General discussion

Locked

Vote to end discrimination coming

By jdclyde ·
Language of the ballot proposal:
http://www.michigancivilrights.org/ballot.htm

"A proposal to amend the constitution to prohibit The Universisty of Michgan, and other State Universities, The State, and all other state entities from descrimination or granting preferential treatment based on Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, or National Origin."

This was put on the ballot by the MCRI, Michigan Civil Rights Inititive. Required to get it on the ballot is 350,000 valid signitures. Over 500,000 signitures have been submitted and over 400,000 of them have been verified.

Controversy. The activits group BAMN, "By Any Means Necessary" is claiming fraud and misrepresentation, dispite having shown no proof of this.

Part of the claim is that people were confused by the "Civil rights" in the MCRI name to mean something that it isn't. MCRI is for Civil Rights for ALL citizens of Michigan.

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has forwarded the unfounded complaint on to the "Michigan Civil Rights Commission" for review dispite the fact that this board has been an outspoken opposition to the MCRI. She had also admitted in an interview that she didn't think there was anything the MCRC could do about this, as far as removing this proposal from the ballot.

Is this good legislation? After what point is reverse discrimination not a good thing anymore for a civilization? Because of past discriminations, how long should future discrimination continue?

When did "Civil rights" not apply to everybody equally, and when should it start?

NOTE: This does not remove anti-discrimination from the books, it just will make it apply to everyone INdiscriminately so NO ONE could be discriminated against based on WHAT they are.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

88 total posts (Page 5 of 9)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Competative?

by jdclyde In reply to for what it's worth

Your example of the SECOND largest school system being an example of non-profit vs profit is not valid as the PUBLIC education is so bad because it is GOVERNMENT, not non-profit. The Catholic Schools are a success because the focus is raising well educated Christians, not to pump out as many kids as you can so you get more federal funding thrown at you. Quality is NOT a concern for public schools, which is why you hear all the lies about the "No Child Left Behind" act. The corrupt teachers union just didn't want to HAVE to be held accountable for doing their jobs like any working professional in any other field is, and they didn't want to HAVE to adher to higher standards for hiring teachers. The lie that it was underfunded while Federal spending on Educations was at an all time high shows what the Democratic party is really concerned with.

Childrens hospital. weren't you the one talking about the difference between cures and treatments?

And being non-profit isn't what makes anyone competative. It only gives them an advantage over for-profits as they don't have to bring in as much money to cover costs as there aren't stockholders expecting a return.

That is why credit unions give better rates than a traditional bank. No stockholders. Lower overhead, better return.

Collapse -

My comments were in response to Tom's erroneous post that states...

by faradhi In reply to for what it's worth

"If we make health care companies not for profit, then there will be no incentive to develop new medical advances, and competition would be eliminated, reducing medical choice." The fact is that making an industry nonprofit will not make it less competitive.

I am not saying that making medical companies non-profit will make companies more competive. I am saying that it will remove the incentive to create treatments over cures.

The rest of the stuff about the schools I am not debating. I just brought that up as another example of a nonprofit organization remaining competitive. Your statement about credit unions only strengthens my point that nonprofits will remain competitive.

Further, St. Jude alone has developed more CURES than any for-profit company. Again proving that nonprofit companies will remain competitive and develop medical advances.

Collapse -

Proves your point AND my point

by jdclyde In reply to for what it's worth

that non-profit is good, as long as it isn't GOVERNMENT run. Very few things turned over to the government run well, and it isn't the job of the government to supply medical to people. Look how badly Medicade is run. I sure don't want that to be a model for "national health care".

Now if we can just get more non-profit schools.....

Collapse -

I agree it should not be government run.

by faradhi In reply to for what it's worth

I have never argued for socialized healthcare.

I do not forsee me ever arguing for socialized healthcare.

Collapse -

Well, if your agreeing with me

by jdclyde In reply to for what it's worth

then you MUST be right! What an intellegent thing to do! B-)

I do think that was the main stumbling block of clarifying that anything the Government runs is a clusterfuk and school vouchers would FORCE public schools to TRY to be competative and provice a better service than they do now for less money.

Although, the more different fingers are in the pie for medical research, ALSO impacts competition. There is always the rush to market and be the first to discover that cure. I see room for profit and non-profit side by side. They keep each other honest.

Collapse -

Canadian medical

by JamesRL In reply to Demographics

I know we have had this discussion before.

I am not sacrificing anything for my family.

I can get into a doctor by walking in the door, I can see any doctor I like.

My mother in fact needs a hip replacement and she knew that a doctor in Toronto was one of the best in the world. She just called him up. She does of course have to pay to get to Toronto to see him.

My wife was a high risk pregnancy, and wanted the best team in the country, which happened to be in Toronto. She just called and asked.

From what I know of many HMOs, thats not an option for many many insured Americans. Their HMO dictates who they can see. The Canadian system does not work like an HMO. Doctors are independant contractors who bill the government, as opposed to an HMO.

As for bacnkruptcy, I hear many examples of poor people being hounded for medical bills in the US. Sure some of it is media hype. How about people at the mimimum wage, do they deserve worse care than anyone else? The fact is I dont think that ones economic status should impact care, and if you think it doesn't in the US, I can find lots of examples.

As for people asking for services that they don't need, here the doctors are in charge. They will do what they deem is necessary, not some HMO bureaucrat. The government will occasional take some medically questionable procedures off the payment list, which means people can get them if they pay out of pocket - like circumcisions, which used to be covered, but are not anymore.

I agree that skin colour should not be a factor in aid, I am all for economic strata being used to provide help. Many of our poor areas have quite a wide ethnic mix. I don't think we disagree here.

James

Collapse -

and you only said that...

by jck In reply to Your only saying that bec ...

because you're good at agreeing with me now :^O

to me...discrimination is discrimination.

If you are hiring for the best person to do a job...you hire the best at it and or the best qualified...

If you are giving admissions to a university, you give it to the students with the best grades and/or the best admissions scores...

If you're giving college tuition aid, you give it to those who have admission to a university or college and based on their grades/test scores and/or financial need...

easy as that...

And the country wonders why the Japanese and Koreans are taking over the car market...

cause the best people at building cars there...build cars...

Collapse -

Toyota and Honda...

by JamesRL In reply to and you only said that...

...build many fine cars here in Ontario; Toyota builds the Corolla, Solara, Matrix, Lexus RX330 here, Honda builds the Civic, Pilot, Odyssey, Acura MDXand a few others...

The point is it isnt the workers or their ethnicity - its how they are managed. The one huge difference is that neither company has labour unions in their Ontario plants. But I can tell you that there is no shortage of people who want to work there, and if you gave someone the choice between those manufacturers and the North American plants nearby (GM Ford and Chrsyler) there is no question which they prefer.

James

James

Collapse -

It was not a race issue...

by jck In reply to Toyota and Honda...

It's the way they operate...especially in Japan.

In the educational system in Japan (at least it was the whole time I heard about it through college), you were placed in certain academic/industrial programs based on your skills and talents to pursue your future profession.

You didn't get to go to Japanese medical school if you weren't good at medical science.

It's not like this bull$hit in the United States where "every kid should be equal". Well, life is tough...and no one is the same as another person. That means...no kid is equal to any other kid. And therefore, you shouldn't hold back one kid to accomodate another.

Of course, you can't convince the blue-blood American aristocrats in Congress of that.

Fact is, the Japanese have surpassed American automotive manufacturing and design quality because of two principles:

1) Their plants have, by virtue of their educational system, the best people at building and assembling cars.

2) That the supervisory staff be responsible for operation of his section...down to the fact that if they are a man short on the line, that supervisor isn't just a tie-wearing person...he knows how to do anything and everything he oversees and must go work that line to fill in for someone.

That is...supervisors have to know what the **** their doing in Japanese automotive plants...not just tell their union guys "You gotta work harder to meet quota cause Bubba's out with a hip strain."


It never had anything to do with their ethnicity.

It had to do with the fact that they bring up the best people at a profession by virtue of their educational system promoting the best at something to pursue those things.

And, that their supervisory personnel know how to do more than sign a piece of paper or go to a meeting they scribbled in their day planner.

I'd say it's not how they are managed...but...how competent their managers are in the area they supervise.

BTW...I own a Korean car...and it's got almost 117,000 miles on it and never had a problem once with it running.

But anyway...don't think the Japanese just manage their employees better. They just have smarter and more trade-capable ones.

Oh...and...by the way:

The operational philosophy that is still pretty standard in Japanese manufacturing...of moving up people within an area to maintain operational knowledge at the supervisory level...

It was a philosophy taken to Japan...by an American who Ford, GM, and Chrysler wouldn't listen to. :)

Collapse -

aristocrats?

by jdclyde In reply to It was not a race issue.. ...

is that now what they call Democrats?

I would say many of the things your complaining about in the US auto industry are directly the fault of Dems.

The idea that you have to dumb down things so the dumb people don't feel badly about being dumb.

The supervisor CAN'T step up and fill in because it is a UNION job and the union will file a grevance if a non-union person does a union persons job. The union guy doesn't care about anything but when their next break is, where the Japanise workers DO have something long missing in all union jobs called WORK ETHICS.

Ethics DO come into it when you have unqualified people hired and promoted based on filling quotas instead of the best person for the job. Another by-product of "affrimative action", the lowering of standards in hiring and promoting to keep from getting extorted by shakedown artists like J. Jackson.

So yes, race and ethnicity does play a role when we worry about placing unqualified minorities instead of worrying about MAKING the minorites qualified so they can compete in the job market. Anytime you use ANYTHING other than skills for hiring and promoting, you are hurting the company, and the country.

Would you really support denying someone entrance to a trade school based on how they test, or would you say that is discriminating?

Back to Community Forum
88 total posts (Page 5 of 9)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums