Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> 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?

Did I ever say I liked any of those things?

>> 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.

Sure you are. Why the hiply ironic quotes?

> Do people go to lawyers or file suits only if the Constitution
> applies?

No, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

> 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?

I don't know any white who do that, so I cannot respond to straw man
arguments involving them.

> 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.

I'm sorry that you had to deal with that whiner.

> Racial quotas to help other minorities would actually hurt
> Asians, as seen at UC, where the Berkeley student body used to be
> 27%.

Exactly.

>> 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?

You mention it in the next sentence.

> 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?

Yes.

> 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),

A discount for state residents is not a admissions preference or an
entitlement. It makes perfect sense. The state university is funded by the
residents' taxes. Therefore, it is appropriate that those who pay the taxes
that support the university pay less in tuition. Otherwise, they end up
paying more than the out-of-staters.

> alumni children, low
> income people of all races, or athletes?

None of those things are entitlements. I think that a college application
should have no name, race, or any other such information on in. A student
who applies to a university is issues a serial number by an officer of the
admissions office, and only that officer knows the names and serial numbers.
It would be a system very similar to the blind grading at most American law
schools, where we put a serial number on all of our exams and assignments
rather than our names.

> Are you against academic
> scholarships?

No. Again, a scholarship is not an entitlement.

>> 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?

Because she says that race-based affirmative action is the means. How does
race-based policy assist all of them?

>> 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,

Bingo.

> or were
> lucky like my family.

Again this appeal to luck.

> 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.

What's all this "50 times" nonsense?

>> 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.

Really? Orientals don't have a history of centures of inequality and
discrimination in this country? You don't have a Chinaman's chance of
getting me to swallow that one.

> 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 never said anything about model Orientals. I am speaking of averages.

> 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.

I like the old school hip hops that talk about sneakers and people who talk
too much, not the ones that talk about drugs and killing people.

>>> 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.

The teaser will suffice.

>>>> 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.

Nothing to report. It's legal behavior.

> I knew a mother out of wedlock who worked for cash as a
> housekeeper, and allegedly used drugs. Luckily, she no longer does so.

I am glad that she cleaned up her act.

> 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?

I do not. I presume so, as she has never groused about it.

>>> 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?

My problem with it is that it is welfare. Do you think I base my opinion of
policies based on who enacted them? (Ford gave us the EITC, BTW) I think
Clinton's welfare reform was great, and I think Bush's prescription drug
entitlement for Medicare sucks.

-- 
Kevin Gowen
"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick Gephardt
(D-MO), presidential candidate