Hmmmm, I don't know the answer, off the top of my head, to a single one of those questions.

Maybe I'm really non-white, and no one ever told me.

So...the questions should be more like How many players are on a basketball team? And how many grams are in a oz of meth? Stupid. I highly doubt that the questions on that test are geared to cultural knowledge and not firefighter training and leadership concerns.

Love this cartoon...it could represent so many situations in this diverse country of ours.

Of course it favors white guys. No blacks passed, did they? Rank favoritism. We all know [or at least the Democrats have told us for decades] that blacks cannot make it in the real world without special consideration, special quotas, special treatment, special everything, including lots of freebies and advancement based solely on their skin color. That really helps the old self-worth, doesn't it? Can't possibly consider themselves on the same level as those non-Latinas now, can they? /sarcasm, total sarcasm.

Seriously, they can blame no one but the keep-them-on-the-plantation Democrats. Yet they vote for Dems [their oppressors] en masse...so ultimately, whose fault is it?

Anyone know a URL for the real test questions? Or even a sampler?

I think it's well known that tests can favor one ethnicity over another.

Blacks, for example, score worse on identical tests when simply asked to notate their race on the test questionaire. Wording of questions has also been shown to have an impact on test scores among races.

The city declined to have the test validated for neutrality. There were probably several reasons for this. (Cost, time, or they thought even a neutral test would be irrelevant.)

The test-maker offered to validate it, but the city rightly declined this offer as potentially biased interpretation by a self-interested party.

Because this test has not been independently validated I, for one, will withhold judgement. I have no way of knowing if Clay's claim here is at all accurate.

According to the original reports, moonpie, the city contracted with at least one independent, vetted test-review company that examines tests for exactly that content. The test passed with flying colors.

One must presume New Haven, like many cities, runs scared of racial overtones...sometimes to the extent of leaning so far in the opposite direction they become racially oriented. They over-test for the slightest indication of bias.

OOOOH! I know the answer to #3 I do! I do!

FOR ME it would be a #5 iron 'cause I aint got no power in my arms no more. It usta be da pitchen wedge. Yeah! I pass. Now I get to carry sumbody outa a burnin bilding. C:-)

Well, Clay, unless you can prove you actually saw the test and can validate those particular questions, I have no recourse but to deduce this cartoon was a 'bit beneath you'.

Of course, I am sure you were drawing it with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek, but it's humor was totally lost on me.

Discrimination or, for that matter, reverse discrimination is nothing to laugh at.

Neither is 'reaching' for a punchline. Just ask any out-of-work comedian.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

Editorial cartoons are not always meant to be funny. This one definitely is! And if the barometer for humor is when something makes you laugh out load, this one (for me) scored not just once, but three times.

Clay may have been making a broader point about the fairness of the testing used (after all, New Haven did throw out the results because the city feared the test would be deemed racially bias)... BUT... this is a joke! A cartoon is supposed to exaggerate for effect, and often uses the ridiculous to achieve humor.

Consider the thought process here. You want to depict a test that you feel favors white applicants. So what kind of test would that be? What kind of questions might it include?

Well, it would have questions about golf, hockey, NASCAR, and (my personal favorite) The Osmond Brothers. Come on, it doesn't get any whiter than that.

You guys really need to lighten up.

I thought this cartoon was hilarious too.

trustngod wrote: "I highly doubt that the questions on that test are geared to cultural knowledge and not firefighter training and leadership concerns."

DUH! Oh, by the way, nice comment about grams in an once of meth. At least Clay's questions didn't imply criminality in white folks.

woody write: "Well, Clay, unless you can prove you actually saw the test and can validate those particular questions, I have no recourse but to deduce this cartoon was a 'bit beneath you'."

Those questions weren't ON the test, woody. That's what makes this funny. That's what makes it a cartoon!

I don't know why you think this is 'beneath' Clay. The cartoon is funny, sarcastic, and provocative- all at the same time. That sounds like a cartoonist's job requirements to me.

As a Caucasian, I am highly offended by the stereotyping demonstrated in this cartoon.

That was completely sarcastic, but I don't think Clay would've been so liberal with his stereotypes had they been regarding a different race or ethnicity.

Thanks for point that out, rolando. Either memory failed me, or my original source (which I've forgotten) was wrong.

I guess either are possible.

As a former firefighter, I am also offended - not only by the stereotyping, but by the idea that diversity is more important than competence. The professional qualifications for fire department officers are clearly outlined in NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) Standard 1021. If someone does not meet these qualifications, they should not be promoted, regardless of race, gender, or any other politically correct criteria.

For all you folks out there that have this reverse discrimination mentality, hold on to it. If things keep up the projection is that us WAS will be the minority within a short time. So when you go to take a test and there's no questions about golf, NASCAR, country music, etc-- don't go whining about discrimination.

maj, you make a very interesting point.

Primarily, you don't take offense at this cartoon's use of racial stereotyping because it's non-judgmental in nature. I wish that was true of all jokes directed at particular races, genders, or religions.

That point aside, your post brings up an interesting aspect of humor in general. It seems far more acceptable to make fun of the most advantaged of our society than it is to make jokes at the expense of those less fortunate.

The principle is, I suppose, that the latter is like kicking a person when they're down, that it's simply adding insult to injury.

Society has evolved when it comes to humor. Hollywood used to openly mock black people, Hispanics and Asians. No matter how innocent or benign the intent, racial slights were ubiquitous in literature, film, art and journalism. The reason was simple, all of these industries were controlled by people outside the groups being disparaged. The powers that controlled the various mediums either didn't realize what they were doing, or they just didn't care.

Thankfully, things have changed since then. Some might call it political correctness, but I'd prefer to call it cultural evolution. When confronted with our own insensitivity, we corrected our actions.

It's been the same in other areas of humor, as well. Entertainers used to make jokes about alcoholism (remember Foster Brooks), sexual predators (remember cartoons about old men in trench coats), and sexual harassment (how many movies had the boss chasing the secretary around his desk). We now see how that behavior victimizes others, so mocking the situation comes off as merely compounding that injury.

Accessing the appropriateness of humor is based on class structure. In our particular culture, being a man has long been an advantage, as has being Caucasian, and Christian. As the most advantaged group within our society, this group becomes the most acceptable to mock.

Humor seems less appropriate when you ridicule someone lower on the list than yourself. That's why it might be perfectly acceptable behavior for a person to mock someone from the same group, when the exact same words might seem way out of bounds if they come from someone in a more privileged socioeconomic group.

To put it in non ethnic, gender, or religious terms: while workers making fun of the boss might come off as acceptable (even expected), a boss making fun of his workers might come off as high-handed and abusive. Whether humor is funny or not, usually depends on who's being slighted, and who's doing the slighting.

OllieH,

I don't take offense at this cartoon because it's just that-- a cartoon. I also don't take offense because I know it was done by a far left-leaning cartoonist who thinks much differently than I do. Fact of the matter is, EVERY group has certain stereotypes associated with them-- whites included. And, yes, whites were guilty of much oppression in the past. And I am glad that things are evening out in our society in terms of equality for everyone. To bring up my true beef with this cartoon, it would be that affirmative action was created to help, but it often ends up hurting. I doubt that this test was biased in any way, and jobs should've gone to those who deserved it based on merit!

And one more thing, if your house is on fire, do you want the responding firemen to be the most qualified, or the ones who are helping to meet a quota??

I agree with maj on the last post. I think we all want the most qualified person.

Assuming the test was validated (as rolando and George Will said), the first question I have is: was the test the right tool for selecting the most qualified. I personally don't think performance on a test is a very good indicator for advancement in many jobs. I have seen a lot of good test-takers who were lousy employees. And I've seen lousy test-takers thrive.

That being said, the test was one of the stated requirements. Everyone did know the rules ahead of time.

If the city felt that it picked the wrong tool, it probably should have abandoned the test for the next round of promotions and not this one.

I still think Sotomayer et al probably did the right think by upholding the law as it was interpreted at the time. They did not legislate from the bench. The law has changed since then, and the Supreme Court also gave justice to the agrieved firemen.

maj- I want the fireman responding to my house fire to be the ones that have enough smarts to drive and muscle to pull me and my family out if we're trapped or under smoke inhalation. I'm not really concerned whether they are rocket scientists, and any test beyond the basics is leaning toward prejudice.

I don't recall anywhere on this page anyone saying anything about fire fighters being rocket scientists. maj would probably appreciate you not putting words in his or her mouth and then making a sarcastic, BS comment based on the words that were ridiculously taken out of context. But, not shocked at all, at flaming Liberals putting words in someone's mouth.

The test was for a promotion...you know, a leadership type position? I would want captains, fire marshals, etc to be able to do a little bit more than drive and bench 350 lbs. Call me crazy and prejudicial, but I would want these leaders to have several skills both mentally and physically.

You could also say that your comments insinuate that fire fighters are stupid because you say all they need to do is be able to drive and be strong. Kind of prejudicial, don't ya think?

Unfortunately for the casual reader of this paper, someone could look at this cartoon and assume that there were questions like this on these tests, when we know there were not. But, that is a typical page out of mainstream media playbook. Shameful, really...

Flame on!!!

It's always amazing to see white people (99% of the time right-wingers) whine about "reverse discrimination". Blacks and other minorities have been overlooked, passed up by, rolled over by, etc. by less qualified whites for years, decades, centuries- with no one in the right-wing ever saying peep. It still goes on like crazy today, with the limbaughs, coulters and roloandos of the world never caring one iota. But whenever you get the extremely rare case where it was the white folks who were passed up, then the fox news sheep come-a-whinin'. WAH! WAH! WAH! Like a 3-year-old who had his apple juice taken away. Get over it. If neocons really cared about racial justice and equality, they wouldn't support right-wing candidates who have always been the ones behind racial discrimination. When you vote for people like bush or mccain, you're voting for a "whites first" candidate, so don't get your panties in a wad when it goes the other way. You reap what you sow.

Let us not forget moonpie's last comment: The SCOTUS found New Haven in error when it made a race-based decision to promote no one after it rejected the completed tests. Essentially, the city discriminated against its employees when it denied all promotions based on that rejection.

In light of that court decision, whatever Sotomeyer et al decided on the issue is moot.

I'm amazed at some of the responses to this one.

There are sample tests all over the web that outline the type of questions one can expect on tests when they are applying to be an entry level firefighter. Sample tests can also be seen that included the type of questions that will be on tests when one is seeking to be promoted in rank.

Nothing I ran across suggested that these exams are in any manner racially skewed. The questions on each of them pertained to the knowledge that one should have in order to qualify for the position they were applying for. Nothing more and nothing less.

Some people got it. Some did not. Clay's cartoon only brings up the fact that African-Americans are not always interested in the same things that Caucasians are. Hockey is a contact sport that is dominated by whites. Back in the 70's, I'm sure that record stores sold most of those platters to white teenage girls. Golf? It's still a very white dominated activity, that does draw interest by only those considered to be affluent African-Americans. And finally, there is NASCAR.

NASCAR is a rather exclusive group of people and they always have been. An aspiring driver has a better chance of hitting the lottery for a few million than they do ever being allowed to drive on a NASCAR track, and that goes for people of all races. The sport draws about the same percentage of fans from the African-American community as there are in our nation, which is around 12%, according to ESPN polls that have been taken over the years.

Clay's cartoon was never meant to imply that any of those questions would ever appear on an actual test. But I absolutely laughed out loud when I digested what he had created, because he merely reminded us of the fact that there are some specific cultural differences that will always exist between many Americans.

Culture isn't always indicative of one's race either. Not every white person loves or has a vast amount of knowledge when it comes to many sports, or could distinguish one golf club from another. I know virtually nothing about sports, with the exception of baseball.

While I do confess to loving NASCAR, I will never admit in a million years that I may well know the answer to question #2 on Clay's test.

No one should be offended by this cartoon. It was a hilarious break from the tension surrounding a serious subject.

I think a standing ovation is in order.

120 yards with a PW from the rough, Clara?!! Remind to thank my stars we never argued in those days... A #7 for me on a good day, maybe an 8 with a breeze behind me.

alprova wrote,

"Culture isn't always indicative of one's race either. Not every white person loves or has a vast amount of knowledge when it comes to many sports, or could distinguish one golf club from another."

I resemble that remark!

Since evaluating Clay's test seems to be in vogue here, the test -- as shown -- fails for reasons other than racial/ethnic bias.

1. It contains "write-in" answers. Those questions are subject to racial/ethnic bias by the person "grading" the exam...interpretation of the answers is relative. Those taking the tests are not the only ones subject to racial/ethnic bias.

2. The multiple-choice questions are not arranged in increasing or decreasing order by length or numerical value.

3. The multiple-choice questions are also limited in scope. Ideally, they should be of the A+B, A+C, C+D, B+D variety; two of the answers should be easily eliminated by at least 70% of the testees, the remaining two requires knowledge to answer -- or be a good guesser.

Aside: The IBM method is commonly used for SWAGs [this method has a variety of names].

najones75-- I don't remember putting your name on my comment anywhere. The comment I made to maj was a joke, and if he didn't appreciate it he could have said so. I really don't appreciate you putting your nose where it didn't belong.

maj, " a far left-leaning cartoonist"? Snort!

I don't think so.

EaTn,
najones75 pretty much hit the nail on the head-- your comment was just plain sarcasm and BS.

Clara,
Snort. I DO think so.

maj-- since may comment was addressed to you, if you say it was sarcasm and BS, then it must have been so.

Rolando, I have a five question test for you?

Do you keep large redundant amounts of all your sundries such as laundry detergent so that you never risk running out?

Do you sort the money in your wallet by $1, $5, $10, or $20, but also sort the bills by wear-and-tear so that you get rid of the bills in the worst shape first?

Do you keep a grocery list, and micro-optimize the items on the grocery list so that you only make one pass through the grocery store?

After a power outage or when Daylight Savings Time starts or ends, do you feel the need to set all your clocks to the same minute and second?

Do you roll up the ends of every tube of toothpaste that you use, so that you are able to squeeze out that last little dab?

Do you find it really irritates you when someone says they have five questions for you, and you count six?

Bonus question: If you answered "yes" to any of the above, can you guess what "test" subject these apply to?

These questions are part of an examination to determine if you are uh...a person with a retentive personality.

Please seek help. You're about to explode.

I have a one-question test for you, alprova.

Do you know anything whatsoever about the test writing process and the post-test evaluation of the results for test-improvement and bias removal?

Obviously not...as demonstrated by your specious multi-paragraph picking apart of the test.

You are beyond help...

If you look beyond the standard means of media, you would find that actually that black men DID PASS this test, then were knocked down from their position. The media doesn't want people to know that black men had passed, letting Americans assume that racism was a factor by the town. When in fact it's the justices who our leaders appoint to positions are racist. Face it, everyone's racist to a point. Our leaders and media are the ones who push it. They get Americans so focused on division, we never come together to become one great nation. Think.

lol, i think the point that Alprova is trying to make is that you are not a part of the conversation at hand. your post about how the test was constructed doesn't matter to anyone but you. there is a time and a place for everything, and since we aren't in the classroom taking the test, your points don't really matter. Clay's message wasn't about how they aren't writing the test by using appropriate standardized test techniques, rather who the tests were supposedly designed to help in its content. wow.

The standards for entry into the NBA are biased and should be lowered, allowing all male athletes to compete. Short men, fat men, and physically challenged men are being descriminated against. The requirements favor a certain group of athletes. The NBA should have a better representation of all men in America. Affirmative action should work for all.

Rolando, you poor misguided soul, I was not picking apart anything at all. What I did was to politely suggest that you absolutely, positively, and amazingly have no sense of humor whatsoever.

You have done nothing at all in this entire thread but pick apart a cartoon on some basis of accuracy. How many people do you think looked at it and ANALyzed it to ANY degree that you have?

Let's set aside your silly and pointless analysis for just a second to revisit reality for just a moment. Frank Ricci did not make any claim that the test he took for promotion was racially biased. Clearly, the questions on the exams were crafted to ascertain whether or not the knowledge of the applicants for promotion was sufficient enough to be a qualified candidate for promotion. Mr. Ricci's challenge was that his test scores were better than those of others, yet he was passed over for promotion in favor of candidates who were less qualified in spite of their test scores.

Personally, I am absolutely amazed that this case made it to the Supreme Court. Frank Ricci is a litigious leper, and there were without question, more deserving cases submitted for consideration that were sidelined or rejected.

If you really have such a desire to go down analytical roads, permit me to join you. A quick glance at your name could easily lead one to believe that you are possibly a minority candidate seeking to be promoted to the position as Chief Cartoon Critic.

Please feel free to submit a first draft of questions that you feel that would properly evaluate the desired level of knowledge needed to be considered for the position.

Never mind. A review of historical, peer based evaluation criteria has been used to determine that you are quite biased in 99.9% of your posts, and therefore are incapable of demonstrating objectivity, reality, or tactful critiques.

Your application will be kept on file for 180 days. You will be notified if you meet the qualifications for any opening in the future.

Clara:"maj, " a far left-leaning cartoonist"? Snort! I don't think so" - They say ignorance is bliss, you my friend must be floating along in the clouds! If Clay's not a lefty please enlighten me, because I'm in the dark here.

m_carrick: I'd read that one time & had forgotten about it. good points -

Cave_Demon:"It's always amazing to see white people (99% of the time right-wingers) whine about "reverse discrimination". Blacks and other minorities have been overlooked, passed up by, rolled over by, etc. by less qualified whites for years, decades, centuries- with no one in the right-wing ever saying peep. It still goes on like crazy today, with the limbaughs, coulters and roloandos of the world never caring one iota. But whenever you get the extremely rare case where it was the white folks who were passed up, then the fox news sheep come-a-whinin'. WAH! WAH! WAH! Like a 3-year-old who had his apple juice taken away. Get over it. If neocons really cared about racial justice and equality, they wouldn't support right-wing candidates who have always been the ones behind racial discrimination. When you vote for people like bush or mccain, you're voting for a "whites first" candidate, so don't get your panties in a wad when it goes the other way. You reap what you sow."
-- I don't even know where to begin with this comment! You guys bash Rolando for never backing up his info!?! I think I remember McCain wearing a "whites first" tshirt during the GOP convention, but my memory is a little cloudy.

wareagleash,

I think Clay is as far left as I am, which is probably outside of left, right, or middle. I'm sure he'll be just as critical and post a hilarious ridicule of the far left when he gets around to it. It's just that the right has proved to be such a cesspool of bad choices in the last eight years.

But then, there is no need of an old ignorant lady to defend him. C:-)

wareagleash, re:C_D,

I have repeatedly tried to get said person to read a little 19th and 20th Century history, to no avail. If ignorance is bliss, C_D must be in absolute nirvana.
------------------------------------------------------------

From what I recall reading, wasn't the actual test specifically designed to NOT be racially biased? Did the city of N.H. NOT contract out to a company which specialized in this sort of thing?

------------------------------------------------------------

As I see it, Mr. Ricci can sue as many people as he wants. If he and his lawyer think they have a case, well that is what the courts are for.

Any bashing of him is just character assassination to shift the spot light.

------------------------------------------------------------

My full take?

I think the city of N.H. likely went way out of the way to ensure a fair test. They (the city) were on the horns of a dilemma, and when they didn't get the results they were hoping for they tossed the test for perfectly rational reasons, i.e. if they kept the scores, non-white, lower scorers might have sued.

Thus, Ricci, the other horn, rightly sued.

The lower courts, seeing the dilemma, kicked the can down the road to SCOTUS for them to deal with.

I think SCOTUS did the right thing, and I hope we can get over this racial crap and get on with all being equal under the law.

Dr. King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

I don't think he was really only talking about his own non-white children.

------------------------------------------------------------

Clay is assuredly left of center. He also produces great toons. Sometimes, I disagree with the viewpoint, sometimes people of my stripe are the butt of the joke, and sometimes I agree with his toon 100%. Keep it up Clay.

Clara: When he gets around to it? That will fall somewhere on the time line that also includes pigs flying & hell freezing.

also, you're welcome to think what you like about the Bush admin and the "right" for last 8 years - but cesspool?! No matter how much you disagree with a President & his policies you have to give him some sort of respect. What did you honestly think of Bush on Sept 14th 2001? when he stood on the rubble of the towers and gave his speech? was he spewing into the cesspool then? I doubt you give me an honest answer but at least think about it. No, I didn't agree with all his polices and honestly, I thought twice about voting for him the second time. But I'd never bash him or any other President that will ever hold office. question them? yes - bash? no.

SCOTTYM: you said it perfect on the case & on clay

SCOTTYM, no one is necessarily "bashing" Mr. Ricci, but the glaring hypocrisy was so transparent when he shifted gears, first by suing to enforce anti-discrimination law, ultimately forcing his employer to accede to his demand to be hired, then jumping into high gear by playing the REVERSE discrimination card to seek a promotion.

The city rejected ALL of the exams taken at the time that Frank Ricci took his, because the scores on the tests could have been determined to be a violation of Title VII, the Federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's INADVERTANT as well as intentional.

Frank Ricci's claim was that the city's effort to comply with Title VII was in and of itself, race discrimination. The fact is, that once faced with the evidence that a group comprised of one race had lower test scores, New Haven was clearly boxed into a corner. They were ripe to be sued no matter what they did.

It didn’t mean that Frank Ricci was passed over for promotion (then). He could have been considered under new, presumably fairer, criteria. But that's not the way he plays the game. So now, New Haven has 20 litigious firefighters to deal with. How is New Haven to go forward and re-institute a system of promotion that will not violate ANY laws of discrimination? The Supreme Court has made that task all but impossible with their ruling in the case.

For sure, our system of justice allows people at any time to petition our courts for the purpose of redressing our grievances. However, this case should not have made it way to be heard by the Supreme Court. It most certainly should not have resulted in a favorable ruling for the firefighters, and especially not for Frank Ricci. I suspect that had he been the sole plaintiff, it would not have been heard.

All that has come of this case, is to have prevented any promotion in rank being awarded to any member of the New Haven Fire Department since 2003, and more importantly, the case has once again muddied the waters as to how to define what true discrimination is.

Racial quotas have always been a controversial policy, but to anyone who truly thinks that African-Americans are not still victims of discrimination in the workplace, they need to take their heads out of the sand. When we see equal percentages of employment, THEN it may be time to discuss eliminating quotas. We're nowhere near where we need to be...yet.

Yes alprova, I am aware that you(like many others on the left) approve of racism, so long as it is politically correct racism.

Some where along the way the .gov (and a goodly chunk of the population) got off on this whole "equal outcomes" tangent, and they started enforcing racism to defeat racism. It is totally irrational, illogical, and hypocritical, but apparently it makes sense to some.

I do not accept that white-on-black racism is a big problem anymore. Most of those type of people have wised up, gone of to retirement, or kicked the bucket.

I also do not accept that there is a genetically encoded lack of ability/talent/knowledge as implied by affirmative action.

I only want to see every one treated as equals under the law.

I guess that makes me some kind of crazy right-wing racist.

SCOTTYM, do you know the definition of the word "racism"?

Racism is defined as the inherent belief that one race of people is intellectually or physically superior to those of another race. Racism is not the condition that most people suffer from. Most people are simply bigots, who for one reason or another, dislike or are intolerant of those of another race.

I have tried very hard not to infuse politics into this issue, because it is not necessarily political in nature. We're talking about reversing an eon and a half of behavior by people of one race to treat at least one other race of people as second class citizens.

No one is suggesting that a nurse be hired or promoted to be allowed to crack chests and perform heart transplants. So let's not go so far off the beaten path that we lose track or where we are.

Be realistic for a moment. How are we to change any negative cultures that may exist in the black communities, if we as people who claim to want to see things change for the better, do not assist them by giving them the incentives and a hand up that ladder? If your child was putting forth the expected amount of effort in school, but was not achieving good grades, would you hire your child a tutor, or would you dismiss your child with a demand to try harder?

Affirmative action, unless I missed something, was never implemented in recognition of any genetic deficiencies or due to any lack of ability, talent, or knowledge by those who happen to be black. It was put in place to put a stop to the practice of discriminating against people in the workplace because of their skin color.

Employment statistics prove that blacks are STILL not able to find jobs as easily as whites and are often not hired IF they are MORE qualified for the job. Blacks are STILL not promoted as readily as whites are, even WHEN they are MORE qualified for a promotion. And when push comes to shove, blacks are often laid off in higher numbers than whites are, and statistics prove that they are more likely to be among those in the first wave of layoffs.

You're free to accept whatever you wish, but your beliefs do not make facts any less true.

Tell me, what does sand taste like?

Wareagleash,

Why are you trying to make me feel guilty. I though I made it plain in former postings that I don't blame Bush, but his "advisors."

Rolando,

It depends on the rough and I also learned to angle my irons! A LOOONG time ago!

I hesitated to post here so late, but I stand by my opinions!

On to nuclear power!

Alprova,
You are pontificating about things of which you have no knowledge.

Racism is making judgments/decisions based upon one's race. It is as simple as that.

You say,
"Affirmative action, unless I missed something, was never implemented in recognition of any genetic deficiencies or due to any lack of ability, talent, or knowledge by those who happen to be black."

Well you aren't paying attention. Those are exactly the reasons AA was put into place, and they are absolutely false, racist reasons.

You said,
"You're free to accept whatever you wish, but your beliefs do not make facts any less true."

Good try, but you are the one, here in 2009, espousing racist ideas.

I can see quite clearly, thanks.

AA is just another way to keep the non-whites beholden to their dem masters.

Someday you may grow up and see the truth, till then, quit trying to blow smoke up other peoples rear.