« Tax advice for Republicans | Main | General John Allen's daughter is hot »

November 16, 2012

Comments

Affirmative Action is way more important to most Americans than abortion ever could be. Even if we got a conservative Supreme Court which overturned Roe, states would have to outlaw abortion. Maybe three would?

With quotas, that will hit a huge number of Americans, and it will result in companies being forced to not hire the most qualified applicants.

[HS: NO, if Roe were overturned, then CONGRESS could outlaw abortion, or a Republican president could order the FDA to find it unsafe or something. Remember, that's what anti-abortion people really want, they don't give crap about states rights.]

If gays get married or a woman wants to end her pregnancy it does not impact me at all.

But when lefties want to impose their affirmative action it does impact me and my children.

If the GOP strategists were smart they would stop focusing on gays and abortions and start focusing on the true damage done to their base through quotas in the form of reduced opportunities and increased racial discrimination.

[HS: When an unmarried woman has an abortion, it impacts you in a positive way, by lowering your tax burden to pay for her welfare.]

By the way, notice how the extremist, far-right, racist Romney campaign never even mentioned affirmative action?

No worries. I'm sure their new support for amnesty will truly win over those white working class voters they need to win Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Another reason to elect (and term limit) federal judges.

"It will probably be overturned by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision"

Stu Benjamin at Volokh is guessing 7-2. Unless a case currently on the docket results in AA being declared unconstitutional first.

Permit me one additional thought:

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

- Charles Evans Hughes

"When an unmarried woman has an abortion, it impacts you in a positive way, by lowering your tax burden to pay for her welfare".

I don't see any direct impact from this. People pay based on their tax rates and personal deductions. A stranger who has an abortion has no direct bearing on a taxpayer with how much he/she pays.

About time we start implementing mandatory quotas, especially for minorities and women in managerial or leadership positions.

We need at least 55% of all managerial positions to be held by women, because they make better leaders, communicators and collaborators. This study by Harvard proves that women add more value to companies than men in leadership positions.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/a_study_in_leadership_women_do.html

We should all follow the example of Sweden and France, by supporting working women through flextime, paid maternity leaves, guaranteed promotion and in-house day care/support system. Maybe even peg the compensation so that when she comes back from maternity leave, she will be promoted along with fair benefits/perks.

"I guess that also includes mandatory racial quotes for university admissions"

Not quite mandatory. The liberals who run the universities have the option of whether to use racial preferences or not. But of course they always will.

It's really strange how admissions stats show blatant, systematic racial discrimination - yet somehow liberals are just fine with that. There is some higher rule, in their minds, that makes this okay.

Once you realize that the ruling class, with help from their pawns, has it in for the white man, the reason for everything that's happening in this country becomes
CLEAR
AS
DAY.

The grounds on which the case was decided, appears to be the "Political Structure Doctrine" that Jared Taylor warned about a couple of years ago on VDare:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-political-structure-doctrine-another-excuse-for-anti-white-discrimination

This doctrine holds that laws (or in the Michigan case, the state constitution) that make race preferences illegal, create a steep hurdle for those seeking race preferences. From the NY Times about yesterday's ruling:
------------------------------------------
The ban, the court said, unfairly placed a special burden on supporters of race-conscious admissions policies.

People trying to change any other aspect of university admissions policies, the court said, had several avenues open: they could lobby the admissions committee, petition university leaders, try to influence the college’s governing board or take the issue to a statewide initiative. Those supporting affirmative action, on the other hand, had no alternative but to undertake the “long, expensive and arduous process” of amending the state Constitution.

“The existence of such a comparative structural burden undermines the equal protection clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change,” said Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., writing for the majority.
------------------------------------------------

In other words, it violates the minority group's rights to seek racial preferences, if you vote to not permit it.

@Black Death: "Another reason to elect (and term limit) federal judges."

I think its another reason to require super majorities or unanimous decisions to overturn things on the basis of the federal constitution.

Perhaps public universities should abandon admission standards and choose students by a race-controlled lottery, like charter schools.

any reason why an activist judge in CA hasn't overridden prop 209 (the affirmative action one that turned UCLA and Berkeley into Asian dominated schools)?

I would imagine if this just happened in MI that it would've happened in CA a long time ago.

[HS: This has already been litigated, the 9th Circuit went the other way. So it's very likely the Supremes will grant certiorari because there's a split in the circuits.]

[HS: When an unmarried woman has an abortion, it impacts you in a positive way, by lowering your tax burden to pay for her welfare.]

Not all (or even most) women who have abortions would end up on welfare. A lot of fairly smart white women have abortions.

If having babies hadn't gone out of style in the sixties the whole "multicultural" thing might never have got started in the west, since the idea was to bring in workers. So we aborted or prevented the conception of a bunch of white babies and replaced them with people from the third world. I have yet to see how this benefits me.

[HS: As I keep pointing out over and over again, smart white women are very good at avoiding accidental pregnancy. It's a factor of about 10 to 1: ten times as many stupid women getting accidentally pregnant as smart women.]

I'm starting to come around on racial quotas to ensure that admissions match national racial and religious demographics because it will absolutely destroy the insane liberal US university system and make private schools that don't accept public money the new elite schools. Smart Jews and Asians out, NAMs in. Lets see how Harvard (and Brandeis) likes that.

Without subsidy for lib arts and law schools how much less liberal would Les Etats-Unis Merdeux be?

@Just Speculating

"I don't see any direct impact from this. People pay based on their tax rates and personal deductions. A stranger who has an abortion has no direct bearing on a taxpayer with how much he/she pays."

-

A poor, unmarried woman with unplanned children will request more transfers and in-kind services from the government. Without children she would qualify for far less. She would also have a better shot at ending her own dependency, without creating more dependents. What that means is fewer tax dollars out of your pocket.

U Cal schools would not be dominated by Asians if admissions were test only and if those tests were together or each individually IQ tests in all but name.

This is because Asian-Americans (the pushiest people in the world excepting Japanese) are grossly overrepresented relative to their mean IQ.

... and pushiness is rewarded in Les Etats-Unis Merdeux more than anywhere else.

It is rewarded in college admissions, in grades, on the job, etc.

@DanMorgan

"It's really strange how admissions stats show blatant, systematic racial discrimination - yet somehow liberals are just fine with that. There is some higher rule, in their minds, that makes this okay."

-

The higher rule is that bad outcomes for poor-perfoming minorities mainly result from past and present discrimination. Thus affirmative action is a corrective for unfair, unmeritorious treatment by society. Until that idea is disabused in the elite mind (and to a lesser extent the general public), it will march on.

Maybe it's too obvious to mention, but boy, the judge who wrote this opinion is some kind of grasping careerist, no? I mean, up till now, those of us who follow the courts thought that Stephen Reinhardt, in the 9th Circuit, was the wackiest judge out there. But with Obama's re-election, this guy in the 6th is obviously yelling, "I'm your boy - put me on the SC."

@ Lexus Liberal :

Sounds like you're getting carried away by putting ideology before facts.

A 2011 University of Michigan study showed that companies who try to artificially raise the number of women in the boardroom perform significantly worse:

webuser.bus.umich.edu/adittmar/NBD.SSRN.2011.05.20.pdf

In this paper, we present new evidence on the relationship between firm value and board characteristics by exploiting a natural experiment in board structure created by an unprecedented exogenous change to corporate boards. In December of 2003, the Norwegian Parliament passed a first-of-its-kind law requiring all public-limited firms to have at least 40 percent representation of women on their boards of directors by July of 2005; at the time women held only nine percent of board seats. After voluntary compliance failed, the law became compulsory January 1, 2006, with a two year transition period. Firms that did not comply by January of 2008 would be forced to dissolve. Notices to comply were given to 77 delinquent firms in January 2008, and by April all public limited firms were in compliance with the law. Figure I presents the time series of this dramatic transformation in the composition of Norwegian boards of directors. Though more women were elected to boards, the numbers of female directors serving as chairman and CEO remained steadfast at less than five percent, consistent with press reports of the unpopularity of the law among existing board members and executives (Goldsmith, 2002).

[...]

In a panel of 248 publicly listed Norwegian firms from 2001 to 2009, we find a large negative impact of the mandated board changes on firm value. First, we run an event study on the stock price reaction to the initial announcement of the quota. As discussed in detail in the paper, the announcement of the law was made in an unusual manner, which created a highly unanticipated news event. On the days around the announcement, we find that the average industry-adjusted stock return for firms with no female directors was ?3.54%, compared to ?0.02% for firms with at least one female director. The difference of 3.52% is economically and statistically significant. These findings are robust to controls for board size, firm size, and are significantly different than benchmark industry-adjusted returns of firms in the U.S. and other Scandinavian countries.

Second, instrumental variables estimates indicate that the quota caused a substantially large negative effect on industry-adjusted Tobin�s Q. A forced 10 percent increase of women representation on the board led to a 12.4 percent decline in Tobin�s Q from the average. Reduced-form estimates suggest that relative to 2003 benchmarks, firms with at least one female director in 2002 had industry-adjusted Q values in 2007 that were 0.26 higher than firms with no female directors in 2002; a substantial difference when compared to the average Q of 1.53. Additionally, placebo tests reveal no relationship between pre-quota female board representation and subsequent changes in firm value for U.S. firms. The results suggest that the constraint imposed by the law had a large negative effect on firm value, commensurate with the massive reorganization of corporate boards imposed by the gender quota.

Anon: "private schools that don't accept public money"

Can you name a single one?

It's liberal idiocy at it's finest. BTW, the judge writing the majority decision is black, affirmative action beneficiary?

The demographic time bomb is going to sink this country into the third world and no amount of liberal 'smarts' is going to stop it from happening. I think once the rest of the world realizes how utterly gutted the country is in terms of future human capital, educational excellence, even our reserve currency status won't help us.

The infrastructures are crumbling, our population growth is black + hispanic and immigrants from Asia. How on earth do you maintain a first world living standard, when all basic services are going broke because the masses of low IQ people breed like rabits? People might not like the republicans for calling on cuts to social services, but it's the only way we can cut the bleeding, NAMs don't understand future time orientation.

HS, I fear, the US itself no longer has a viable future. Anyone with options should be considering a new country to safeguard their family: Canada, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Scandinavia (if you are lucky) may be good choices. I'm sure there are others. Pockets of civilization still exist in the US, the future doesn't look very pretty (an apt descriptor for those who understands)

@ not a hacker


very clever

@ roissy

yep

"I don't see any direct impact from this. People pay based on their tax rates and personal deductions. A stranger who has an abortion has no direct bearing on a taxpayer with how much he/she pays."

In an economy, all parts are interconnected. In the end, to maintain services, taxes will be eventually be increased. So yes, it does directly affects how much taxes you pay, because someone has to pay for the increase burden on social services, or you get a corresponding decrease in that social service.

"This is an example of how liberal judges will ignore legal precedent in order to advance the liberal agenda,"

1) The Congress could revoke the federal court's jurisdiction over AA, or any other issue, using Article III Section 2 of the constitution.

2) The idea of eliminating general education reqs is gaining traction. Let's start eliminating gened requirements at the state level because states have more regulatory powers over public colleges than private:

Rethinking general education requirements

http://www.thenorthernlight.org/2012/11/12/rethinking-general-education-requirements/

Needless to say, our educations would actually be richer without general course requirements. Hundreds of hours could be replaced with any number of more valuable activities. The financial burden of college would be reduced by as much as tens of thousands of dollars.

This would allow more people to further their educations.

Should students be allowed more choice in courses they take that don’t relate to their majors?

Maybe such classes should be dropped entirely. Either of these two choices would significantly improve students’ lives.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen, muwhahaha!

Essential Knowledge, Hold the Malarkey

http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/333303/essential-knowledge-hold-malarkey-jay-schalin

Instead of providing students with what they really need to know, most schools offer a smorgasbord of frills and follies, with silly requirements for “diversity” or “sustainability.” UNC–Chapel Hill’s current general-education program has roughly 2,000 courses (it had almost twice that seven or eight years ago), including “First-Year Seminar: Yoga in Modern America: History, Belief, Commerce” and “The Folk Revival: The Singing Left in Mid-20th-Century America.”

In this week’s Clarion Call, I cut through the “malarkey” and come up with my own general-education program based on only essential skills and knowledge. A few schools already have something similar — smart employers should seek them out and hire their graduates.

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2763

And that’s about it. Certainly, it would be nice to include many other topics. But the need for efficiency means that many staples of existing general education programs, such as literature, foreign languages, or art appreciation, must be excluded. While desirable, they cannot truly be called essential for an understanding of the world.

Restricting general education courses to a select few will be extremely unpopular with some faculty. There are large numbers of teaching jobs at stake: many departments that now teach popular general education courses could lose half or more of their students. If that were to occur, financial sanity dictates that faculty jobs in those programs be cut. (Of course, new jobs will be created at the same time for specialists in the essential subjects.)

But this is not about professors and their jobs; it is about the intellectual development of students. For a long time, academia has been hesitant to make judgments about what knowledge is the most valuable. As a result, many general education programs are of little value. Our institutions of higher learning can, and should, do better.

We also should advocate making federal & private student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy, automating more classes with online course such as Coursera, and tuition price controls similar to what Governor Rick Scott of Florida is proposing.

"Maybe it's too obvious to mention, but boy, the judge who wrote this opinion is some kind of grasping careerist, no?" -- not a hacker

I wondered that myself so I googled his picture. Would you care to guess what flavor he is? He's not a grasping careerist. He's just keeping it real.

Ehh, bring em on, people get worked up over all this because they grasp onto the notion that America is worth saving but in reality it's just a myth, my latest piece of evidence is our Heroes, Best and Brightest, all that, can't keep a couple sluts in line, to say nothing of fidelity (of course I understand the hbd crowd laughs at things of virtue).
I was at WalMart, shopping carts everywhere but the racks where they go because these people can't be bothered to push an empty cart 40 feet, rather have some minimum wage slave do it for them. Fuck em, fuck this country, let it burn, bring Gods Wrath down, it's overdue for these wicked people. Please note I am not wicked, I put my cart in the rack.
Republicans are worthless and weak, ex military with their bullshit I Served With Blacks They're Honorable blah blah blah, idiots looking for heroes, Grown Men spend more time and effort on their fantasy football league than (fill in the blank).
Everybody sez they love this country, just not enough to get their nose broke over it.

@ Undiscovered Jew: "We also should advocate making federal & private student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy,..."

While you're correct in your other suggestions, the effect of this would be to create government subsidies for Leftist indoctrination. STEM and business majors eventually pay off their debts. Loan discharge would incentivize getting a non-educational indoctrination in Womyn's, Black or Queer studies.

Black robed tyranny.

"HS, I fear, the US itself no longer has a viable future. Anyone with options should be considering a new country to safeguard their family: Canada, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Scandinavia (if you are lucky) may be good choices."

Good choices? Every one of them is facing a comparable -- if not worse -- demographic time bomb to that of Whites in the USA. And all of them are far more liberal than the USA, as well.

"Can you name a single one?"

Hillsdale and Patrick Henry. PH attracts a lot of homeschoolers. If the kinds of racial quotas HS talks about are implemented you would probably see a rise in such schools as the academic ethic of the liberal ivory tower crumbles further.

HS on abortion -- rich, smart, elite people believe this is a good thing, and therefore Republicans should accept reality and stop siding with the stupid proles who oppose it.

HS on affirmative action -- rich, smart, elite people believe this is a good thing, and therefore... Republicans should reject reality, side with the proles who oppose it, and appoint judges who will stop it.

"While you're correct in your other suggestions, the effect of this would be to create government subsidies for Leftist indoctrination. STEM and business majors eventually pay off their debts. Loan discharge would incentivize getting a non-educational indoctrination in Womyn's, Black or Queer studies."

Nah, Women's studies, and similar, majors won't takeoff because the career track cost-benefit analysis would still come out as almost all cost and no benefit for an overwhelming majority of undergrads.

Even if federal and private loan debt were eligible for discharge it still wouldn't make sense because the employment prospects for "studies" majors are even worse than for undergrads majoring in more standard liberal arts courses such as English or History.

To quote HS from an unspeakably long time ago: "Elena Kagan: not much to complain about."

[HS: I said that because, if rejected, then Obama would just pick someone even more liberal.]

The comments to this entry are closed.