Subj : Democracy Explained to Kids
To   : BOB KLAHN
From : Lee Lofaso
Date : Wed Oct 02 2013 07:16 pm

Hello Bob,

BK>> The point of affirmative action is to insure success is
BK>> distributed regardless of race. Only those who oppose AA must
BK>> believe there is no racial compenent to poverty.

LL>> The point of affirmative action is to discriminate in favor
LL>> of minorities - in most cases meaning blacks.  Once equality

BK>You really are not familar with the history of affirmative
BK>action, are you.

Of course I am!  Of course I am!  It is a history of discrimination!

BK>Some years back I found one of the annual almanacs, don't recall
BK>which but one of the top ones, had regular analysis of affirmative
BK>action. They found that 90% of the benefits of affirmative action
BK>went to whites.

White folks created it for their own benefit.  By creating affirmative
action, white folks expanded the work force for employers.  An expanded
work force meant more qualified workers for employers to choose from.

Although not part of affirmative action, this example says it all -

Paul "Bear" Bryant, head football coach at Alabama, wanted to offer
full scholarships to black athletes.  But he was unable to do so due
to opposition from Alabama alumni.  So he got the Alabama athletic
director to get in touch with the University of Southern California
athletic director, thus setting up a football game between Alabama
and USC.  The game was televised nationally, and played at Alabama.
USC easily won the game, by a wide margin.  I will not repeat the
taunts made by Alabama fans, which were very carefully edited out
from television.  The Alabama alumni got the picture, and from that
day forward allowed black athletes to receive full scholarships.

LL>> has been reached, affirmative action programs are no longer
LL>> needed and should be dismantled.  However, once inequalities
LL>> re-emerge, affirmative action programs should be put back
LL>> in place.  This on again/off again approach is the only way
LL>> affirmative action programs can work in a truly fair manner.

BK>Since Equality has not been reached, that's not relevant, yet.

The best that can be hoped for is a +/- percentage.  Not really
a quota system, but an approximation.

BK>> Which is true. We need affirmative action for all the poor in
BK>> America.

LL>> Bob Dole said much the same thing, but wanted to change it
LL>> from being a race-based program to being an economic-based

BK>Which would mean, in the real world, focusing on white poor
BK>first.

That was Bob Dole's idea, basing his argument on economic terms
rather than on racial terms.  Problem was he didn't follow up with
an actual plan of his own.

LL>> Black folks are more discriminatory of their own than any
LL>> other race. There are dark-skinned blacks, light-skinned
LL>> blacks, blacks who pass for white ...

BK>> When you are reduced to survival level your competitors are not
BK>> those well off, but those like you scrambling to survive.

LL>> Let's see how well those who are presently on disability
LL>> (SSDI) manage to survive when their checks are cut by 20
LL>> percent in 2016. Let's see how those on disability manage
LL>> to survive when conservative Republicans undo at least some
LL>> of Ronald Reagan's 1984 reform that expanded the kinds of
LL>> disabilities covered.

BK>Yes, they worship the name of Reagan, but his actual policies
BK>are anathema.

Ronald Reagan was another time, another place.  When the sun went
down, politicians would meet after hours and have a few drinks.
Solutions were found, cabbies made money, and floozies found love.
Today there is no love, cabbies have no money, and solutions are
nowhere to be found.

LL>> Do you think the Congress will do anything to save the SSDI
LL>> trust program?  By doing nothing, the cuts take effect

BK>Not if the Tea Party can stop them.

Not to worry.  Ted Cruz will come to the rescue.  After all, he has
already stopped the Democrats.  He has also stopped the Republicans.
So who else is left to stop him?  You?  Please.  Give me a break.

LL>> automatically. What will happen is Republican lawmakers
LL>> will say something along the lines of "Let's compromise" to
LL>> the Democrats, and then refuse to go along with anything
LL>> the Democrats propose.  To obstruct, by any means
LL>> necessary, resulting in getting exactly what they want,
LL>> while blaming Obama at the same time.

BK>Well, yeah, but that's their SOP.

Ted Cruz has a new way.
Well, not exactly new.
More like the Cruz way.

LL>> After gutting the SSDI program, Republican lawmakers will
LL>> move on to gutting the Social Security program for retirees
LL>> age 65 and over. Won't that be grand?

BK>Gutting SSDI will cause so much trouble, and even trying to end
BK>Social Security, the republicans will lose all the control they
BK>have now.

That is why the GOP had to gut SNAP first.
By starving the poor, there will be fewer mouths
to feed.  And that means less opposition from
the poor, disabled, and elderly.  Keep doing
that for a few decades and then Republicans
will win every election by default.

LL>> let's keep SSI and medicaid, as funding for those programs

LL>> Imagine that.  Folks who never worked a day in their life
LL>> are better off than folks who worked their butts off their
LL>> entire lives.

BK>An awful lot of those on SSI and Medicaid have worked, and
BK>Medicaid is 2/3rds the handicapped and elderly, last I checked.

They have not worked enough to earn the credits they need for
retirement.  For most people, 40 credits (quarters) is the minimum.
IOW, ten years of work over a lifetime (up to age 65).  It should
also be kept in mind that not all governors have signed on to expanded
medicaid, leaving many people unable to obtain insurance through
Obamacare.

LL>> seems to me that most folks would prefer having a bit of
LL>> free time after having worked for sixty or seventy fucking
LL>> years.

BK>Trust me, you are right. Though is just seems to me like a long
BK>string of days off, or a very long vacation.

That's (marginally) better than terminal sleep (death).

BK>> When I was young they could tell us, if we succeeded in school
BK>> we would have jobs. Now they tell kids, if they succeed in
BK>> school it's less likely they will be the ones without jobs,
BK>> someone else will be. Not much of a guarantee.

LL>> Social Security used to be a guarantee.  Not any more.
LL>> Pensions used to be a guarantee.  Not any more.

BK>Social security will survive, unless the republicans get so much
BK>power they can eliminate it quickly enough so the resistance can
BK>not get organized.

They'll probably water it down to the point that nobody will notice
when the plug is pulled.

BM>> LOL.... irony as it's best... vote for the man who doesn't give a
BM>> rat's ass about you.

LL>> You have to remember - we boil our crawfish LIVE.  :)

BK>> Hmmm... that seems a bit... disturbing...

LL>> Not for the crawfish.  They wave their little claws out the
LL>> water and stare at us with those beady little eyes ...

BK>Thinking how they would like to reverse the positions?

When you go to pick up a crawfish, the crawfish run backwards as they
snap their little claws trying to give you a handshake.  Of course, I
know that from past experience, being a real pro in conducting crawfish
races.  However, I have retired from that activity long ago, allowing
today's youngsters to have all the fun.  But I still enjoy boiling
those little beasts and eating as many of them as are placed on the
table ...

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
* Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)