire of refuting.

You are ignoring the fact that at this point in history, Democrats were the conservatives and Republicans were radical liberals.

George W Bush has the most diverse cabinet in American history
Yes, but Bill Clinton had the most diverse Administration in history.

and the Democrats still have KKK members like Senator Byrd in their ranks today
your lies become tiresome after a while. Byrd renounced racism decades ago, whereas the friends of the Council of Concerned Citizens such as Haley Barbour Trent Lott, and George "macaca" Allen are still active leaders in your party.

the black family was intact even through the 1950s Actually that is the ONLY time that it was intact, since the days of slavery.

The disintegration of inner city communities can be directly attributed to socialist entitlements of the 1960s
An honest and accurate statement would be that The disintegration of black communities can be directly attributed to SLAVERY.

Ron said...

Give me a candidate like Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt and I will happily vote Republican. As a matter of fact TR is my favorite president of all time. Right now we need someone like him more than ever.

Jason H. Bowden said...

An honest and accurate statement would be that The disintegration of black communities can be directly attributed to SLAVERY.

This is asinine agitprop, given the rampant drug abuse, family breakdown, and violent crime didn't appear in the black community until the 1960s. Certainly you're not suggesting that this was caused by slavery, but it somehow remained dormant for 100 years.

Actually that is the ONLY time that it was intact, since the days of slavery.

This is false. In fact, according to census data from 1890 to 1940, the percentage of black adults that had married was actually slightly *higher* than the percentage of white adults. And the end of the civil war, blacks travelled literally across the country to reunite themselves with their families. The decay of the black family was directly caused by the Great Society, though the socialist message of free love, free drugs, and feminism certainly didn't help.

There are longstanding cultural differences in the ways blacks and whites conceive of and carry out their family lives.

This is false, and reeks of racist stereotyping. Go back to 1940, for example. It is true that single households were more prevalent among blacks. However, higher mortality rates explains much of this, given 52% of female blacks who headed their own household were 45 years or older. In addition, only 14% of black children were born to unmarried women in 1940. Again, if anything caused the breakdown of the black family, it certainly was not the "legacy of slavery."

" Democrats were the conservatives and Republicans were radical liberals."

Ridiculous. The religious right was behind the abolitionist movement, and the Republican Party was pro-military and pro-business back in that day, just like today. And it isn't an accident that the pro-slavery party is the pro-socialism party today.

hashfanatic said...

I'm so tired of hearing about slavery, not to mention devious, opportunistic spinmeisters using the slavery angle, disenfranchised Indians, like they use the Holocaust story, to try to swing the argument in their favor, when it matters not at all in the here and now.

When the fuckups come back from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc., what are they going to blame when WE won't hire them?? No business owner or exec is going to voluntarily take the risk of bringing some untreated PTSD, potentially unhinged, at-risk adult into America's already violence-besieged workplaces?

Oh, the miltards can try to legislate them in, if they can even be bothered at this point, but that won't solve the underlying issues that will upset the delicate balance of America's weakened, thoroughly corrupt corporate culture and its offices?

It's gonna be hilarious watching neocons moaning FOR affirmative action for their favorite sons all over again...

Jason H. Bowden said...

"I'm so tired of hearing about slavery,"

I never get tired of winning the arguments. You guys make it so easy for me!

I'm especially glad to have you around, Hash, since you make the fascist, anti-liberal character of the left obvious for everyone to see. Of course, I'm using liberal in the classic sense here. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were a sock puppet by marshall or game to make realism, jim, etc. look bad. But then again, I've seen the sewage posted on places like DailyKos, and know how crazy you people really are.

The Game said...

Hash makes Rush Limbaugh look like he is the President of the military fan club:
When the fuckups come back from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc
miltards

wow

hashfanatic said...

"I never get tired of winning the arguments. You guys make it so easy for me!"

So easy that you believe you've actually done so, but you think you've pulled victory out of your ass, anyway?

Think about it. You're good at that.


"I'm especially glad to have you around, Hash, since you make the fascist, anti-liberal character of the left obvious for everyone to see."

I'm pretty easy to figure out. I know what I want, I aim to get it, and it's a colossal waste of my time to obfuscate and run little passion plays when I know who I am, I know who my enemies are, and I'm at liberty to pontificate at will about the continuing struggle.

Jason, I'd wish you such inner peace, directness, and sense of purpose, but that wouldn't fit into my goals, no?


"Of course, I'm using liberal in the classic sense here."

Of course, we apt pupils at RFTR all know that Jason Bowden without a deliberately deceptive or self-defined label or descriptive is like a squirrel without a nut.

It's a NEW seance with your muse that we are breathlessly awaiting, yet you give us yesterday's girl.


"If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were a sock puppet by marshall or game to make realism, jim, etc. look bad."

Oh, I'm sure that realism and jim and all the other normals who post here do their share of groaning over some of my more unbridled proclamations here.

What you've never understood is that we are not "sockpuppets" VERSUS either other...most sane commenters are somewhat more centrist than I am, and I tend to be far less liberal than they are, but they and I can coexist as honest Americans and agree to disagree about our differences, rather than divide over them.

I believe they recognize that the only "political correctness" that you and your cabal you actually wish to eradicate is that you disagree with, or paints you in a deservedly unflattering light.

Rest assured, it is as it is.


"But then again, I've seen the sewage posted on places like DailyKos, and know how crazy you people really are."

I actually don't know much about Kos and, although I have a personal distaste for Moulitsas, it is a valuable resource.

I also review and monitor several wingnut and neocon sites of similar reknown, here and abroad.

My point is, if you're looking for the enemy in your own backyard, and you've tagged as Kos, you are sadly, pathetically mistaken.

The quality of your use of the Internet is only determined by the limits you place on it, Jason.

Who really gives a fuck about Mark Levin's dead dog, anyway?

The Game said...

I admire Mark's ability to yell continuously for three hours...