I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Strange, RR.

Conversations about race in this country can become so convoluted that you often find people on opposing ends agreeing. Case in point: I strongly oppose affirmative action because I believe it is a) racist (telling blacks etc.. that they are so inferior they can't be expected to make it on their own) and b) because it begins too late in life. Unless governments pay more attention to underserved schools and neighborhoods, a child's lifelong disadvantage won't suddenly be erased by giving him an artificial leg up as an adult. IMO, the only thing that accomplishes is making rich white people think they are "doing something." Meanwhile, the message affirmative action sends to underserved populations is, IMO, so cynical as to be almost Darwinian: "don't worry if we never bother to do the hard work of improving your schools, giving you access to healthcare and demanding more from you - we'll give you a job."

It's unfair to whites - but not NEARLY as unfair and insulting as it is to blacks.

This country needs to stop trying to rely of the courts and counting strategies alone for social equality. There need to be policy-based solutions that start with the premise that every individual is capable of reaching certain goals if only he or she is given a fair chance --and that individuals thrive on and learn from having to meet expectations.

It also leads to unfortunate scenarios such as what we see with Scott Brown blithely accusing Elizabeth Warren of getting ahead on something other than her own merit. It tarnishes Warren's reputation, and makes it harder for someone in a similar situation to be respected. It should be clear that Warren is successful on her own merit - but to some, the facts never really stand out, somehow..... Brown's cheap shot is easier to digest.

The funny thing is: if Warren had turned around and said: "and you only got to your position in life because you are a man" I can imagine the outrage in certain quarters that are very silent right now. 

Hi ladies - had my 5+ hour long interview yesterday - and after all of that and a long discussion my husband last night have decided that it's really not a fit for me.  So even if they do offer me the job (and they probably won't because one of the interviewers truly pissed me off) I won't be taking it.  But....  I knew all of you were in my purse and helping me along, so thank-you all from the bottom of my heart. 

Watched a little of "morning Joe" this morning, and see again how twisted so many republicans are in their need to denigrate public employees.  What is it with them anyway, that they feel a union for public employees is so terrible?  Public employees are almost always paid less than their counterparts in the private sector, and "do more with less" for years and years.  In general they are highly committed individuals that really want to make a difference in the lives of citizens.  I am truly sick of the Republican/TeaParty line of "smaller government", as they are the same people who want more military, more laws controlling behavior and, of course, more prisons.  I think I'm going to go out and get sick somewhere....

Athena....every times these things come up I instantly sort of go to my anatomy and physiology classes where bodies are shown minus all outer layers.  Everyone looks the same.  We are each others keepers and when we do things that benefit the whole...but well, everyone knows that.  

I see we are still having gaffe after gaffe in the news.  Talk about the Peter Principle....it came into its own in this case.  Even Mrs. Romney went back on her word that she did not want to do this again, and I think it is proving out so far that it is a huge blunder.  R. Maddow had a piece detailing 'un-clean' politics that have been used through the years and seems to feel we should be looking hard for signs of the same as we come closer to debates.  Feels that the first debate could be the one that settles any dust about who "cares" about everyone.  Not as in deciding the election --- I took it as in watchfulness and knowing that the rest of the debates would not be needed by anyone.   Of course, there has already been a lot of the usual for the conservative side --- manuevering facts, as in distortion, ommissions, and the like.  I will say till I'm blue in the face and beyond....you can't build anything on a lie....just look at Romney. 

This cloud thing....I'm so computer illiterate drives me up the wall.  I pay for intermediate service here since I don't use my computer to do business etc. but feels a little wasted as I wait and watch a little circle go round and round on my toolbar from Breast Cancer Topic.  Uuuuurrrrrrrrggggggg.

Jackie

I saw a Fox poll today that showed Mittens down by about 5 in one of the swing states (can't remember which one). Anyway, when their own biased pollsters get the same results showing Mittens is losing big, it's hard to spin all the other polls away.

From the Miami NewTimes 

 Republicans Claim Polls Are Bogus

 .......

The Republicans beef? That polls inaccurately use "turnout models" that try to predict the makeup of voters on Election Day and unfairly over-poll Democrats.

..... 

Geez, I guess the R's are wondering why they aren't taking voter supression into account?? 

Linda, the interview with the King of Jordon on the Daily Show was great, wasn't it?  I was thinking that there are no 'journalists' out there any more that would ask the questions that Jon did.  Unfortunately, being in Canada, I can't get the web part of the interview yet.  

Thanks Linda.

I, too, am anxious about both Democratic complacency and voter suppression -- the latter even more than the former. Some voter suppression laws have been struck down, but that doesn't mean that the suppressors won't be up to their usual tricks, such as "True the Vote" and shennanigans with numbers of voting machines in heavily Democratic polling places (remember the loooong lines in minority precincts in 2004, particularly in Ohio?). There are LOTS ways things can still go wrong. I am thrilled with the polls myself, but only cautiously optimistic.



L

Agree with everyone. Rethuglicans demonstrated their ruthlessness to me, starting in 2000. Before that I was truly naive about their determination to "win" at all costs. 

Same here!!

Concerned, same as HL, not complacency, but thr $$$$$ that can be thrown in near very end for NEGATIVE ads, too late to do anything to dispute them.  But, know the 2 Davids ( Plouffe, Axelrod) are SO GOOD - they must be prepared for all that.

Nate Silver taking the stuffings out of Rasmussen - which has always favored rethuglicans.

Jimmy Kimmel has a fabulous knock off of Willard's latest - speaking into the camera I'm a nice guy ad.  Will try to find it to post.

Earlier discussion - Barack Obama identifies himself as Black.  That's good enough for me.  I can "consider" him biracial, but he calls himself Black.  Figure he knows what he's experienced in his life a whole lot better than anyone else.  Speaking of Dreams of My Father - really worth reading, beautifully written, the man IS a writer, as David Maranis has said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/27/economy-added-386000-more-jobs-last-year-than-we-thought/



And even more good news on the jobs front (counting is an inexact science). This puts the president into net positive jobs territory.



:-D

Too funny, Sunflowers

Many of his donors do, though, Sun. Funnily enough. Remember that story that emerged the other day - a true story, though it sounds fantastical:

At a Romney fundraiser, ten men were sitting around a table. They had each paid at least $2,500 to be there, and some had raised as much as $50,000 for the candidate. Obviously strong supporters, committed donors, etc.... but they conducted a straw poll amongst them. The question was: "Will mitt win." the answer: 10 "nos."