With the nature the Rightwing, the Gruden story was no surprise, But..
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … f-slavery/
-----------
An excerpt:
"On June 2, 2021, the National Football League (NFL) announced it would discontinue the use of race norming—the practice of assuming a lower baseline of cognitive abilities in Black players—in legal settlements for concussion-related injuries. For the past several years, Black former professional football players, led by former Pittsburgh Steelers Kevin Henry and Najeh Davenport, had been speaking out against the practice. Henry, Davenport and colleagues demonstrated that race norming was interfering with their ability to receive compensation and benefits from the settlement. Black retirees, who are overrepresented in the number of former players, staked legitimate claims about their impaired health after risking their minds and bodies for this American sport. Bottom line: the race norming practice limited Black players’ access to the compensation they were rightfully owed."
------
This is the kind of thing that puts me off against so many of you that cheer for the wrong side. The National Football League, reducing itself to the equivalent of racist phrenology theory and practice? These are major American Institutions, boys and girls. So,when I speak of systemic that is just what this is? Or do I need to print it in Braille and shove it where the sun don't shine? This NFL admitted to the practice, mean while everybody wants us all to just "get along". There is no refuge for this level of disrespect toward Black football players, and toward me indirectly. There is nothing about "last week" that would have me believe that all of this is just a thing of the past.
I hope that the NFL is sued so throughly that all their football games will to be preempted for the immediate future. Their football fans will have to share in the punishment for the NFL's shortsightedness. But, I don't care for the stuff anyway, so no skin off of my nose.
Just opiate for the the masses.
Anyone with nerve enough to attempt to explain this little quandary on my behalf? I can't understand how level headed, responsible people think that they can do such things without being discovered and held accountable?Gosh, race norming has been around for some 40 or 50 years, I will admit I had no idea it was being applied in the NFL to discriminate. Being a nurse, I am aware the medical field used it as a tool. It was designed to help guide physicians on the treatment of health problems that are more common to afflict a specific race, not only blacks but other races. I have always looked at it as a very clinical tool.
I realize it was also used in the adjustment of test scores on the basis of race or ethnicity. Most well used by federal employment services as a means of correcting allegedly racially biased aptitude tests and meeting equal employment opportunity and affirmative action goals.
Not sure how the NFL could feel this kind of racist ploy was fair or how they could ever justify what they have done to black football players.
I can only give my view, it is helpful in a medical setting to help diagnose a health problem. I don't feel it should be used in any form of aptitude testing at this point. We need and should be demanding better education, not making exceptions due to our failure to educate our citizens.
Race norming certainly should not be like the NFL has used it. This is a civil rights violation. I can see why you are so angry. I must say I was very shocked after reading the article you offered. It clearly is a racist practice, and this kind of BS should have been outlawed long ago in the NFL.
I would think the NFL will incur many lawsuits over this kind of practice, and they will be well deserved. Not sure we will ever be allowed to get along...Thanks, Sharlee, you are right, certain ethnic groups a more prone to some maladies than others.
Many standardized tests have been criticized as culturally biased. It has nothing to do with differences in cognitive ability, which is unscientific and unproven. The NFL is employing tactics not far beyond slavery, economic exploitation on the basis of race.
"They" justified it as fair 10 years ago with Wells Fargo and Bank of America being sued for their admitted fraud in lending practices toward black and Hispanic mortgage applicants. There are some problems with McDonalds regarding distribution of franchises on other than merit based principles.
The mind and cognition are very complicated in their evaluation, the money changing legal people at the NFL were neither qualified nor had the right to impose differing standards between black and white players. As Abe Lincoln once said, "every man is equal in the right to eat thebread that he had sown".
I and the conservatives will be at odds when they fuss about Critical Race Theory, for example, claiming that systemic racism is not part of America. This is one aspect that clearly is shown not to be true. How many of other conservative points can be shown to not be true? We have the extreme of whites being blamed for every raining day since the Republic's founding verses George Washington cuts down the cherry tree. The truth is essential as it is somewhere in between.
Frankly, I had not heard of 'Race Normalizing' until you introduced it. The NFL was wrong for the practice no matter the reasoning in my view. I am glad a stand was made and it was resolved. I can see how and agree it is an example of systemic racism.
I was curious though. I discovered an article written sometime back published at Harvard University that was interesting. It is How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century.
There is political stuff regarding Trump at the beginning and end. I skimmed passed that to the scientific stuff that appears at the subheading Race in the new era of human genetics research. It reveals the discoveries made from the Human Genome Project I found interesting. Maybe take a peek, yet probably something you already know. What stood out for me is Race is a social construct, not a biological one. And, today they have undeniable proof of that from that project.That was an interesting read. I agree with passing on all the political stuff in it because it presents the flavor of a bias. But, I also see that when considering the article's slant on race as social and cultural, (my replacement for their geographical), constructs, the slant seems supported.
Then, after settling my mind, I got a chuckle thinking about those "Alt-Right," et al. folks the article spoke of. Imagine proving to a White Supremacy member that he was 99% black, or a black man that he is 99% white. (I know that is an over-simplistic use of the data's point, but the image of it still brought a chuckle) ;-)
Before this article, (not important for me to question its science), I knew, generally, about everyone sharing the majority of genes—as in the context of humans and apes sharing similar majorities, but I was accepting of the 5-race theory.
Well damn, I gotta change my thinking.
But hold on. I am only getting rid of the idea that race is a biological reality. I still think race, as a categorization, (as the article said), is real in all societies. As real as if it were a true biological fact. And not just in modern societies but throughout the history of societies. (damn again, that is a depressing thought, it means we aren't `real intelligently' talking about current events, we're just rehashing history. What a bunch of minions we are.)
So, that debunking of a "fact" doesn't really change any society's race discussions except for forcing reasonable discussions to discard that "fact" as support for a point.
GAbut I was accepting of the 5-race theory.
Really? I'm surprised that this is news to guys like you.
Btw, not your 99%, but you reminded me of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSZnTtGCQAA surprise? Ha, could I use that to declare that it just shows how little I think about race in such conversations? (shh... not even allowing the consideration that it shows how little I know about race to raise its head)
Yep, your video was on track, but my funny mental images had the White Supremacist a little more vocally animated.
GA
I, too, had the perhaps socially programmed view of the five race theory since it was/is on so many government forms. What would make it more official than that? And, a casual perspective of monkeys and humans sharing DNA. Yet, I am pretty much biology as well as Darwinism ignorant.
After posting my reply I did look for supporting information of what was presented. Though not reading them, I did discover supportive articles/studies.
Hiya, TS, thanks for weighing in.
Bravo, it was an excellent article and one that many need to take notice of.
I am familiar with "race norming" as it pertaines to medicine. Our tribe tends to have a predisposition for more kidney related problems so, what is the acceptable standard may well differ between whites and African Americans, for example.
The article just provided evidence in favor of what I have always suspected to be true.
Since no one has figured out how to medically or chemically destroy one race yet preserve another, it would indicate that there are not enough distinct identifying genetic differences between us to make that possible. Otherwise, the Nazis and the white supremacist would have grabbed at such an idea long ago.
Regardless, you and the article are spot on, race is a social construct. And, it would not be a big deal if so many would stop unfair making distinctions based upon this.
If the NFL is racist, you have to wonder against what race. 70% of the players in the NFL are black.
"Statista.com broke down the NFL African Americans in the National Football League in 2019. The percentages are broken down by role. As of 2019, 58.9% of African Americans in the NFL were the players themselves. This number has now grown to 70% in 2020."
https://www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/what-pe … yers-black
Maybe the NFL should be subject to affirmative action and be forced to hire more white, Hispanic and Asian players.What about the NHL, Mike, why is it lily-white? So what IS your point?
We are not talking about players, Mike, we are talking about managers, attorneys and such, did you read the memo?
Because conservatives dismiss these concerns of ours, that is why we dismiss them, and their ideals at the polls come election time.According to Mike's figures, around 41% of managers and such in the NFL are black. And they allow this kind of thing?
Are you ignoring Mike's suggestion that we re-institute legalized discrimination, as we had in the past, and force the NFL to hire more whites?Regardless of Mike's statistics, Wilderness, this is the only statistic that I am interested in.
30 of the 32 NFL owners are white, and are voting to fine their predominantly black players for "disrespecting" the anthem. some things never change
— Jordan Zirm (@clevezirm) May 23, 2018
The other 2 owners are Asian and Pakistani.
Are you trying to be clever?
Whites virtually own the NFL. Based upon this, that is how it was possible to discriminate against black players in a overwhelmingly black club.Perhaps you should talk to Oprah. I'm sure she could afford an NFL team.
I think we need more diversity in NFL, NBA and MLB players. The NBA is 80 percent black. 50 percent of the coaches are black. Couldn't sports only benefit from having a more diverse mixture of players?
Are you trying to catch me in a snare, Mike?
In a merit based society the best are selected and I have no problem with that as long as everyone has equal opportunity to compete.
You misrepresented the facts, I have heard that only 3 head coaches are black while the statistic for assistant coaches is closer to what you say it is.
The best is the best and there is no substitute, white have the same opportunity to compete for slots. With the NFL being owned by whites, why would you think that they would be exclude competitive white players?"With the NFL being owned by whites, why would you think that they would be exclude competitive white players?"
What does competitiveness have to do with it? The goal of affirmative action is to create a more diverse work environment. Individuals who are less qualified get hired over more qualified individuals in the name of diversity.
Why shouldn't this be done with professional sports? The professional sports is just another workplace. It could only benefit by being more diverse.
When I was an Army officer I had a quota for who I nominated for a promotion and race was a huge factor. This was done to have a more diverse military.
So, why should professional sports be any different?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
I like this as a general explanation as to how this came to be within a nation virtually drenched in systemic racism the effect of which needed to be ameliorated and atoned for.
-----------
The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in "Executive Order No. 10925",[13] signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[14] It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."[15]
In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[clarification needed][16]
Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population.[17]
It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated groups within a society are able to participate in all provided opportunities including promotional, educational, and training opportunities.[18]
The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[19] and to address existing discrimination.[20]
-------
There can be no competitiveness where some have not been allowed to compete, period.
It is interesting to note how many responsible societies and governments around the world recognize the necessity for similar programs.
Trying to explain that to conservatives is like the refrain on "Hey Jude".
Yes, and I was an Air Force Officer and I had to meet every qualifications required of others and received no preferential treatment. So.......
Conservatives whine about reducing standards just to provide opportunity to anyone other than whites. it is more resentment about their being allowed to compete, period, with the reduced standard stuff a big red herring. You can come clean with me, Mike. Isn't that really what this is all about
It should be a commitment to a diverse work environment with competition among those that meet standardized qualifications applicable to all."take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"
This was always a contradiction to me, for "affirmative action" most definitely did take into account the race of job applicants, and was used to choose one race of another. That was the entire purpose; to discriminate against one applicant in favor of another, based solely on race. So much for "white privilege".Ok, but the reason it was necessary to issue the executive orders "without regard to their race", because it was obvious that race had been unethically and illegally taken into consideration in selection process. Otherwise why did Kennedy and Johnson need to make the point?
To make sure of a neutral fair hiring process, oversight was necessary( are racial minorities actually being included) to make certain that the intent of the program was, in fact, being complied with.So, you think it is justice to punish people who had nothing to do with the past and are only trying to do the best they can. Punish them because of the color of THEIR skin because people they don't know and had nothing to do with punished others.
Seems like a case of misdirected anger against an innocent victim. Do you like being made responsible for other people's behavior? Behavior you had nothing to do with? Does that seem like justice to you?Right wing oriented white folks are always griping. When we talk about equal opportunity they are only satisfied with sustained systemic advantage. Equality for everyone translates to disadvantage for them. I don't think they can handle a society of true "fair and square", nor do they want to.
The point of this thread is that the past is not so much the past, but the obvious here and now."Equality for everyone translates to disadvantage for them."
If it means you are turned down from a job or a promotion because of the color of your skin, it's not equality.
I believe that Affirmative Action is the classic definition of "Systematic
Racism."
If everyone was hired solely because of their education, experience, skills and abilities, I wonder what the workforce would look like?
I wonder what the student populations of universities would look like? If race was taken completely out of the mix as a factor of admission, and it was only based on ability, I wonder what is would look like."If everyone was hired solely because of their education, experience, skills and abilities, I wonder what the workforce would look like?"
That is the whole idea of being a rightwing oriented white conservative, you can never allow that to take place in actual practice. True equal opportunity must terrify you all. It would unravel your entire system. It is the racism of low expectations to think that non whites would not be competitive, once I remove your "high chair" of advantage.
"If it means you are turned down from a job or a promotion because of the color of your skin, it's not equality."
Yes, and What did you think YOUR people have been doing over the last century and one half? Now that you think that the tables have been turned, you are concerned, right?
Like I said before, you plunge a dagger in a man's back, just because you remove it does not remove the wound inflicted. But that is heavy stuff for the typical Rightwinger to either take in or understand."True equal opportunity must terrify you all."
It would inspire all of those who are truly competitive and don't want things given to them.
"What did you think YOUR people have been doing over the last century and one half?"
Well, on my mother and father's side my people were in Europe until the early 1900s. Then they came here and worked in factories and served as enlisted people in the military. Those who lived after fighting in various wars worked so my generation could get an education. We then worked and helped other family members to come over here, legally.
There was no affirmative action program for any of us. We had to get by on hard work and merit.
That sums up my family.Your family is just YOUR family, hardly appropriate as a universal yardstick. You did not need affirmative action as you were white and could assimilate into the larger culture.
Your forebears came as willing immigrants prepared for the challenge of a new life, not as former slaves that were disenfranchised, lynched and otherwise subject to the unique form of American terrorism. There is a bit of a difference there, Mike, can you see it?What I see are government programs designed to punish me and my family for things we had nothing to do with. Slavery, etc. was long over by the time we got here.
We never owned slaves, never lynched anyone, and my ancestors were quite disenfranchised as they didn't speak English and were simply treated as stupid, lowly factory workers.
American terrorism? Do you know the factories where my ancestors worked had their own very large, police force? If you didn't show up for work they came and got you. The abuses by this police force is little known, but is was huge. Immigrants like my ancestors were beaten to death for falling asleep at the job, had their wives, daughters raped by factory supervisors, etc., etc. They had to put up with it or go back to the old country and possibly face being killed because they left. If the complained they were fired. They worked 12 hour shifts six days a week and on the 7th day they worked 24 hours straight for a shift change. They were forbidden from shopping outside the "company" store or living outside a "company" apartment at its inflated prices. If they were caught, they would lose their job. How would an immigrant with limited English skills get another job? They lived like this for years. They were willing to make this sacrifice so their children could live in the US.
Affirmative action is simply institutional racism against people who are not responsible for it.
Can YOU see it?I strongly disagree and we again find ourselves at an impasse. Systemic racism is something that you all spill your entrails over in denial.
Rest assured though, that this issue is "not going away" anymore than your heretofore fruitless search for voter fraud.Any progressive idea punishes you Mike, while I am all for them. You are against Social Security and Medicare too, like so many of the archaic conservatives that participate in these forums?
A different for of terrorism for each taste, Mike. I can't speak to horrors of Europe but I can blame to land of the free and the home of the brave for its unique style of terrorism against certain citizens.
I want just assurances that everyone will be treated equally in the hiring and promotion processes. Because, for a long time that had not been the case. That is not preferential treatment.
I understand the necessity to outright lie about being "fair" and "unbiased" as to race.
But that did NOT make the process "fair", nor did it change the intent of the program, which was to discriminate against some applicants based solely on their race.
Again, so much for "white privilege", when being white meant having jobs denied because of the applicants race.Whites in this culture being put upon? Now that is enough to turn anybody's stomach.
You may not have been turned down for a job because of your sex or race, but I have, and more than once. The popular theory that it only happens one way is but a myth.
But yes, hiring based on race (or sex or anything but ability) IS enough to turn anybody's stomach. Perhaps you need to back off a bit on the "My people" thing and recognize that it happens every day, and to all races, sexes, etc.We will always disagree on this topic, but "bubble bubble, toil and trouble, the cauldron continues to boil", regardless.
Yes we will. The closer we get to equality, to a "fair and level playing field", the more complaining you do, apparently because you do not wish that level playing field but one decidedly tipped against the white race and particularly white males.
I don't see what you guys harp about about all the time, you already have the overriding advantages. As for the "level playing field" are we really apporoaching or is it just appearances made by a "system" determined to maintain the status quo?
-------
Despite significant economic progress over the past decades, Black Americans experience far worse economic conditions than Whites or the population as a whole.
Historically, the unemployment rate for Black Americans has been approximately twice the rate for Whites. That is the case today—6.0% for Black workers and 3.1% for Whites.
The difference in the unemployment rates for Blacks and Whites shrinks for college graduates; however, even in the current strong economy the unemployment rate is 50% higher for Black Americans.
During the majority of the past 50 years, Black Americans have experienced unemployment rates that, were they experienced by the entire population, would be seen as recessionary.
Black workers have been disproportionally hurt by the overall decline in union membership and the decreasing power of unions.
The typical Black households earns a fraction of White households—just 59 cents for every dollar. The gap between Black and White annual household incomes is about $29,000 per year.
Black Americans are over twice as likely to live in poverty as White Americans.
Black children are three times as likely to live in poverty as White children.
The median wealth of Black families ($17,000)—is less than one-tenth that of White families ($171,000).
The wealth gap between Black and White households increases with education.
Much less than half (42%) of Black families own their homes, compared to almost three-quarters (73%) of White families.
High school graduation rates for Black and White Americans have nearly converged.
The share of Blacks who are college graduates has more than doubled since 1990, from 11% to 25%—but still lags far behind Whites.
Persistent segregation leads to large disparities in the quality of secondary education, leading to worse economic outcomes.
The incarceration rate for Black Americans is falling, but is still nearly six times the rate for White Americans.
Non-Hispanic Black Americans have a life expectancy 3.6 years lower than non- Hispanic White Americans.Credence, you have made a list of areas that blacks lag behind the general population...but you have provided no reasons at all except that mythical "systemic discrimination".
You know as well as I do that blacks (as a group, certainly not as individuals) refuse to embrace the "white" culture that produces wealth - that when individuals do that they are called "Uncle Toms" or worse. Blacks (again, as a group, not individuals) want financial equality with whites then the answer seems pretty clear; embrace and utilize the tools that whites have used for decades or centuries and it will follow. Not in a year, not even in a decade, but it WILL follow.
Get some emphasis on a strong nuclear family. Work, hard, towards education rather than dropping out of school. Clean up the drugs and the gangs of the neighborhoods. End the stupidity of one parent families producing children for the increase in welfare. Re-instate the shame of taking charity rather than the game of getting as much as possible of someone else's wealth. Quit committing crimes.
And above all quit blaming someone else for their success and the failure of the black (group, not individual)!What I see is that the white race is blamed for all the poor decisions of blacks, even to the point that our children are now being taught that because of the color of their skin they must give privilege (that they don't have) to those with darker skin. What I see is a constant demand that those with light skin support and supply the needs (and wants) of those with darker skin. What I see is a widening, divisive racial division in our country, driven by those demanding that one race (whites) provide for others.
And yes, to a very small, and decreasing level, some discrimination against blacks. Far less that whites went through with the legalized and forced discrimination called "affirmative action", but it is there.You summed up what many white people are feeling. I must agree with your sentiments. But where do we go from here? The divide between white and Black is deepening with all the present rhetoric. It would seem that we are going backward instead of forward with coming to understand one another.
Truly, I don't know. We are entering a phase in this country where the race that, 200 years ago, perpetuated slavery and the resulting discrimination that lasted until the last century, has it's modern individuals being blamed for the past.
And they, along with their children, are now being held accountable for that horrendous act of people long ago; people that because they share the same general race (are any of the races pure any more?) are being blamed although they are completely innocent of wrongdoing.
It does not bode well for the country or its people.
Excuse me, Wilderness, if I give more credibility to a Harvard U study over an explanation from a Rightwinger advocate.
Most interesting
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-w … interviews
So we are ALL involved in drugs and gangs, so stereotypical of you. That is your explanation or excuse for the disparities? You have got that rightwing playbook and its lies down to a rote level. It is just so much old claptrap.
Your system have been ripping us off for a century after emancipation. The "tools" you speak of were denied and deliberately taken, the return of which had to be forced at either the end or a gun or a gavel. You have been saying that the dire stats would change if we all just became white, what makes you so confident that it "WILL" follow? And now you want blame the victim for the crime?"So we are ALL involved in drugs and gangs, so stereotypical of you."
Now YOU might make that claim; personally I find it extremely false and made that clear in the post.
Your link is interesting. What I gleaned from it was that if black people writing a resume make a point of being black, and joining black organizations, they don't get the interview. Tell me; if a white applicant made a point that they were part of a white oriented organization (perhaps the KKK, but I imagine others could be found although they are not nearly as common as black oriented places), would you hire them as a black employer or look elsewhere? Would be happy bringing a person into your company that makes a strong point out of being white or would you prefer someone that doesn't seem to care what their race is?
It sounds more like "whitening" a resume simply means not making a point out of what race the applicant is; if that is the case I fully understand why they aren't offered an interview. Pictures; it has been a long time since I wrote a resume, but I can't imagine why a picture would be included at all. Unless, anyway, the intent is to shout out what your race is...I always wonder about all of the black millionaires (Approximately 1.5 million of them), billionaires, CEOs, judges, lawyers, accountants, college professors, etc. How were they able to succeed so well against systematic racism? How did they overcome it? Why are there so many members of the black community who do so well in the face of it? Black players dominate the NBA, NFL and MLB. How does this happen against systematic racism.
Maybe they spend their time focused on today and not yesterday.Many have been successful or lucky negotiating the built in land mines within American culture structurally placed to naturally impede their progress. Bravo to them
Dominate obviously is not the same as control is it? We would not be dealing with all this if white people did not exclusively own control and NFL."We would not be dealing with all this if white people did not exclusively own control and NFL"
I think you underestimate the power of the player's union.What entity within the NFL, certainly not the players union, would allow such blatant discriminatory practices amongst their ranks? Why would a black dominated NFL medically discriminate against Black players in favor of white players, where did this come from?
I really cannot deny your perspective here. I would probably not mention my ethnicity in my resume either, as it should be not necessary.
Its discouraging.
Even more discouraging is that worse comments that were made public were swept under the rug. A long history of deliberately racist acts were ignored... and the same people who are so outraged by Gruden elected an even worse person President, wantonly so.
A President that happily allowed Russia to open new pipelines into Europe, waiving sanctions on Russia, after four years of hearing about how Trump was Putin's puppet.
A President that shut down America's Oil and Natural Gas production, halting energy development on federal land, shutting down the 80 million-acre oil lease sale putting the Louisiana oil and gas industry near to bankruptcy, shutting down oil and energy development in ANWAR which would increase use of the Alaska pipeline, etc. etc.
That same President not six months later pleads to OPEC to produce more oil, as oil and gas prices rise because of our inability now to access our own resources.
A President that held an Electric Vehicle gala at the White House, proclaiming support for EVs and Renewable Energy, lauding Legacy Auto for its [in]action as well as the UAW. Absent was the actual company that has propelled the world into the 21st century and to a future of EVs (Tesla).
A President that handed over Afghanistan to the Taliban and China.
A President who opened the Border to all willing to cross it regardless of their vaccination status.
A President that forces his own citizens to be vaccinated or be fired.
A President that wants to increase taxes on any American that makes a living working or running a small business, while pretending those taxes are going to be on the rich.
Such a waste of time... effort... energy... even discussing Gruden while ignoring all that an even more avid racist does to run this nation into the ground.Ken, it is all discouraging just an additional topic that I find just at least as discouraging as anything that you had mentioned.
You really think that a portly fat cat like Trump was going to do any better by the common man?Have you checked the unemployment today for black citizens? Can you say that the previous administration did not greatly improve employment for blacks? https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven … tions-end/
One very good program the last administration produced was Opportunity Zines. It has shown good results, and Biden at this point seems to realize that and has not messed with the program. This program was positive for black citizens.
"What will Biden do with opportunity zones?
A new political climate. President Joe Biden's plan to raise the capital gains tax rate to 39.6% for households earning more than $1 million annually could sweeten opportunity zone investments. " This will certainly benefit blacks that have businesses or hope to open a business.
Do you feel with the rich paying more will benefit the poor and middle class? Does not history prove that the rich will pass their costs on to all of us? If someone wealthy walks in and purchases milk do they not pay the same as the poor? But does it phase the rich as badly as it does the poor buy that milk or fill their gas tank or how about heating their homes. It is predicted we will pay anywhere from 30% to 50% more to stay warm. Was it a benefit to have lower heating costs? Will it bother the more wealthy to pay more to heat their homes? The poor benefited under Trump by keeping more cash in their pocket.
Is the green deal important to you? Will pumping oil in another area of our earth ultimately change what is being released into our atmosphere?
Could have we more benefited from being energy efficient, working to better control pollution under regulations, and better ways of ensuring energy production was using the best technologies. Should not common sense come into play here?
To say it simply, and just my view. We were on a good path all-around now we have gone backward, and quickly. I don't expect you to answer all of my questions. I just had hoped to offer food for thought. I respect your views and know how you feel about conservatives ideologies. Like I said just food for thought. And you must realize, Trump is not a conservative in any respect.The Enterprise Zone idea has been around since the 1980's, a brainchild of the late Jack Kemp. It is now a stardard time worn idea that is not much more than something either party just "checks the block" on, much like the congressional extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 used to be. The Democrats are offering so much more toward that goal and intent. That is if they can stop internal squabbling, execute the DINOs, and squash Republican resistance.
Trump is aligned with virtually all those ideals of the Republican Party, of course he is conservative. While so many conservatives are trying to convince us all otherwise.
It is important to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels, not just for Geo-political purposes, but in recognition of the fact that the Earth and its resources are not infinite.
It is always questionable in a progressive tax system what is a fair share for the wealthy. I have to be concerned that the tax code is written by the fat cats who certainly intend that their liability be minimal.
The wealthy are only interested in lining their own pockets, they certainly are not concerned about "enterprise zones".
By the way, thanks for the article.The Opportunity Zone program is different from the Enterprise zones. The Trump tax bill offered tax breaks to developers who “invest” in poor communities. And yes the tax breaks are very good for the rich when it comes to the program. Developers can either defer paying or pay no taxes on the developments they build depending on how long they are invested in the neighborhoods. The idea is that new investment will help create jobs in neighborhoods that need economic growth.
It has had some success and in some cases has failed the neighborhoods due to housing that were built were too expensive for the people that lived in the area. Although jobs were created in most areas that were labeled opportunity zones. This is certainly along the lines of due to tax breaks the rich get richer. However, more jobs are created.
The rich will always workaround taxes, and stay rich. That is just a fact.
If they are taxed more, they pass it off to the less fortunate. It would seem naive to think this will change.
No, I don't believe moving back to Trump is the answer... I'm not sure there was going to be an answer you or I would have found real comfort in. The DNC was just as determined to bury Sanders, Warren and Gabbard as they were Trump. The people didn't pick Biden... the DNC and the powers behind the scenes did.
No, it was clear to me when they wheeled Clinton out to do her character assassination of Gabbard: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillar … med-russia that there was no chance we would see positive new ideas and direction out of the Democrats.
The only thing the people got were the same old lies they always are fed, from the same old corrupt cronies... Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, who have been there for decades and are more responsible for any mess this country is in than Trump could ever be.
After 4+ years of divisiveness in our Media and Politics there was no way remaining with Trump was a viable solution... unfortunately Biden represents the old adage "One step forward, Two steps back".I have been dissatisfied as Mr. Biden needs to ram more firmly against the Right and its advocates and take fewer prisoners.
How can I expect any Rightwinger of advocate of right wing ideas to properly attack itself? That is a far damn less likelihood than Biden and the Democrats getting it together.Explain to me how "Rightwingers" are responsible for:
1) Shutting down America's Oil and Natural Gas production, halting energy development on federal land, shutting down the 80 million-acre oil lease sale putting the Louisiana oil and gas industry near to bankruptcy, shutting down oil and energy development in ANWAR which would increase use of the Alaska pipeline, etc. etc.
This has made us unable to be self-sufficient, unable to meet our own needs, Oil has risen from $39 a barrel to $81 a barrel since Biden instituted these changes.
The President has since asked OPEC to produce more oil, as oil and gas prices rose because of our inability now to access our own resources.
Gas Prices are currently $1.37 cents higher on average than they were October 2020, one year ago.
His efforts did nothing to address Oil and Gas usage... it merely made Oil and Gas more costly for Americans. Which in turn makes everything more costly for Americans.
2) Biden opening the Border to all willing to cross it regardless of their vaccination status.
Biden now forces his own citizens to be vaccinated or be fired. How does this make sense? How does this slow the spread of the virus? How does firing Nurses and Police make the nation safer, while allowing hundreds of thousands of foreigners to be bused across the country unvaccinated?
Just a couple things off the top of my head that I believe are really making life more difficult in America for many, things that have nothing to do with Rightwingers or Conservatives... and everything to do with Biden and his Administration.Personally, I'm not sure it isn't wise to keep our own oil for when the world runs short. Be self sufficient then, not when it is still cheap ("cheap" is relative; when middle east oil runs out we will see "expensive").
Just a thought...Perhaps... or perhaps it would have been better to wait a year or two, for when the country had come out of its "Pandemic" doldrums.
Not make it the first thing you do when sworn into office.
Perhaps it would have been better to develop that EV infrastructure and those Renewable Energy resources first, and then turn off the spigot.Perhaps wait for the pandemic doldrums, yes. Certainly not when it was done, driving the economy even further down and contributing to the inflation we are seeing.
But the infrastructure for EV's? No, that will be years or even decades before it happens.If it takes years or decades it is only because of our failing government and failed politics.
Tesla, a private corporation that more than once the past decade was on the verge of bankruptcy, has developed a recharge station infrastructure across the nation (actually globally).
If a small company with very limited resources (at that time) could do it, and the wealthiest Government in the world cannot... what does that tell you about our Country/Government?
Like you say, there may not had been any good choices, I took the choice at the time that was the least problematic for me, as I could not stomach another 4 year term for Donald Trump.
Do you think, after seeing this fiasco ridden 4 years, you will be able to stomach another 4 years of Democrat leadership? What if it's not Biden but still Democrat - will our experience of the highest inflation in decades, going back to the days of oil dependency and bringing in millions of illegal aliens turn you off sufficiently to not vote Democrat?
I can be disappointed and disoriented by both parties right now. I am fundamentally liberal and progressive in outlook. I criticize Biden for not getting his full agenda place, and moving more firmly to eliminate opposition. Add the QAnons, the fact that so many of their candidates literally push away white supremist supporters, that claim allegiance with them.
Beyond that
The culture wars, their side which I am totally opposed to, in addition to the tendency expressed by me and others like me of a sense of exclusion rather than inclusion which is the explanation by other minorities groups, Jews, Asians as to why they don't feel comfortable with Republicans and vote for Democrats in larger numbers. That has nothing to do economics, per se.
While all the points you make are valid, I don't see Republicans as a true elixir to the problems, they will just introduce more that I will find even less palatable.Republicans are certainly NOT the elixir to our problems, any more than Democrats are.
Both sides have some good ideas, both have some horrible ones. But neither side is willing to actually govern; just grow their power and wealth with the people and the nation as distant secondary priorities. As such it so often comes to which is the least objectionable in the minds, I believe, of most Americans.
So I ask again; given the fiasco we are currently going through, and what is likely to come with the truly massive spending goals of the current Democrat power base, would you vote Democrat again, or vote against them as the least undesirable option?Biden has not been in office for a year, so I reserve judgement at this point. Everybody spoke of patience for Trump and the fiasco surrounding the COVID crisis.
I want the spending and consider most as investment in the citizens and the economy. The ideals and principles held by the GOP makes it virtually impossible for me to support them at this time. If the democrats fail, and I mean in a big way, the worse I would do is sit out the next election cycle. That, too, is highly unlikely
OMG! It's deja vu, all over again. Can you hear the echo if you just change the last two words?
And it is a legitimate rationalization to you now?
GAWell, someone asked me for my opinion and rationale....
It has been, is and will be a legitimate rationalization that I don't regret.
I only regret that Biden lacks the muscle I need to get the Democrat agenda through.I agree that your reasoning is a legitimate reason to choose your vote as you did. My chuckle was for those of the Left that claimed that was not a legitimate reason for Trump voters to use—until now when the shoe is on the other foot. It's okay when it is your reason.
GACheck in the archive for some of the Trump early-years threads. Look for those where you folks of the Left refuse to accept Trump voters' `lesser of two evils' as a legitimate reason for their vote. If I remember right you will find plenty.
GAYep, I will not presume that the other side can't take the same attitude I did but from the opposite pole.
Yet, My side did not challenge the electoral process and continue to deny the obvious after the loss of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and that is not a stretch. This entire affair since Nov. 2020 is unprecedented, can we agree on that?"My side did not challenge the electoral process..."
Your side spent billions of dollars and years of time trying to prove that Trump colluded with Putin to fix the election! If that was not an attempt to challenge the electoral process I don't know what is.
(I will grant you that they did find that Russian agents made comments on social media that were likely designed to promote Trump. More to the point they were designed to cause separation in our people, but they did, generally, promote Trump.)Nope, no `yets . . .' on this one. That would be another topic. :-O
GAIt would seem the Democrats did almost the same, but not quite the same. In 2016 Trump did not even have a foot in the door before all hell broke loose with Russia Russia Russia conspiracy. An investigation that accused a man of a crime, and then got to around to looking for evidence. Which yes it was found Russia did interfere with the election, but Trump was not charged in the end --- with anything. It was an elaborate scam that never in our history have we been exposed to.
Now, yes 2020 election was like no other... A candidate accusing the other party of election fraud. Which ended one way or the other ended up with people illegally entering the capital, and causing a riot. Again an incident that was unprecedented.
From where I sit both it well appeared the Democratic party worked overtime with the FBI, DOJ, and who knows who else to prove --- Trump only won due to election interference by Russians.
Now, Trump was hell-bent on proving the election was rigged to make an attempt to prove he won.
So, not much difference between both candidates that lost, made attempts to try to prove they were the winner.
IMO Both election disruptions put a mare on America's reputation around the world. They were both unprecedented, and neither deserves defending in my view. It would seem very hypocritical, in the light of the facts that are very much available about both fiascos.
It might be time to put the comparison to an end.I have had some interesting debates regarding American politics, I don't think I could find anything that offers up more diverse positions and ideas.
So here are a couple things to ponder. China is far more invasive into our politics than Russia. Going back to Bill Clinton's run for Presidency and their direct support: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … ibery.html
Not to mention others who have invested billions into our elections: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … ton-money/
Not to mention the Saudi investments and oil backed dollar:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
When one is willing to open their eyes to the truth, we can see that China, Saudi Arabia, and a variety of Billionaires are FAR MORE INFLUENTIAL in our election's and our politician's decision making than Russia has ever been or ever will be.
Sorry to inject some reality into this... but Russia is on far better terms with Biden than it was with Trump. This is why Biden OKed the Russian Pipeline and ended the Sanctions on Russia within his first 6 months of being in Office.
I'll leave you with a quote from another person I have been debating the election results and our election process with:
Think about this. If he [Trump] was not on the same side [DC Elites] he would have stopped the fraud. He would not have spent our money on a vaccine program for a disease that kills less than one percent. He was chosen perfectly for the division. Look at everything from a different perspective. Step out and look in and you will see it. The man was put in to keep you docile and to think that someone is on your side. If they had not put him in after Obama there would have been a government overthrow because of that hate for Hillary. This was known. So you create the illusion on one side that the election was stolen. On the other next election do the same. Perfect recipe for a civil war which helps population control and still keeps us from hanging them. First quote that comes to mind is.... it will be biblical. Well if you read revelations the mark is introduced- you can't buy or sell or work without it. Hmm. Sound familiar? How about the anti Christian narrative? Well that's there as well. Revelation is the playbook.
Biden comes forth a to weak and vacillating to confront his adversaries with the necessary rather than honey. They are my adversaries as well, he may be guilty of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
I could have only hoped that Warren and Sanders would not be silenced but the chance that they might not have been was more likely with a Democratic head rather than a Republican, No?You and I see the past few years events completely differently...
I saw Trump as a potential instigator for real change, that he would hopefully force a shift of power within the Democratic Party that would force them to become a voice for the people... not Wall St., Corporate, and Foreign powers.
My hopes were dashed... nothing better came forth... instead the most corrupt elements within DC and within the Democratic Party tightened their grip and assumed even more control.
Schumer, Pelosi, and Biden are... representatives for the elites, the 1%, the agendas of international agencies, not our own. Deceivers void of decency.
The sad truth about bigotry is that most bigots either don't realize that they are bigots, or they convince themselves that their bigotry is perfectly justified.
All game groups need pioneers to show the way and assist with growing new or more youthful colleagues.Sportsbugz An emergentics study has tracked down a connection between's playing sports and solid authority characteristics. Sports empower individuals to foster a group attitude whether its triumphant, losing or preparing together.
Country Delight affirms that main new Milk acquired is conveyed with hardly a pause in between so the quality remaining parts unaffected and the shoppers get it in the most normal structure.
Draining double a day assists the organization with having new Milk for bundling and conveyance. In this length,country delight milk the nature of Milk is tried and afterward provided to the customer.
Related Discussions
- 14
‘Reverse Racism’ - Is there such a thing?
by Anish Patel 12 years ago
‘Reverse Racism’ - Is there such a thing?If you are White, have you ever felt discriminated against by a person of another race or a person belonging to a ‘minority’ group.
- 52
Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
by IslandBites 2 weeks ago
The Supreme Court’s biggest decisions of the term are coming. I thought it'll be good to have one thread, kind of a tracker of the upcoming decisions.The high court has 10 opinions left to release over the next week before the justices begin their summer break.
- 21
Is Affirmative Action Still Necessary?
by preacherdon 12 years ago
Is affirmative action still necessary? It is argued that affirmative action is no longer necessary. Those who are against it say that such regualtions are the reasons employers take their jobs oversseas. Though you can't legislate morality, I think that affirmative action is still necessary because...
- 117
White privilege - What to do about it?
by mrpopo 7 years ago
Privilege is defined as “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.” White privilege means that there are rights, immunities or benefits enjoyed only by whites because society places whites in a higher position than minorities. Some examples of this...
- 56
I don't care, WHO, wrote this. It DESERVES A RE-PRINT.
by OLYHOOCH 11 years ago
I don't care, WHO, wrote this. It DESERVES A RE-PRINT, for those of you that did not see it. WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal, timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has a reputation for being extremely...
- 11
Who or what will be the biggest surprise in Week 2 of the National Football Leag
by Jack Hazen 11 years ago
Who or what will be the biggest surprise in Week 2 of the National Football League?I asked the same question for Week 1 and the answer was nailed by Cogerson with his comment about the Jets. RG3 would have been a good answer also.You could have said the Packers defense that looked lame against the...