Free Dating Site    

So, is the problem that they also benefit Blacks? Is the problem that some of his objectives would only benefit Blacks?

I don't see anything on the list that is going to give Blacks (or any minority or any group) an unfair advantage. Rather, it seems Obama is interested in leveling the playing field for all Americans, including Black Americans. The statement quoted seems to indicate insolent1 agrees. "Benefiting people" who are at a disadvantage currently - some coincidentally Black, some coincidentally White - why is that so wrong??

If there is a law or government policy that places any group at an advantage or a disadvantage should that law/policy be maintained in the interest of "tradition" or should we not continue to strive to create equality, liberty, and justice "for all?" Should we strive to further create and maintain a caste system where those who have been benefitted in the past continue to receive preferential treatment and those who have been burdened see their burdens increase?

I know they don't want to hear it, but it continues to appear that the problem many have with Obama is nothing more than the color of his skin. That doesn't mean they are "racialist" or bad people. It means that they live in a world where racism is deeply ingrained in our cultures and institutions. Sadly, it seems they can see "racialism" outside but not inside of themselves.

Unfortunately, it has not. One example from today's news: a woman who was a manager at a Goodyear tire plant learned that she was making substantially less than four other male managers at the same plant (they all had the same responsibilities, the difference wasn't due to experience or job performance - it was straight discrimination, got that??) and when she learned about it she sued. She won the case, but lost an appeal and it went to the Supreme Court. The Supremes ruled against her, saying that she missed her chance to sue because she had been paid less for the same work for her ENTIRE CAREER. They said by not filing suit within six months of starting the job she effectively consented to work for less and the "statute of limitations" had passed. This conveniently ignored that the company does not tell employees what others in the same job are paid and policy FORBADE them to talk about it. The only way she found out was that someone anonymously dropped a copy of another manager's check stub in her locker.

Here's where it gets really good. I heard an audio clip of Ted Kennedy speaking passionately that this should not be allowed to happen in America, and a bill (written and advocated for by most DEMS in the House - per the news story) that would have allowed someone six months from their last paycheck, instead of from their initial date of employment, passed the House. It was blocked in the Senate, with the charge led by none other than Mitch McConnel (R - KY). He is from my home state and I loathe him, but I digress. Mitch said that the law was designed to "encourage lawsuits." No, it was designed to force employers to provide equal pay for equal work, which everyone thought was the law of the land already. And, if they didn't, as a last resort an employee who was discriminated against could sue - and receive equitable treatment. Now, if you think that equal pay for equal work is wrong, I don't know what to tell you. But if you thought it was well established as a matter of fact, you'd be mistaken. And good ol' Mitch is making sure that employers can continue to discriminate without fear of penalty, or law suit. Makes you proud to be an American huh? For all the reprehensible things Mrs. Clinton has done, at least there is still a "D" behind her name. Not much to cling to, but it is something.

Oh, and the story was reported TODAY on NPR - I am sure you can find info about it on their website if you doubt that this all really happened