|
|  |
The term "affirmative action" is on of the biggest liberalese double speak lies in the history of the world! |
|
Much of the double speak used by liberals and advocates of communism and socialism can be defined in "real speak" by simply turning around what they are saying and looking at it from the opposite point of view in an attempt to logically validate the term. Let's take "affirmative action" for example. This term is used in an effort to designate certian racial groups to receive advantages that other groups do not have....under the guize of "equality". The thing that has me confused is, how, if 2 people are equal, can one person be treated with preference over the other? The company I work for has a policy to hire as an "...EQUAL opportunity employer, giving hiring preference to blacks, women, and minorities...". "Equal opportunity" is another good doublespeak word that goes right along with "affirmative action". I am all for equal opportunity...which is why I am writing this...but equal opportunity as defined by the true meaning of equal. Here is a refresher course in the word "equal" just in case we have forgotten:
e·qual
(   kw  l) adj.
- Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.
- Mathematics Being the same or identical to in value.
-
- Having the same privileges, status, or rights: equal before the law.
- Being the same for all members of a group: gave every player an equal chance to win.
-
- Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation: "Elizabeth found herself quite equal to the scene" (Jane Austen).
- Adequate in extent, amount, or degree.
- Impartial; just; equitable.
- Tranquil; equable.
- Showing or having no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance.
After reading this definition of equal, why does equal opportunity really mean that if I am a minority that is equally qualified for a job or college entrance that I receive better treatment and actually can sue if a white person is hired or accepted instead of me while the white person may not legally even complain if that happens to him?
I personally would feel terrible if I received a job because of how I appeared to another if that other was just as qualified as myself. I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror. Even if my great great great great grandfather was a slave and this preference was given due to that, I still wouldn't be able to live with myself. After all, I can do it on my own!! And if I can't get to where I want to go on my own, why should I get special treatment for my shortcomings...after all, they are MY shortcomings and nobody elses. How could I tell my children or my childrens children that "grandpa had a good job because he was black and not because he earned the job?" Affirmative action has gone so far in this country that now even LESS qualified minorities will receive benefits before fully qualified folks that were unfortunate enough to not be born looking a certain way. It is a very sad thing to see such government sponsored discrimination. Don't you think it's terrible that people...millions of people each year...are not hired or not accepted to colleges based solely on their race? How is this a society of equality with a policy such as this? Any argument to justify this makes no sense. Obviously, if certain people are picked to receive extra benefits entirely due to their race, others that are not picked will become bitter and hateful of the priviledged group. This bitterness divides a nation in the name of unity! Diversity cannot exist if we pick one group to be the advantaged and another group to be disadvantaged. (note: diversity and unity, although opposite in meaning technically are completely interchageable in liberal logic...see the "liberal logic" article on this site)
Personally, I believe that giving free advantage to one group over another acually undermines the group receiving the advantage. After not much time, any successful minority person may be labelled as a person that has obtained the success by no virtue of his/her own, but rather because they were given the success by affirmative action. With an attitude towards minorities such as this, the minorities will never be taken seriously by the majority, thus keeping the minority on a level psychologically of an "underclass" citizen. I would have very much trouble going to a surgeon who got into college based solely on his race if he wouldn't have even been accepted to the school normally based on terrible grades. Along with that, I don't care at all what race the surgeon is if he or she is the best! As you can see, this practice is perpetuated through every field of work and can cause very major problems for society. Actually, me being a white male, I know very much what it is like to experience "affirmative action" first hand. People have been very racist to me in the name of equality. White men such as myself do not even receive opportunity for promotion where I work until all minorities have been given their shot....after all, we are an "equal" opportunity employer. Racism is alive and well in america, but it is not going to go away if we continue dividing people and giving advantage and supporting racism through the name of "affirmative action". Racism will become worse. Minorities will come to depend on the advantages, and non-minorities will come to hate their disadvantages. It may even come to a point where all of the majority simply "feels sorry" for the minority...after all, they can't do anything on their own and they need the help of those of us in the majority...those poor pathetic creatures. How arrogant are we as a culture? How can minorities possibly allow the white majority to look down on them in such a way as to say that the minority just isn't good enough on their own? Do we as a culture have no dignity at all? Have we learned nothing from the repressions of slavery and of group preferences and racism from our american history and why do we actively pursue further state sponsored racism with affirmative action?
Opportunity is no longer based on merit....rather what you look like from birth, which sounds sort of like we are a racist country that affirms and sponsors racism and believes that the more racist we are, the more loving and caring and nice everyone will become. Of course, if you work for the government or any business or college in america, do not express your free speech "rights" and state your views if you agree with me on this.....your determination that people actually be treated for real equal may get you fired. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just recently, President Bush has challenged Michigan U. Law Schools racist entrance policy....and I found a very interesting article here by David Horowitz from his site www.frontpagemag.com. I highly recommend this site to anyone.
Volume 1 - Issue 3 Monday, March 3, 2003 David Horowitz
How To Fight The Lefts Race Attack: The University of Michigan Controversy
The Issue: The University of Michigan Law School is being sued because its admissions policy favors designated racial groups. The President has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs.
The Argument: A diverse population like ours must bind itself into a nation. It is especially important for us to be a nation united when we are under attack.
The only way a multi-ethnic, multi-racial people can share a sense of common ownership of their government, the only way the American government can actually be a government of all the people, is if it treats all citizens equally by establishing and enforcing a single standard of equity and justice. Only by observing a single standard for all Americans can we achieve justice, fairness and a sense of common identity and purpose. Racial privileges divide and weaken us.
The Opposition: The establishment of a racial spoils system in the 1970s by the Nixon Administration and the Bakke Court under pressure from the political left has Balkanized Americas ethnic groups and weakened the nations fabric. Ethnic and racial division is a source of vulnerability in a time of peace. In time of war, it can beget disaster.
More than 100 congressional Democrats have agreed to sponsor a legal brief supporting race preferences at the University of Michigan. Seven leading universities, including Harvard have filed a similar amicus brief. Many Fortune 500 companies have as well.
The American Public Is Solidly Against Racial Preferences: The American people understand that Americas strength lies in its diversity and fairness. By large majorities, Americans oppose race preferences and support the Presidents opposition to racially biased admissions policies. A new poll by Newsweek finds that 68 percent of Americans, including 56 percent of minorities, oppose preferences for blacks and oppose preferences for other groups even more. Other polls find the same thing. A 2001 survey by the Washington Post, in conjunction with Harvard and the Kaiser Family Foundation -- not exactly hotbeds of racial backlash -- asked, In order to give minorities more opportunity, do you believe race or ethnicity should be a factor in job-hiring and college admissions. An astonishing 92 percent of respondents, including 86 percent of blacks and 88 percent of Hispanics, said no. (The New Republic, 2/03/03)
Americans oppose racism. Politicians of the left understand this, so they call race preferences affirmative action and identify their support for preferences with civil rights, which is the opposite of what civil rights historically means. By this sleight-of-hand, the left also insinuates that opponents of preferences are racist. Racism is a political trump card. To fight this battle and win, supporters of single standards must flip the race card and make the opposition pay for its beliefs.
The Strategy:
1) Go On The Attack; Define The Other Side First: The policy of the University of Michigan, which excludes student applicants on the basis of their skin color, is a form of racism. (If you find this language too strong, identify the policy as a form of racial bias. But the R-word must be used first because it is accurate; and second, because if you dont use it on them, they will use it on you.)
Under the University of Michigan policy, applicants who have a perfect score on their standardized tests (SATs) get 12 points towards admission. But those who have the right skin color get 20 points. This is a racist policy. Only a verbal acrobat can explain why it is not.
The 20 points have absolutely nothing to do with the individuals merit or circumstances (the student may actually be wealthy or, like Spike Lee, come from five generations of college graduates). It is solely about race. The goal of any self-respecting civil rights movement is to eliminate race as a basis of privilege. Americans believe in judging people by the content of their individual character and not the color of their skin. Those who support the University of Michigan support privilege based on skin color. They may call it affirmative action but it is racism. It is exclusion based on the color of your skin.
These racial preferences actually discriminate against dark-skinned Americans (Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans) and yellow-skinned Americans (Cambodians, Japanese, Chinese, Thai). What the policy really represents are the race preferences of a leftwing elite.
America has hundreds of racial and ethnic groups. Race preferences make a few groups privileged at the expense of all the rest. The party of the left is a race party. It practices the politics of racial McCarthyism and divides America on the basis of race.
2) Position Yourself On The Side Of The Angels: President Bush has said no to the race policies of the University of Michigan. He has said yes to the legacy of Martin Luther King and the civil rights cause: One America, one standard, indivisible for all. Civil rights in America must mean race neutral government. That is the only way government can represent all the people. It is the only way we can be united as a people. And being united as a people in the face our common foe is essential to the security of us all.
|
|
| |
