What would be lost if the term "racial" in this article were replaced with the term "skin-color and ethnicity associated?" Does the term "racial" included something that the latter term does not? Does the term "racial" include any assumptions and premises that are not sufficiently supported by evidence, like the belief that "race" exists at all.
I suggest that our thoughts will be expressed more clearly and agreement will increase if we refrain from false and or highly debatable premises, such as the premise that "race" exists at all. What we are talking about is simply skin color and ethnicity politics. If there is something extra we are discussing, then please tell me what it is.
And if you have found any evidence that "race" is more than skin color and a few other de minimus biological differences, then please state that as well.
In the very article in which you point out skin color differences in the Republican Party, you magnify them in America as a whole by insisting that race is comprised by something other than skin-color and ethnicity.
I've discovered that the US medical system is too maddening to be worth dealing with. I spend three years in France as a student, during which every aspect of my medical care for my illness was covered 100%. When I got back to the United States, I was told that I was ineligible for Medicaid, and should withdraw my application to avoid further annoyance to them and to me.
Meanwhile, I had decided to leave this stinking lousy country and move to Brazil, where state medical hospitals and clinics are forbidden by the Brazilian Constitution from asking clients for money.
Before I left the United States, I spent two days calling medical facilities to find the vaccinations that I should take in order to live in Brazil. The cheapest alternative I could find was $850.00.
When I arrived in Brazil, I discovered that all of these vaccinations were available for free at a public medical clinic just a block from my home.
Fuck the United States and fuck its capitalist greed-based medical mafia.
I don't believe people who claim to be from the groups affected, and then disclaim advocacy for the groups affected. I always suspect that it's a disingenuous ploy to win credibility with which to undermine arguments.
Eleven white men in a row is too many. It's a quota. 100% of MTP commentators must be white men. I don't agree with rigid quotas and that's why I oppose the 100% white men quota at MTP, which is the most rigid gender and color-based quota of all.
I can understand the author's anger that the United States is 53% female and has never, ever elected a female president.
However, the author weakens what is a strong argument by saying things like, "On one side was women's rights represented by Hillary (and later Sarah Palin)"
First of all, as will soon be more than evident, Barack Obama represents women's rights as well.
Second of all, just being a woman doesn't mean that a woman represents women's rights. It merely means that the woman is part of the female demographic, like Clarence Thomas is part of the demographic of people with brown skin.
Does Clarence Thomas represent Black rights when he takes the extraordinary step of overruling one of his fellow justices to accept a case that challenges Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility for the American presidency? The fact that Clarence Thomas skin is brown does NOT mean than he represents the rights of brown-skinned people any more than the fact that Sarah Palin has a vagina means that she politically represents other people with vaginas. Sarah Palin was running to represent the Republican Party, period. She was not chosen because the Republicans wanted a voice from the National Organization of Women.
So, let's draw a clear distinction between being a member of a demographic based on immutable characteristics, on the one hand, and politically representing that demographic on the other hand. the latter does not necessarily follow the former.
This isn't a "rant", it's a recommendation with supporting facts: Increase the diversity of the highest reaches of the federal government, because white men are over-represented and the very white men who got us into this economic mess with their deregulation strategies are rushing back into the federal government, AND at the same time perpetuating the problem of lack of diversity.
America elected Barack Obama and nearly elected Hillary Clinton because America is ready for diversity and is tired of white male dominance for white male dominance' sake.
Lawrence A. Summers might be a great professional in a lot of ways, but isn't there anyone available to be secretary of the treasury who doesn't believe that women (and perhaps Blacks) are intrinsically inferior to men for high level positions?
I would note that Summers' opinion on this is self-serving, since as a white man his own job prospects are better if the 53% of America that is female is a priori precluded from having high-level jobs in academia and government.
The faculty said Summers was authoritarian and picked fights unnecessarily. This speech was an example of insulting people and picking a fight in a very sensitive area, while also effectively announcing the official ("doubt it'll work") diversity policy that he would advance at the university.
Above, you've said a lot of nice things that Summers did at Harvard, which I don't have the information to dispute. But, you haven't said whether he increased the number of women (and Blacks) on the faculty, or followed the politics which he espoused in his speech. That's what concerns me.
In light of what he said at Harvard, I would think we should look back at Summers' hiring and promotion practices during the Clinton Administration to see if he acted on his belief that women were inappropriate for high-level jobs.
Yes, this is like using eminent domain to take over the entire banking sector and hand it over to the rich, with none of the strings attached that pesky regulations and shareholder legal rights used to impose.
This is like giving the whole island of Manhattan to Morgan Stanley to run as a company town, or giving the entire state of Florida to Disneyland.
This is one last history-making F-You from the Bush Administration, like case of bounty-sized herpes to remember him by. This is one last F-You from the group of pirates that already looted the Treasury and the sunk the national ship.