| Author |
Message |
| Samadhi |
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2003 4:32 pm Post subject: 1 |
|
| Well, the muscle for that particular exercise may have atrophied. |
|
 |
| The Anonymous Sarcast |
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2003 3:50 pm Post subject: 0 |
|
I had an argument with someone about the Michigan undergraduate admissions point system, and said how I thought it was clearly racially discriminatory. He said it wasn't at all to give a hand up to underrepresented minorities. I gave him this thought exercise:
Rather than setting the admissions cut-off at 100 points, and summarily awarding 20 points to non-whites, set the admissions cut-off to 80 points, and summarily subtract 20 points from all white applicants' total scores. The same exact set of applicants will be admitted. Is there a difference? It is pretty clear that in the hypothetical case, applicants are penalized for being white. How then is this not the case with the actual system?
He hasn't gotten back to me on that one yet.
|
|
 |
| ML |
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:14 pm Post subject: -1 |
|
Samadhi, The supreme court decided two affirmative action cases earlier this week which were based on University of Michigan admissions policies. (Michigan's press release).
They decided that the undergraduate policy, which awarded 20 points to underrepresented minorities (on a 150 point scale, 100 points to get in) was illegal, because it applied the racial aspect in a "cold mechanical manner". The law school, which considers each applicant individually in a "holistic" manner, that includes race, in an effort to acheive a "critical mass" is legal.
Of course, the law school has many many fewer applicant/year, and there probably is an effective "point system", just not written down, or fully understood. But by not writing it down or understanding it, it's OK.
Really, this probably deserves another thread, since it has nothing to do with the initial topic.
|
|
 |
| Fried Egg |
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:27 am Post subject: -2 |
|
| Quote: |
| For all you Europeans: Enjoy. |
Yeah, it is a little scary but it's not quite as bad as it sounds...from the point of view that most of it we are already subject to because of treaties already in place. This is mainly an exercise in pulling all the existing treaties together into one new constitution.
I used to be in favour of furher European integration but now I must confess to a little nervous apprehension for being drawn into a European consensus that is even more socialist than Britain is. |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2003 6:55 am Post subject: -3 |
|
I feel out of the loop. Which Michigan issue?
------------------ A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
|
|
 |
| ML |
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:17 am Post subject: -4 |
|
Michigan is actually a public school, with public funding (I think). It is boound more closely to these sorts of laws than a private school.
IMHO to complicating factor is when they started considering "compelling state interest". Makes it difficult to predict what the rulings will be.
|
|
 |
| Jack Crazyquilt |
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:01 am Post subject: -5 |
|
| Sounds like the Supreme Court needs a good swift kick in the breaches. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:34 pm Post subject: -6 |
|
So if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that is clearly racist, does it really matter if there is a "breach of the constitution?" It may be a fun debate to engage in, but I will concede the point to you. Technically now, no breach.
However, I personally think that it opens the door for all states to interpret the constitution in a new way, which could easily lead to what you would consider a breach. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:03 pm Post subject: -7 |
|
But the case before the Supreme Court involved a private school and their admission rights. Congress did not pass a law, in this particular case, that said minorities got an advantage.
Playing devil's advocate here. It's racism, pure and simple, but I'm not seeing it as the breach of the Constitution. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:00 pm Post subject: -8 |
|
| Quote: |
| No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
This is what I was talking about. It is from the 14th amendment after all. Don't you think the recent Supreme Court ruling contradicts this a bit?
[This message has been edited by Pablo (edited 06-25-2003 06:01 PM).] |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:18 pm Post subject: -9 |
|
| And I checked the 15th as well, it seems to be solely limited to voting rights. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:37 pm Post subject: -10 |
|
| I corrected my post. I meant the "15th" amendment. Sorry. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:17 pm Post subject: -11 |
|
You know, I was looking through the 14th amendment, and I couldn't find anything about that in it. To me, ti just looked like guidelines for citizens, elected officials, and some voting information, nothing about "equal rights".
Maybe I misread it. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:55 pm Post subject: -12 |
|
Originally posted by Samadhi: The ideals and guidelines stated in the Constitution are sublime in their simplicity and beauty. But the law of the land is not the law of the Constitution.
Take the 14th amendment for example. It's pretty simple in explaining that no one may be discriminated against due to race. At least there's one thing we can count on, right? I mean no one, even the Supreme Court, could distort the meaning of that, right? That's the beauty of our constitution. It's clear.
[This message has been edited by Pablo (edited 06-25-2003 05:58 PM).] |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:01 pm Post subject: -13 |
|
Gods, what a clusterfuck that document is.
------------------ A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
|
|
 |
| The Anonymous Sarcast |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:17 pm Post subject: -14 |
|
| For all you Europeans: Enjoy. |
|
 |
| Fried Egg |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:29 am Post subject: -15 |
|
Pablo
| Quote: |
| I still disagree with you. Imagine the federal government being one person. New imagine that he collects the same amount of taxes that are now collected and spends the same amount that is now spent. Even with all that "government spending" we're still way better off than now, because millions more people are out working in productive private sector jobs, increasing the overall wealth and raising the average standard of living. That's why I don't think it's the amount of government spending. It's the huge number of non-productive or counter-productive people. |
You make a valid point but don't forget that much of what the government spends is the what it spends employing so many people. If it did only employ one person (the president presumably) it would not spend any where near as much money as it does.
And what government spends is important. Every dollar spent by government is one dollar taken from the private sector. One dollar that cannot be put towards the private sector's most urgent ends. |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:18 am Post subject: -16 |
|
Unfortunately, the people do have their say. Transformed through the magic of government into a thing utterly myopic and lacking of all responsibility. Every day the system becomes less and less accountable even while it becomes more and more intrusive. And yet still the people feed it as long as they get their bread and circuses. People unwilling to take accountability for their own lives have control over mine and yours. This is unconscionable and evil.
The ideals and guidelines stated in the Constitution are sublime in their simplicity and beauty. But the law of the land is not the law of the Constitution. We're way over due for a revolution.
------------------ A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
|
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 2:54 am Post subject: -17 |
|
Originally posted by Fried Egg: I think that governments should spend less but if they want to spend more, they should be prepared to tax the population in order to pay for it.
You make it sound as though the decision as to how much government spends rests solely with the government. Don't the people have something to say about this? "If they want to spend more..."???? When has a government ever NOT wanted to spend more?
|
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 8:33 pm Post subject: -18 |
|
| In practice, I'd aggree. However, the way government jobs are handled is far, *FAR* worse than anything in the private sector. It makes a huge difference. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 8:02 pm Post subject: -19 |
|
Originally posted by Death Mage: Pablo: Considering that the government is sending money OUT to pay for their workers, my statement that money leaving the government being the problem covers that as well.
I still disagree with you. Imagine the federal government being one person. New imagine that he collects the same amount of taxes that are now collected and spends the same amount that is now spent. Even with all that "government spending" we're still way better off than now, because millions more people are out working in productive private sector jobs, increasing the overall wealth and raising the average standard of living. That's why I don't think it's the amount of government spending. It's the huge number of non-productive or counter-productive people.
[This message has been edited by Pablo (edited 06-24-2003 04:02 PM).] |
|
 |
| Fried Egg |
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:23 pm Post subject: -20 |
|
Mikko
The problem with that article you linked to is that it focuses on the wrong things:
| Quote: |
| One is the tax cuts lead to sustained budget deficits. |
This is only the case because spending is on the increase (rather than decreasing accordingly). In otherwords, tax cuts would not lead to deficits if they were accompanied by spending cutbacks.
| Quote: |
| Second, the administration's tax cuts are ineffective at stimulating consumption because they are so heavily targeted at high-income groups. |
What the relevence of this is, I don't know. If the tax cuts benefit the rich more, it is only because the rich pay much more tax in the first place. Why tax cuts that favour the poor should have any more effect at stimulating the economy than tax cuts that favour the rich is anyone's guess.
| Quote: |
| Third, there is little reason for making permanent tax cuts to generate jobs in 2003 and 2004 -- the tax code in 2010 has little to do with the spending habits of consumers this year. So the large permanent tax cuts are unnecessarily expensive and the wrong tool for generating a stronger recovery and creating jobs this year. |
So what if it only generates jobs by the following year. It doesn't mean that it should not be done.
[This message has been edited by Fried Egg (edited 06-23-2003 11:37 AM).] |
|
 |
| Fried Egg |
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:09 pm Post subject: -21 |
|
Mr. Anon
Who are you talking to? |
|
 |
| The Anonymous Sarcast |
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:50 pm Post subject: -22 |
|
Bah. I don't have time for this. You all know who I am and why I quit posting. The Anonymous Sarcast only snipes. He does not engage in debate. I just wrote a big post answering all your questions and goofy crap (feudalism, good grief. **rolls eyes**), and then deleted it. It wouldn't do any good. Go back to chewing your cud and worshipping the State.
Perhaps I should call myself the Anonymous Sarcastic Sniper. Yes, that would make everything much clearer.
|
|
 |
| casinopete |
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:04 pm Post subject: -23 |
|
| I don't think it really matters to whom we owe money. In a pinch, we can just say they were funding terrorists, and then eliminate them as an entity. No lender = no debt. |
|
 |
| Mikko |
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:58 pm Post subject: -24 |
|
I agree with you FE on the balanced budget part. It looks like people are generally more concrened about it here in Finland than in many other places. In our recent parliamentary election the Coalition (conservative party) promised tax cuts without really saying where they would take the money from and then lost the election and ended up in opposition.
This is an interesting article about the current American economical policy: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1387 |
|
 |
| Fried Egg |
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:34 am Post subject: -25 |
|
Extro
| Quote: |
| And, why would we want to? |
Well, that's another question altogether. One which I don't intend to get into here.
Generally speaking, the point I am making with this thread is not really about the size of government, or what it spends. I am making a statement about fiscal irresponsibility. About governments that want to spend more than they are prepared to tax. I think that governments should spend less but if they want to spend more, they should be prepared to tax the population in order to pay for it. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 4:00 pm Post subject: -26 |
|
| My bad on the population side, but we still have more land etc. |
|
 |
| rOver |
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 3:51 pm Post subject: -27 |
|
| Quote: |
| BTW, of course we spend more than all of Europe in our "war machine". We also have more people, and land, than all of Europe! |
Not even close. Europe has a population of around 730 million while the US has 280 million. If you meant the EU, that's around 400 million though I don't have an accurate number. Not that it's relevant, really. |
|
 |
| extropalopakettle |
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 1:42 am Post subject: -28 |
|
Originally posted by Fried Egg: So, how can we stop the American war machine?
And, why would we want to? |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 10:14 pm Post subject: -29 |
|
Pablo: Considering that the government is sending money OUT to pay for their workers, my statement that money leaving the government being the problem covers that as well.
BTW, of course we spend more than all of Europe in our "war machine". We also have more people, and land, than all of Europe! Not only that, but a lot of troops IN Europe ARE US troops. Of COURSE we'll be spending more on our military, DUH. We'd BETTER be spending mroe on our military than all of Europe! I wouldnt' expect anything less!
|
|
 |
| HyToFry |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:23 pm Post subject: -30 |
|
| I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic... blaming every problem of the world on government. The fact that his example had some defendibility was a nice bonus. |
|
 |
| jesternl |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:04 pm Post subject: -31 |
|
well Sarcast, in Holland that systenm is in use for quite a while, say Ohhh... at least 30 years I think, I could be a few years off, and it has not caused a rise in teen pregnancies. Or any kind of pregnancies for that matter |
|
 |
| Lepton |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:41 pm Post subject: -32 |
|
| It ends up resembling the feudal system, but as Hy said...Do not bait the dog! |
|
 |
| Vinny |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:40 pm Post subject: -33 |
|
| what about the crime & punishment system? Every man for himself? If you're a wimp, you're screw? |
|
 |
| HyToFry |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:35 pm Post subject: -34 |
|
there have been many threads on those subjects vinny... all in all... we would foot the bill for the roads. Just like we do now.
We just wouldn't be paying fifty guys to pay the bill for us.  |
|
 |
| Vinny |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:20 pm Post subject: -35 |
|
| (note to read the above as curiosity, not disapproval) |
|
 |
| Vinny |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:18 pm Post subject: -36 |
|
A few questions for you, Sarcast.
Who would build the public roads in the Anarchy model? Would anarchy works if the country is surrounded by hostile war mongles/dictators? How do you control things such as a unified currency system? How would crime and punishments be handled?
|
|
 |
| The Anonymous Sarcast |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 7:19 pm Post subject: -37 |
|
Oh, and the Federal government pays unwed teenage mothers $400 a month for every kid they squeeze out. Hence, government causes teenage pregnancy.
|
|
 |
| The Anonymous Sarcast |
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 7:16 pm Post subject: -38 |
|
Sad. Anarchy is the correct solution to the human problem precisely _because_ human beings are flawed, imperfect.
Only those who advocate government somehow believe that the people whom they annoint with the power over and resposibility for their lives will magically be the "right" people, who won't take advantage of the system for their own benefit. Because politicians and bureaucrats of cource come from a magic fairyland of sunshine and light and hence are incorruptible.
|
|
 |