Rookie wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Rookie wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Rookie wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Rookie wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Rookie wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Rookie wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Rookie wrote:Let's play a game....Pence is now POTUS. How do liberals react to Pence's conservative agenda? My guess is it's just more of the same bipartisan freak out. Doesn't matter who sits in the chair, as long as it is a Republican the liberals will not be satisfied. The outcry about Trump will morph into the outcry about Pence.

Why not just look at what happened when Bush was POTUS? Of course Dems would not be satisfied. However the rules of engagement were different. Were there mass protests? When we never found the WMDs we went to war over did Bush blast the media and call them liars and fake news?

Of course liberals were against him. The difference is despite some bad moves by GW, and his sometimes country bumkin demeanor Bush was not a national embarrassment.

Right now all GOP legislation and agendas are all straight up anti environment, pro wealth and pro corporation. Those 3 all go hand in hand. If EPA restrictions are costing you money and those pesky pollution controls are hurting your bottom line, than the GOP is the party for you.

Policy is policy. GOP puts the money with the companies. That puts the money with the rich. That puts the environment at risk. They are anti social programs. Yes.. the programs that generally benefit minorities. Yes, those programs. You will get more military spending. You will get lower taxes. This is the pattern we see.

Make no mistake. Dems are bad also. To protect the environment they piss money away on poorly conceived green energy programs. They dump money into anything and everything. The long resting members of the party are terrible. Washington is a swamp... No doubt. Politicans are terrible in the country right now. But to answer your question Rookie.. from a political standpoint no liberal is going to be happy with Pence. However he will act presidential and not embarrass us. That would be start. He would be infinitely more qualified as well, and probably have a basic understanding of what goverment does and how it works. Things Trumps lacks

Totally agree. Don't even get me started on the army corp of engineers and pork barrel spending. It is a swamp and everyone knows it. Draining the swamp was good salesmanship, it resonates with people, especially when they are strugling to just get by every month.

To just focus in one one point, manufacturing jobs, you will see the devastation around the country where smaller towns that depended on these industries are now devastated. Then you have to ask yourself, where did these manufacturing plants go and why did they go there when skilled labor is plentiful right here.

Trade agreements, cheaper labor, lesser enviromental restrictions, competitive balance. All things at the core of Trumps agenda that every other politician was afraid to take head on. Problem with Trump is he is such a clown and a circus sideshow that the message is lost. He has zero diplomatic finesse.

Where I live is a microcosm of this country. It puts things in a different perspective then if you live in NY, CT or NJ

Well here is where I disagree with... on the jobs point. The job numbers have been growing for many years. Obama had very strong job numbers. The problem is wage growth. These devastated industries you talk about... there is such a thing as times change. Yes there will collateral damage. There always is. Do we bring back blockbuster and palmer video stores to bring back the lost jobs from those devastated industries? Of course not.. but we do it for dying industries. Bernie Sanders was a bit exreme in this but we need to invest in real education. We are sorely behind. The country isnt hurting from losing coal and auto jobs. Its losing from KEEPING those jobs. If you want to make America great educate those job up.

Does it bother you? The struggle to keep these jobs that pay $35-50k a year, meanwhile all the REAL money goes to big companies. Those companies then take valuable REAL career jobs like everything in IT, and bring in cheaper labor on visas from India and Eastern former Soviet block countries. Now these guys make $80-$100k for jobs that would otherwise pay $125-$150k for a US citizen. Now I have no hate for that labor group. My experience is they are good hard working people and I call many long time friends. Its an eye opening aspect of the labor force IMO, and the politicians will NEVER push back on that because its money right out of the pockets of their biggest donors. The swamp runs deep and with many twists and turns.

Bottom line is regardless of recent job growth under Barak and now Trump, wage growth is stagnant and the $ is weak. Those are bad. That means the new jobs being created are low level. Not the stuff "GREAT" is build on. It also means that the value of stocks goes up, commodities go up, property values go up... everyone with STUFF is happy. Lots of of those just below middle class jobs to keep people buying cars, going to walmart, living paycheck to paycheck, racking in overdraft fees and ensuring their kids follow in similar footsteps because college is for people with money.

This is the democrat in me. We need to offer better to EVERYONE. That is what makes America great again. A smarter workforce, not one that ensures there is a ditch to dig for everyone.

I dont have all the answers, but I do know most people dont understand the question. Its big and has to be chipped away at. I know more jobs in coal and looser restrictions and regulations on what corporations and banks can do isnt the answer. That I know

hey Mike, I like the conversation. I am going to get back to this discussion when I am not running out the door and can give a better response. If you want a window of what I am referring to at the micro level, check out a book called Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis by J.D. Vance. It's a quick read and moves along nicely.

Will do... have a great weekend. TGIF

Living in NYC you're exposed to extremely religious people all the time, it doesn't make them extremists. If my daughter is over at a friends house and they are Hasidic I respect their rules when I am in their house ir if they are at mine. How is that dangerous.

That, however, is the wrong analogy.

Not a question of whom you allow or not in your home or what conditions you require guests to meet to be welcome there. Knocks yourself out.

It's altogether different topic when it comes to a public utility.

Say you got 7 people.

One person is uncomfortable around transgender people and don't want to use the same bathroom.

One is uncomfortable around black people and don't want to use the same bathroom.

One is uncomfortable around obese people and don't want to use the same bathroom.

One is uncomfortable around psychologically or physically challenged people and don't want to use the same bathroom.

One is uncomfortable around older people and don't want to use the same bathroom.

One is uncomfortable around people who appear to be poor and/or lacking advance education and don't want to use the same bathroom.

One is uncomfortable around atheists and don't want to use the same bathroom.

Which person(s) deserve the legal protection to be comfortable in a public bathroom (as opposed to just walking out if they are) and why?

Here's an analogy for you. Your 16y.o. daughter plays on the varsity public school soccer team. Another parents 16 y.o. son is transgender. The parents feel that he should be allowed to play on the girls soccer team even though anatomically he is male gender. He should also be allowed to use the girls locker room to change and shower with the rest of the girls team. You cool with that?

Yes.

That's how you answer a question - directly.

Now can you answer mine?

Here's the part I'm stuck on. So, you were quick to say yes, but did you stop to ask yourself if your 16 y.o. daughter is emotionally and mentally able to deal with this?

Yes. And as I actually have a daughter, I'm in a position to answer this genuinely without having to speculate.

But again, the irony that is escaping you is you suggesting people should better understand people with opposing viewpoints that are based on their religious views. But it is you is having self-admitted difficulty accepting my views.

Which btw, is perfectly natural. I'm expecting you to think I'm wrong, misguided and to say so. And I expect you to understand I think you're wrong and misguided, but not to seek shelter from that disagreement under the umbrella of "church doctrine".

If she doesn't agree with you, does that mean that she is, as you say, destroying the country.

I never said that. I said one of the biggest threats around the globe is extremism in the name of religious observance. People who want to deprive people of their civil rights in the same of religious belief (a restaurant owner can discriminate against a gay man but not a black man) shares some small level of rationale with those who want to deprive others of their life in the name of religious observance.

Why is it ok to take your values and put them on her.

Now here is the part in which I demonstrate the contradictory standard at play here.

I grew up from birth raised in a roman catholic household. My parents are good, well meaning people, who 100% tried to take their values and "put them on me." Your parents almost certainly tried to do the same to you. You almost certainly try to put your values on your kids.

I do too.

So the question "Why is it ok to take your values and put them on her?" is non-sensical. Again, it is YOU have have argued for tolerance of religious based viewpoint when they intersect with civic issues. So if I'm to be empathetic to people who teach their children the earth is 6000 years old, Adam was the first man, and they're condemned to eternal damnation unless they accept Jesus Christ as their one and only savior, why would it ever occur to you to question how "okay" it is to impart my values onto my children?

That's nearly an inexplicable contradiction.

As it were, you asked me how I'd FEEL. No what I'd do in a specific situation. If my 16 daughter felt differently than I, OF COURSE I'd protect her feelings to whatever ability I had, including finding alternate arrangements for her. What I wouldn't do is seek protection under "church doctrine" to protect her interests.

What about the other parents. Maybe some disagree about having a 16 y.o. boy in the shower with their daughters. Are they now, as you put it, destroying the country?

I didn't put it that way (see above). What you bring up is a legitimate, difficult issue that is certainly debatable and I suspect I'd likely represent a minority, losing position. But my argument wouldn't be "I belong to this group and/or reads this old book that tells me I'm right so you need to respect my position."

And to get into the physical part, while this boy might think he is a girl, genetically he is a boy and could have a competitive advantage on a girls team due to the physical differences between boys and girls. Is this fair to everyone else who has to compete against your team?

That's a fair question. But it isn't a religious one, which again, is actually the whole point here.

The point that I am trying make here is that not everyone is going to agree with your moral position here which is extremely liberal

Indeed. No argument. I even fully recognize mine is a minority one.

and then you have taken the jump that anyone who disagrees with you is destroying the country.

I have not. You jumping to this conclusion is the problem inherent to the discourse.

I get it, you want the entire country to change and see things your way and you want it right now.

Not even a little bit. You're right now engaging in exactly the things you were criticizing others for two pages ago.

What I really want is for the truth to be out in the open. You think I'm full of ****. You think I'm wrong and misinformed and intolerant and you probably even think my ideas are a little dangerous.

And you know what? I'm cool with that. That's understandable and expected.

But what YOU were arguing is that people shouldn't think that about you or anyone whose value system in based on "church doctrine."

You are content to defend your position and label anyone who disagrees with you as an intolerant racist who probably also hates blacks, obese people, people with physical disabilities, old people and atheists. While you want other people to expand their views, you refuse to listen to their views and try to understand them without being judgmental. In your mind, they are lesser human beings and destroying the country.

I haven't even suggested anything close to these things.

Here is I ACTUALLY wrote.

I don't expect you to be "comfortable" in a bathroom with transgender people. I expect you to understand you don't enjoy the civil right to be comfortable in a public bathroom.

I don't expect you to be "comfortable" with your 16yo daughter in a shower after school with a boy, or someone who was born a boy and is no longer. But the respective cases should be made on the best available information, and not "doctrine".

I 100% support your right to observe your beliefs for whatever reason you hold them in our own household or private gathering places, and I'd vigorously defend those rights now matter what your views are, even if I found them abhorrent.

I expect anyone to recognize there organized groups of people in this world who want to deprive you and I of our way or life and/or our because of what they believe is a divine calling, and that's relevant to any discussion of the intersection of religion and civil life.

Most of I expect you to recognize what you've demonstrated clearly above, is that while we can agree to respect one another's rights to express our views, what we have in common is a very real, very mutual disrespect for each other's ideas... which is cool... which again, is the whole point.

I'm just trying to generate conversation. We have a diverse group here, and the differing opinions make for good conversation. If I pick a specific angle to discuss it is only to avoid broad seeeping generalizations. These are big complicated issues.

That's true. But I'll remind you of this. THESE two statements is what drew me to this particular discussion and it really has little to do with the specifics of showers or public bathrooms.

How do liberals react to Pence's conservative agenda? My guess is it's just more of the same bipartisan freak out. Doesn't matter who sits in the chair, as long as it is a Republican the liberals will not be satisfied. 

It's called Church doctrine. The Catholic Church has been around for a very long time. Southerners, Midwesterners, lots of people actually, have religion in their lives. Doesn't make them nut jobs. Maybe take the separation of church and state route instead of criticizing religious groups that have different ideology then your own would be a better tact for you to take to have a reasonable discussion.

1st is you essentially dismissing "liberals" has having a kneejerk reaction to anything and anyone they don't agree with. A "broad sweeping generalization" by definition.

2nd is your very next post asking for understanding of christian-based idealogy.

There is a inconsistent standard here if you care to see it and what I was drawing your attention to. To me and I suspect other people this reads to me like "christians" are real people with real viewpoints that should be respected and considered ... but that we all know those "liberals" are just going to freak out no matter what.

Is it YOU who reduced people with different idealogy to a caricature.

djsunyc wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

Just a thought. There is an industry that minorities dominate, sports. While these millionair athletes are active in their communites, is it enough? Just think of the change they could help bring by putting some of those billions of dollars to work in the communties that would benefit from it the most. How many billiols of dollars does Michael Jordan really need?

that industry comprises of what? 1% of the entire black population of the US making that type of money? so from this 1%, it should be their responsibility to help their communities?

i think everyone should help their communities but asking that question just doesn't sit right with me. it's almost reads like "let them take care of their own kind". i really hope that wasn't your intent but that's how it came across to me.

and a miniscule # of black people with wealth can not change things. this requires participation from all sides and it takes decades/generations to get non-whites to the same level as whites financially and that's ONLY if we do everything in our power to give non-whites all the same opportunities - and you know that's not what the world is like now.

You're being generous I think.

After this - "Another difference is community and people looking after one another."

This reads to me like a rhetorical - 'why don't black people help one another?'

djsunyc wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

Just a thought. There is an industry that minorities dominate, sports. While these millionair athletes are active in their communites, is it enough? Just think of the change they could help bring by putting some of those billions of dollars to work in the communties that would benefit from it the most. How many billiols of dollars does Michael Jordan really need?

that industry comprises of what? 1% of the entire black population of the US making that type of money? so from this 1%, it should be their responsibility to help their communities?

i think everyone should help their communities but asking that question just doesn't sit right with me. it's almost reads like "let them take care of their own kind". i really hope that wasn't your intent but that's how it came across to me.

and a miniscule # of black people with wealth can not change things. this requires participation from all sides and it takes decades/generations to get non-whites to the same level as whites financially and that's ONLY if we do everything in our power to give non-whites all the same opportunities - and you know that's not what the world is like now.

take a look at this program, Street Squash http://streetsquash.org/harlem/ If you go there, take a tour, talk to the staff, meet the kids. You will see how important this program is to them. It took private sector money to get it done, but the idea came from someone who was familiar with the community and working with these kids. Basically what I was saying above without wording it right. It takes people familiar with the community and private sector money.

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

Just a thought. There is an industry that minorities dominate, sports. While these millionair athletes are active in their communites, is it enough? Just think of the change they could help bring by putting some of those billions of dollars to work in the communties that would benefit from it the most. How many billiols of dollars does Michael Jordan really need?

that industry comprises of what? 1% of the entire black population of the US making that type of money? so from this 1%, it should be their responsibility to help their communities?

i think everyone should help their communities but asking that question just doesn't sit right with me. it's almost reads like "let them take care of their own kind". i really hope that wasn't your intent but that's how it came across to me.

and a miniscule # of black people with wealth can not change things. this requires participation from all sides and it takes decades/generations to get non-whites to the same level as whites financially and that's ONLY if we do everything in our power to give non-whites all the same opportunities - and you know that's not what the world is like now.

take a look at this program, Street Squash http://streetsquash.org/harlem/ If you go there, take a tour, talk to the staff, meet the kids. You will see how important this program is to them. It took private sector money to get it done, but the idea came from someone who was familiar with the community and working with these kids.

No, it didn't.

Rookie wrote:

martin wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

Just a thought. There is an industry that minorities dominate, sports. While these millionair athletes are active in their communites, is it enough? Just think of the change they could help bring by putting some of those billions of dollars to work in the communties that would benefit from it the most. How many billiols of dollars does Michael Jordan really need?

that industry comprises of what? 1% of the entire black population of the US making that type of money? so from this 1%, it should be their responsibility to help their communities?

i think everyone should help their communities but asking that question just doesn't sit right with me. it's almost reads like "let them take care of their own kind". i really hope that wasn't your intent but that's how it came across to me.

and a miniscule # of black people with wealth can not change things. this requires participation from all sides and it takes decades/generations to get non-whites to the same level as whites financially and that's ONLY if we do everything in our power to give non-whites all the same opportunities - and you know that's not what the world is like now.

take a look at this program, Street Squash http://streetsquash.org/harlem/ If you go there, take a tour, talk to the staff, meet the kids. You will see how important this program is to them. It took private sector money to get it done, but the idea came from someone who was familiar with the community and working with these kids. Basically what I was saying above without wording it right. It takes people familiar with the community and private sector money.

It's weird to me that you singled out the minority sport industry sector and asked if they contribute to their community enough. Is it the only industry where the very members are REQUIRED to put time into the community?

Are you aware of how much Jordan does or does not do before you ask if Michael is hoarding his money?

No problem Martin. I don't expect you to get where I am coming from, especially since I really don't want to spend the time to type long posts.

I think you've made yourself clear where you are coming from.

The founder of streetsquash is not at all how you described him and has nothing in common with Michael Jordan.

Rookie wrote:

martin wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

Just a thought. There is an industry that minorities dominate, sports. While these millionair athletes are active in their communites, is it enough? Just think of the change they could help bring by putting some of those billions of dollars to work in the communties that would benefit from it the most. How many billiols of dollars does Michael Jordan really need?

that industry comprises of what? 1% of the entire black population of the US making that type of money? so from this 1%, it should be their responsibility to help their communities?

i think everyone should help their communities but asking that question just doesn't sit right with me. it's almost reads like "let them take care of their own kind". i really hope that wasn't your intent but that's how it came across to me.

and a miniscule # of black people with wealth can not change things. this requires participation from all sides and it takes decades/generations to get non-whites to the same level as whites financially and that's ONLY if we do everything in our power to give non-whites all the same opportunities - and you know that's not what the world is like now.

take a look at this program, Street Squash http://streetsquash.org/harlem/ If you go there, take a tour, talk to the staff, meet the kids. You will see how important this program is to them. It took private sector money to get it done, but the idea came from someone who was familiar with the community and working with these kids. Basically what I was saying above without wording it right. It takes people familiar with the community and private sector money.

It's weird to me that you singled out the minority sport industry sector and asked if they contribute to their community enough. Is it the only industry where the very members are REQUIRED to put time into the community?

Are you aware of how much Jordan does or does not do before you ask if Michael is hoarding his money?

No problem Martin. I don't expect you to get where I am coming from, especially since I really don't want to spend the time to type long posts.

Sounds about right

Rookie wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Rookie wrote:

martin wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Rookie wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

Just a thought. There is an industry that minorities dominate, sports. While these millionair athletes are active in their communites, is it enough? Just think of the change they could help bring by putting some of those billions of dollars to work in the communties that would benefit from it the most. How many billiols of dollars does Michael Jordan really need?

that industry comprises of what? 1% of the entire black population of the US making that type of money? so from this 1%, it should be their responsibility to help their communities?

i think everyone should help their communities but asking that question just doesn't sit right with me. it's almost reads like "let them take care of their own kind". i really hope that wasn't your intent but that's how it came across to me.

and a miniscule # of black people with wealth can not change things. this requires participation from all sides and it takes decades/generations to get non-whites to the same level as whites financially and that's ONLY if we do everything in our power to give non-whites all the same opportunities - and you know that's not what the world is like now.

take a look at this program, Street Squash http://streetsquash.org/harlem/ If you go there, take a tour, talk to the staff, meet the kids. You will see how important this program is to them. It took private sector money to get it done, but the idea came from someone who was familiar with the community and working with these kids. Basically what I was saying above without wording it right. It takes people familiar with the community and private sector money.

It's weird to me that you singled out the minority sport industry sector and asked if they contribute to their community enough. Is it the only industry where the very members are REQUIRED to put time into the community?

Are you aware of how much Jordan does or does not do before you ask if Michael is hoarding his money?

No problem Martin. I don't expect you to get where I am coming from, especially since I really don't want to spend the time to type long posts.

I think you've made yourself clear where you are coming from.

The founder of streetsquash is not at all how you described him and has nothing in common with Michael Jordan.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Street squash is an example of a successful collaboration and is doing good work and serving the community. You could easily have taken the street squash mission statement and used it for the basis of positive discussion where people exchange ideas, opinions and viewpoints in a positive manner.

StreetSquash’s mission is to provide consistent, long-term and reliable support to the children, families and schools in Harlem. By exposing these children to a broad range of experiences and by maintaining the highest standards, StreetSquash aims to help each child realize his or her academic and personal potential.

Our goals are:

to improve academic performance
to develop an ethic of hard work and commitment
to boost self-confidence
to increase school attendance
to ensure young people earn a college degree
to support ongoing personal and professional development

I used street squash as an example because I am familiar with it and some of the people involved.

Context. In a discussion about affirmative action, you asked if millionaire black athletes do enough for to help black communities, singling out Michael Jordan with a question that can only be interpreted as asking if he's greedy and does enough?

I don't doubt for a second in your mind this is fair-minded question asked to begin a "positive" discussion, but it's hard to escape the implications, which a couple of people besides myself picked up on.

Streetsquash appears to be a fine, worthwhile program and whose founder (who as you incorrectly cited), is not from the community it serves in the sense you used the word community. And for that reason its founder should be commended for having broader horizons.

But you citing this small, not very budget-intensive program is another choice the raises questions again in context to how YOU introduced the topic. You could have easily cited a program started and funded by the very same people you're suggesting don't do enough. Because they exist.

So again, the question is, what was your point? Was your point that not enough black athletes begin and fund programs like streetsquash? Because it's hard not to interpret that was your intention.

To circle back to the other topic. Why are people so afraid of view points that differ from their own? This is how we learn isn't it, by listening to other perspectives, having thoughtful conversation and learning rather then trying to dominate the conversation.

As the person engaging you in conversation and asking you very specific questions about your view points, and not announcing I'm walking away from it, I'm not the person to answer that question.

I took a position on transgender bathrooms. I never even once stated my personal opinion, I stated my observances. Since then, in an effort to understand the issue more thoroughly I have continued to discuss it with other people. I spoke to my daughter who attends a liberal college and a Christian conservative who I spent several hours in the car with. I was going to continue the discussion here, but I can see that it really is about labeling and name calling. Have a good day, and enjoy your internet forum victory lap.

Indeed, it was your remark about "liberals" and making what you call gross generalizations about them that started that line of conversation. If was you who concluded I'd force my daughter into values she didn't share based only on your question about how *I* would feel.

You've done everything and more you accuse others of doing, and clearly resent it being pointed out to you.

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

At some point you have to decide if it's working and I think that's the point... Have we made progress and/or does the method need improvement/change? And are we making inroads at the expense of white and asian educations?

We're an evolving society, things change... People change. But it doesn't always have to be at the expense of our neighbors...

30 years ago women were home, raising kids and taking care of homes... Today, that's almost impossible. And looking at recent wage gap data, we've made great strides here.

i'm not sure what you mean by at the expense of asians. but "at the expense" of whites doesn't register with me. it will take decades/generations for it to even come close to "at the expense" of whites.

So you're not sure what it means that whites and asians have been displaced from certain schools by accepting lower scoring blacks and hispanics? How is this fair and why am I not surprised...

I don't know enough about affirmative action to speak in detail about this. I don't know how many students are affected or what typically happens to students if they're 'displaced,' and I don't know the level of disparity involved with the applicants.

I also don't know that campus life is strictly a matter test scoring and GPA. I think colleges admit students all the time for reasons other than test scores and high school GPAs. But that is neither here nor there.

There is a legitimate argument to be had about the effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action, but the root issue of why the program exists is general, broader disparity of opportunity. AA is a tiny subset of a much bigger issue. So my question what compels someone to take up AA as a cause as opposed to the root issue?

Is the argument that the conditions leading up to the college application pool & process is our now is equal and fair?

gr33d wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

At some point you have to decide if it's working and I think that's the point... Have we made progress and/or does the method need improvement/change? And are we making inroads at the expense of white and asian educations?

We're an evolving society, things change... People change. But it doesn't always have to be at the expense of our neighbors...

30 years ago women were home, raising kids and taking care of homes... Today, that's almost impossible. And looking at recent wage gap data, we've made great strides here.

i'm not sure what you mean by at the expense of asians. but "at the expense" of whites doesn't register with me. it will take decades/generations for it to even come close to "at the expense" of whites.

So you're not sure what it means that whites and asians have been displaced from certain schools by accepting lower scoring blacks and hispanics? How is this fair and why am I not surprised...

I don't know enough about affirmative action to speak in detail about this. I don't know how many students are affected or what typically happens to students if they're 'displaced,' and I don't know the level of disparity involved with the applicants.

I also don't know that campus life is strictly a matter test scoring and GPA. I think colleges admit students all the time for reasons other than test scores and high school GPAs. But that is neither here nor there.

There is a legitimate argument to be had about the effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action, but the root issue of why the program exists is general, broader disparity of opportunity. AA is a tiny subset of a much bigger issue. So my question what compels someone to take up AA as a clause as opposed to the root issue?

Is the argument that the conditions leading up to the college application pool & process is our now is equal and fair?

Someone else here posted about the lawsuit being taken up against colleges, as it relates to entrance exams and applications. Perhaps they can address why it was brought up.

My point was we can't possibly argue for fairness and inclusion, then dismiss the the point of the topic by deflecting.

AA was supposed to put those who wouldn't otherwise qualify in places where we have finite resources. Rather then, helping "everyone" meet the same qualifications...

It's been nearly 20 years with little to no improvements on SAT/ACT scoring and if we've not improving, we're probably falling behind.

Conditions can be subject to a billion variables, what exactly did you mean?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx

Affirmative action policies are those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society. Affirmative action policies often focus on employment and education. In institutions of higher education, affirmative action refers to admission policies that provide equal access to education for those groups that have been historically excluded or underrepresented, such as women and minorities. Controversy surrounding the constitutionality of affirmative action programs has made the topic one of heated debate.

Background on Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is an outcome of the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, intended to provide equal opportunities for members of minority groups and women in education and employment. In 1961, President Kennedy was the first to use the term "affirmative action" in an Executive Order that directed government contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The Executive Order also established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, now known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Affirmative action policies initially focused on improving opportunities for African Americans in employment and education. The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 outlawing school segregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 improved life prospects for African Americans. In 1965, however, only five percent of undergraduate students, one percent of law students, and two percent of medical students in the country were African American. President Lyndon Johnson, an advocate for affirmative action, signed an Executive Order in 1965 that required government contractors to use affirmative action policies in their hiring to increase the number of minority employees.

In the following years, colleges and universities began adopting similar recruitment policies, and over time the enrollment rates for African American and Latino students increased steadily. Despite the efforts that have been made to establish equal opportunity, gaps in college enrollment between minority and white students remain.

According to data from the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES), in 2007, 70 percent of white high school graduates immediately enrolled in college, compared to 56 percent of African American graduates and 61 percent of Hispanic graduates. More recent data from NCES reports some changes in this gap, most notably for African American students. The updated report finds that in 2011, 69 percent of white high school graduates immediately enrolled in college, compared to 65 percent of African American graduates and 63 percent of Hispanic graduates.

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

At some point you have to decide if it's working and I think that's the point... Have we made progress and/or does the method need improvement/change? And are we making inroads at the expense of white and asian educations?

We're an evolving society, things change... People change. But it doesn't always have to be at the expense of our neighbors...

30 years ago women were home, raising kids and taking care of homes... Today, that's almost impossible. And looking at recent wage gap data, we've made great strides here.

i'm not sure what you mean by at the expense of asians. but "at the expense" of whites doesn't register with me. it will take decades/generations for it to even come close to "at the expense" of whites.

So you're not sure what it means that whites and asians have been displaced from certain schools by accepting lower scoring blacks and hispanics? How is this fair and why am I not surprised...

i am not aware of the asian displacement - can you post some articles on it?

is it fair that whites are being displaced? no. but i look at this as course correction and it's needed to eventually to put everyone on the same playing field.