Tuesday, December 20, 2005

MRCI (Affirmative Action) is ON the ballot

It's going to be an interesting election in 2006. MCRI is on the ballot.

Court orders anti-affirmative action proposal on ballot

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the secretary of state to place a proposal that would ban some affirmative action programs on the November 2006 ballot.

The appeals court issued the order because it said the Board of State Canvassers failed to follow a previous court mandate. The four-member elections panel deadlocked on a motion to comply with the court order last week.

The Judge laid the smackdown on the board of canvassasers for their games playing on holding this up.

I'm going on a limb and expect this to pass easily 2-1. The major question is who the added turnout will benefit.


Anonymous said...

I have seven children and love them all equally. Giving special rights and privileges to any one of them never comes without a hefty cost. Same lesson for society. This candidate fully supports MCRI.

Anonymous said...

It’s amazing to me you can criticize the Board of Canvassers for “playing games” when it was just doing its job, at least the two Democratic members were. Fraud was used to collect the signatories, and the MCRI group lied to people when they collected signatures. How can you ask them to certify something when they know fraud was involved?

But what’s more amazing is why anyone would support the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. The Supreme Court ruled affirmative action programs in university admissions is legal, and it was one of our own universities that was the test case. It’s also amazing that after 242 years of slavery, after more than 144 years of racism and discrimination, African-Americans should not be offered a level playing field. Hell, removing all of the barriers to allowing blacks to vote happened only 30 years ago, but yet overnight everyone have the same opportunities? I don’t think so, and Michigan voters realize that. This will fail.

Dan said...

The Supreme Jokers also used outside laws to base their deicions instead of the Constitution. They also oppose property rights. They are wrong, wrong often, and wrong there.

""African-Americans should not be offered a level playing field"""

They should have a level playing field. AA tells blacks that their are not good enough to be able to make it on their own and need special breaks. I disagree with that line of racist thinking.

I AM more open to when things are even up in qualification to give the university admission to someone who is from a disadvantage area, whether it be Detroit or some parts of the rural UP. Race itself shouldn't play into it. This causes divison, and contributes to racism.

I'm not one of these people who say racism is ended. It's not, and it's wrong when it goes either way, against whites, blacks, whoever.

People need to be judged as individuals. This group-think needs to go the way of disco.

Anonymous said...

I’m not really sure what “outside laws” were used to decide the affirmative action case because every law in the United States is based on the Constitution. Maybe you’re talking about precedence. I agree with you about the Supreme Court, and perhaps the worst decision ever made by that court was electing the current president on a split vote.

The thing about affirmative action is every poll I have read in the past, Americans support it, as well as having diverse college campuses. It seems to me when you say you’re, “..more open to when things are even up in qualification to give the university admission to someone who is from a disadvantage area,” that you support affirmative action in some form. It’s good you have an open mind.

I’m with you in wondering who will benefit from the large turnout this will generate, and I don’t thing conservatives would go through so much hassle and break the law to get it on the ballot if it would not benefit them, much like all the rubbish in 2004 over gay marriage. I think its being overlooked that fraud was used to collect signatures and get this on the ballot. However, I think Americans are a fair people, and this will fail by a 2-1 margin.

I also agree with you when you say racism has not ended, so what do we do about it? How about giving blacks some of the opportunities that have been historically denied to them for some 300 years?

If I understand how affirmative action at the U of M works, where entrance to the university is very, very competitive, if two students who are equal in every way- comparative grades, comparative test scores and comparative extracurricular activities - but one is white and one is black, the black students would get some extra points. All things being equal, the fact that the black students had a lot more obstacles to overcome than an upper middle class kid from the suburbs should be admired and get the extra points. How can that be racism? It ensures the campus is a diverse place where people can learn from each other, and after all, isn’t that what college is all about, learning and growing?

Anonymous said...

When my grandparents came here from Ireland, they were treated like dogs. There was true hatred for them and Italians as well. They overcame not because special rights were given to them, but because the structure of law came to its senses and eventually treated them equally. They also worked hard and prayed hard. The opportunities that were denied for blacks for 300 years are now available to them and rightly so. To begin a system of denying opportunity to me, a white guy, to give more opportunity to someone else is racism. Yes, racism has not ended. There is only one way to end it and no politicians (except this one) are mentioning it. The answer is to love our neighbor as ourself and see them as fellow human beings created in God's image. You can devise all sorts of other political solutions to end racism but they will not work until we choose to love one another.

Anonymous said...

While I’m sure your grandparents had to overcome prejudice and hatred when they decided to come to this country, the huge difference here is they chose to come here, no one captured them, imprisoned them and forced them to come here. Also, no one enslaved them for more than 240 years. Respectfully, it just doesn’t compare. I can also guarantee you this, in today’s world, no one refuses to rent to an Irishman because of their heritage, or refuses to hire them. Blacks cannot say that, and it has only been some 30 short years ago they often could not vote, or go to the better schools. We are trying to change that. If you can show we one instance where you were denied an opportunity because you were white, I’d like to hear about it.

Anonymous said...

I was denied a job opportunity once because I was Catholic. I learned a lot from it. I did not expect nor ask for special rights, but equality would have been nice. It seems that you and I ultimately want the same result but it appears as though we will eternally disagree on the methods to achieve it. I will vote for MCRI and you will vote against it.

Riot Wing said...

DeVos and all the other leftists are bitching and moaning. Kevins probably works for MIGOP.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me if you were denied a job because you were Catholic you experienced what many African-Americans experience almost everyday. You should have sued because what happed to you was wrong. I guess on this issue we will have to agree to disagree, but I thank you for the respectful debate. Good luck against Mr. Rogers; we sure need a change there, no matter who.

Dick Devos is a leftist? I happen to be a proud liberal, and they have helped make this country great. As for working for the MIGOP; I have more integrity than that.

Anonymous said...

Women have gained the most from affirmative action. This has helped families earn a better living. But what about Patrick Flynn helps families or believes in helping families? I have not heard a thing. There is really very little difference between Rogers and Flynn. It's pitiful.
You will be left behind Me Flynn you are a one issue candidate.

Anonymous said...

Dan, is that anonymous guy serious?

Anonymous said...

There are many different people who sign in as anonymous. I happen to be a woman who last posted, but I do not post that often. You seem to be under the assumumption that affirmative action is just for people of color. The women of this country have been helped the most by affirmative action. When affirmative action is no longer needed, it will easily fall away. Unfortunately this is not the case. You are hopefully fortunate to have seven healthy children. If you had a child who was blind or deaf but able to work, you may think again about our Government working to help level the playing field and giving everyone a chance. I am sorry, you do seem so narrow in your view of the world, it is very hard to see the difference between you and Mike Rogers. I was hoping your faith would put you in a different catagory. The Catholic Church has been very socially liberal in the past, working for civil rights and aid to the less fortunate. I am very saddened you seem to be of the new Christian ilk that seems more like the Puritans of the past.
I do wish you luck. I thinks running for office no matter what party you belong to is noble.
I do not post my name because I am a coward, but because of my career. I think this blog is a wonderful way to spar about isssues and ideas.
My best wishes to all for a beautiful and meaningful holiday.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous - Ms. Anonymous (I humbly stand corrected), I am under no such assumptions. I believe that Affirmative Action is bad for all people. This is not just political rhetoric, I really and truly believe that with all my heart.

You say that when Affirmative Action is no longer needed, it will easily fall away. Liberal social policies that are no longer needed do not have a very good track record of just falling away.

The Catholic Church does not have a liberal social agenda. It has a merciful and compassionate mission. There is a difference. The church and all faith-based organizations are very capable of effectively aiding our needy and helpless. They are locally rooted in every part of the globe. We have to let that happen and give of our own time and resources as participants. We have to work to get the government off their backs and let them do their mission. When we expect the government to do the work of charity and compassion, it will always dissapoint us. The Government is simply not qualified to do such work. I realize that you disagree with that but one simply has to look to the past to learn this lesson for the present and the future.

Leveling the playing field or at least attempting to do so in an imperfect world is up to you and me personally and collectively as communities of caring souls.

But beyond all of this at this very special and holy time, God bless all of you liberals and conservatives, allies and adversaries. One thing we can all do at Christmas as an entire group is Hope.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church has been very progressive in the field of Social Justice. Please read your history Mr Flynn. Your church like all has a rich history, some wonderful work has been done, with a very liberal agenda as you would like to call it.

I had a beautiful lunch last summer with a nun who lives and works in South American, we agreed on every political issue under the sun and we both call ourselves liberals.
God loves us all!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Kevins obviously has a chip on his shoulder and will fight in any way to keep preferences for one group over another.

History lesson: In regards to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the late Senator Hubert Humphrey said to a colleague, "If the Senator can find in Title VII any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it's not there." This is the basis for quotas, affirmative action, and set-asides since then.

Kevins points out to the rulings of the Supreme Court as if their wisdom is from on High. Do I have to remind him of rulings such as "separate but equal", that abortion is a product to be protected under the constitutional right to privacy (find that somewhere), and the separation of church and state (find that one, too!)

Instead of looking to affirmative action as a helping hand, by implication alone, it tells you that you are inferior. You can't cut it. You are stupid. You aren't as talented as others. The Jesses and Als will sing harmony to this mantra as if it's all true. You should be highly insulted rather than indignant! Racism, in any form, should be rejected.

Kevins also pointed out that blacks didn't come here volunarily. Well, that may be partly true, but it was your relatives in Africa that were selling the slaves to the traders.

The bottom line is that some blacks need to get rid of the victim mindset and go for the American dream. You don't need some white liberal or a race-baiter like Jesse Jackson feeling sorry for you. Look at all the foreigners that come here to make a living. Many become very wealthy even though they didn't know English, the language of money, when they arrived. What is stopping you? The pity party is over--deal with it and show some dignity.

Anonymous said...

I don’t know what led you to believe I “have a chip on my shoulder,” but you’re right about one thing, I will fight to promote equal rights.

I don’t know where you get the idea I think the Supreme Court gets its “wisdom from on High.” As I said in a previous post, the court, in their lack of wisdom, elected GWB president. I agree with them that abortion is a personal, reproductive issue. As for your outlandish statement you cannot find a basis for the separation of church and state. Are you serious? Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?

How is affirmative action in this limited case telling someone “You can't cut it? You are stupid. You aren't as talented as others? “ These student are qualified for admission to the University of Michigan under any standard, and all they are getting is a few extra points.

I almost fell over when I read your next statement “that blacks didn't come here voluntarily was only partially true.” You just show your racism. First of all, I am a white male. Secondly, if there is no market for slaves, why would they capture them and whom would they sell them to? That’s just an asinine statement to try and blame the victim.

It astonishes me that after more than 240 years of slavery, years of racism that continues today, barrier after barrier in the way of success and years of institutional racism that in just a few short years all that is wiped away. Get real.