Birdfolly

I was referring to the context of secondary educational institutions. Of course white people aren't the only alumni, thanks in part to AA. Preferrential alumni treatment works to give more to those who already have, at the expense of others. Are you actually defending preferential alumni treatment??? What happened to everyone being judged by their own merits and accomplishments, not who their parents are? To answer your second comment, I wasn't be thrilled to be passed over or given less aid for college because of AA. AA isn't the best solution. I liked the solution that you mentioned earlier about improving city schools a lot better but it's just not happening yet. Until it does, programs like AA are one of the few ways out of poverty.

We could have used some of that empathy in the AA thread. Oops did I say that out loud? ;)

You don't have to call it discrimination if you don't want to. I didn't call it discrimination either. Those policies, however, contribute to the economic(and power)gap between the white people and minorities. I think that is a big problem. You guys are just fine with it because it doesn't hurt you. Here's the part where you say how anyone can do anything if they try hard enough. I say, how about some active steps toward economic equality.

Good point on Princeton, whoops! ;) My apologies for a weak post. Of course there is no AA for whites because we are already at the top of the food chain. There are, however, legal policies that help keep us there even beyond the fact that we already historically have most of the money and power. 1) family of alumni get special considerations, thus my flawed Bush example. This is legal in the US. 2) Children in poor neighborhoods(also correlates to high percentage of minorities) go to poor, crowded schools and get a worse education even though they take the same standardized tests. There is no law in the US that says everyone gets the same education. It is obviously not true. I understand that these issues may occur to a lesser degree, or not at all in Canada. This may account for some misunderstanding between us.

I love how everybody wants to get rid of affirmative action for minorities(because races in America are SO equal now) but no one wants to get rid of the similar policies that benefit whites. Relatives of alumni get preferences too. Do we really think that GW Bush got into Princeton on his own merits? Do you think any rich kid ever got to go to college more easily than a poor person? This high and mighty shit people are saying about how affirmative action is racist is getting pretty old. Ace, if you say you aren't racist enough times maybe we'll believe you. Acknowledging our own racist feelings(ya, that's right, we all have them unless we grew up in a vacuum) is one of the first steps to really understanding ourselves. We can be anti-racist while still acknowledging that. That said, I think AA is a flawed system but until everyone in this country has access to the same public education before college, the income gap between minorities and whites is closed, and racial advantages for whites are eliminated, something has to be done.

So do you think that a plant disease epidemic spreading through farms that grow the same Monsanto seed would not be a huge problem? Hello? Food shortage? When there is diversity, even within one farm from field to field and year to year, yield and resistance naturally stay high. Did you ever think that the seed monopolies might benefit greatly from such a "problem". I would never want to leave such an important thing as the world's crops in the hands of a few corporations no matter how good they are at GM. by Vandana Shiva: "The fabrication of the data by Monsanto on Bt. Cotton India is an example of the promotion of an unnecessary, untested, hazardous technology through pseudo science. While yields of GM cotton fell by 80% and farmers had losses of nearly Rs. 6,000/acre. Monsanto used Martn Qaim (University of Bonn) and David Zilberman) University of California, Berkeley) to publish an article in Science to claim that yields of Bt. Cotton increased by 80%. Qaim and Zilberman published the paper on the basis of data provided by Monsanto from Monsanto's trials not on the basis of the harvest from farmers fields in the first year of commercial planting. The fabricated data that presents a failure of Bt. Cotton as a miracle hides the fact that non-target insects and diseases increased 250-300%, costs of seed were 300% more and quantity and quality of cotton was low. This is why on April 25, 2003, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Government of India did not give clearance to Monsanto to sell Bt. Cotton seeds in Northern India."

Obviously you've never heard of Monsanto, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. I've opened my mouth enough on this thread.

Here are some interesting quotes that go mostly unheard about the subject: Hiroshima quotes

I think I'm getting ill. Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand when he was gassing his own people. He knew this but said nothing. I believe that you care about Iraqis but lets get this straight: The US government and the corporations that are interwoven with it do not care about brown people abroad any more than they have to to stay in power and in business. Of course some individuals do but they can't act on it in the current system. All of their actions must be questioned and analyzed IMO. If you really care about humanity you might want to take a more critical look at US policy and see who really benefits and who gets forgotten.

Agreed ;D

It looks like corn and tastes like corn when the developers find a result that "works". Corn that came from a pig??? What are you talking about? You're right, it is just a big IF. I'm not going around saying GM corn is going to kill you or make you sprout a third arm. I'm just saying that we should do proper research before releasing let alone forcing this seed onto the farms all over the planet. Corn cross pollinates over many miles breeding will all corn it reaches. Is it just me or is it just responsible to take precautions on something this important? Corporations will just do whatever they can do to make money so it is up to us regular people to educate ourselves and keep them in check.

Those who thought they might actually have a chance to control their own country and resources aren't going to like it either. Eg never said he was surprised and neither am I.

I agree with your comment on contamination of species but I don't know if you guys are getting my point. The corn with the pig gene spliced in doesn't necessarily digest like corn or a pig. Its something else. That something else should be studied more before we are subjected to eating it without even knowing we are eating it, which is the way it is in the states. There are only a limited number of living things that are healthy for people to eat, even if they are made up of similar basic building blocks. These foods may be safe but we just don't know. We don't fully understand the GM technology that we are messing with, at this point.

Ya, but the point is if you splice a pig gene into corn it's not corn any more. Not all plants are good for you, let alone a plant that has its genes spliced with a pig. This is new territory and there is very limited research at this point though we are all guinea pigs(and we didn't even have to splice their genes with ours, heh).

I agree that GM plants need to be isolated, but with the field tests going on right next to farmers fields, that's not likely. Companies like Monsanto even sue farmers for stealing their strand of corn after THEY contaminate the farmer's crop. Obviously we are not where we need to be and this needs to change. I know you are a self proclaimed technocrat so I won't argue GM babies on a moral level. I just think that if you start manipulating the gene pool like that, it would lead to less gene diversity, more sterility, more mutations, and could threaten the species. I mean if we can botch things up and use advanced technology too soon we will. I think history shows us that. As far as one child per family, I'd say that we could at least start with free contraception and lots of education about reproductive responsibility, maybe even a tax break. I don't know about anywhere else, but here in the states people are encouraged in many ways to reproduce as much as possible. Population growth is one of the positive signs of a city, for example. It comes down to money, as always. I don't want to get side tracked any more than I already have. okbye