Kevin Gowen wrote:

> I don't like any entitlement programs.

Yet whites, males, and property owners benefited anyway, while women and blacks
did not until more recently, resulting in some glaring inequalities. Or does
that not matter because it's in the past?

> Of course, the commentary you
> quote below is so ridiculously slanted that I cannot believe you are wasting
> my time with it.

"I" am not wasting "your" time at the computer.

> Here's one example of its many flaws:
>
> "When President Bush weighed in with the Supreme Court against the
> University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy, he was acting within
> this long tradition of the federal government promoting the advancement of
> white Americans. There has been no legal challenge to Michigan’s preference
> for “legacy” applicants (children of alumni), or to the preference given
> to low-income white students. Only the boost to qualified applicants of
> color was attacked."
>
> Has it occurred to this goofy bitch why there has been no legal challenge to
> legacy/low-income preferences? Could it be because the Constitution doesn't
> apply to either of them?

Do people go to lawyers or file suits only if the Constitution applies? Do
whites gripe so loudly that they can't get into schools because of kids of
alumni and football players or people from certain regions with lower grades,
as opposed to blacks with lower grades? Just two weeks ago I had to deal with
some woman who claimed the university in her home state was 60% Asians, her
allegedly underqualified Asian friend got in, and thus it was very difficult
for whites to get in, as if it was racial preferences that got Asians in.
Racial quotas to help other minorities would actually hurt Asians, as seen at
UC, where the Berkeley student body used to be 27%.

> The Constitution does apply to racial preferences.
>
> She also contradicts herself. She whines about preferences to low-income
> white students above,

What whining about low income white students? She merely pointed out low income
students who happen to be white, as one group of people not attacked for being
admitted into school. Do you also believe she was whining about preferences to
children of alumni?

Does your being against all entitlement programs also mean you do not support
admission preferences for those from certain geographic regions (such as
discounts for state residents), alumni children, low income people of all
races, or athletes? Are you against academic scholarships?

> but then says:
> "What would it take to eliminate the racial wealth gap? Race-based
> affirmative action in college admissions, hiring, and promotion is just one
> of many elements needed to assist all low-income Americans to build basic
> assets."
>
> So, she does care about low-income folks, but only if they aren't white.

What makes you say that, when she says "all" low-income Americans?

> And
> of course, her argument has one glaring, fatal flow that she does not even
> touch. If the federal government has a "yea whites!" policy of promoting the
> advancement of whites, how does she account for the fact that Oriental
> Americans have a higher net worth than whites? Same for education.

Perhaps they worked and studied more or harder, on average, or were lucky like
my family. My family certainly did not work or study 50 times harder than
average blacks, and if they had purchased property (like many blacks) in an
area with low or flat property values instead of what turned out to be
immensely desirable 30 years later, they could have been poor.

> Why is
> this alleged federal pro-whites policy keeping down blacks but not
> Orientals? Could it be...cultural?

Yes. Though there are also different classes of Asians, including more recent
 immigrant or refugees in abject poverty with little English skill or formal
education, they probably don't have the emotional baggage blacks do from
centuries of inequality, nor suffer the same kind of discrimination. See how
you are characterizing Asians as opposed to blacks, below.

> I don't see Orientals committing a
> disproportionate amount of crime, having 2/3 of their children out of
> wedlock, or listening to music that talks about penises and gold knives.

Perhaps because they don't live or think the same way. But if you look at
Asians on the bottom rungs, you might realize they are quite different from the
"model" Asians who attend Berkeley, own a chain of businesses, or preside over
high profile trials on TV.

I don't know any songs about gold knives. I heard some about singer's choice of
footwear, an alleged love potion with disappointing results, and their love of
women with wide hips.

> > http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0625-02.htm
>
> [snip]
>
> Eric, please don't do this when replying to me. Just post the link and quote
> a teaser paragraph or two.

I need to post the relevant parts about affirmative action for whites, lest you
ignore the waste of your time altogether.

> >> I know of a woman,
> >> divorced with one child, who is now living with a man whom she
> >> appears to love very much. Guess what her stated reason for not
> >> marrying the man is.
> >
> > Welfare?
>
> Yes. This welfare program is called the Earned Income Tax Credit. She plans
> to use her check this year to put in a pool.

Perhaps you'd like to report such behavior that they not waste your money. I
knew a mother out of wedlock who worked for cash as a housekeeper, and
allegedly used drugs. Luckily, she no longer does so.

BTW, would you happen to know if that woman's ex husband is fulfilling any
financial obligations he may have to the woman and child?

> > If so, recall the actual nature or state of welfare recipients as
> > cited by Pangas, as opposed to Reagan's publicized fictions.
>
> Actually, it was Reagan who expanded the EITC.

So what is your problem with it, other than the obvious abuses which could and
would probably be happily handled if they were reported?