You, sir, obviously have no idea who started the tea parties or why they were started. Stop getting your info from the "news" media and try finding it from the people who actually know what's going on, the people who started the movement. Your feeble attempts to discredit the movement by tacking it on to crazies like the 911 truthers just shows you are extremely biased just like your preciouse failing news media outlets.

Why wouldn't you simply use your college website to cite articles?  I mean it's really easy to find journal articles when you have access to the college database.

Also those methods would cause a lot of resentment.  They're also the only way it would work.  Affirmitive Action isn't helping.  The wealth gap has been growing since the civil rights era.  Not shrinking.

The only way to fix it would be unequally applied grants to match up perfectly with whites... or to greatly hinder those who got a head start.

Affrimitive Action will never fix the problem... and instead just be with us forever... while everyone gets to ignore the issue.

You don't need to be so accusatory in your replies, lets keep this as civil as possible please.  Having a strong opinion on something is fine, just be careful not to be overly combative.

They aren't as different as you'd think however.  It's all a matter of conditioning.  Chris Rock is a comedian.  As such he focuses heavily on differences and pretends they are rigid definitions.

For example... did you know the most feared Warriors in Western Africa were infact women?

Are you sure it was because you were white?  Or was it because you went through a lot of shit?  Some people see people who go through a lot a shit and give them breaks.

Like I said.  You were citing statistics.  Then I cited statistics... which didn't contradict any of the studies you posted by merely put them in perspective.

Pay differences fail to take into account that Blacks and Whites don't start on a level playing field due to... wealth.

Racism studies fail to take into account the fact that these go away shortly after meeting people... aka during an interview process.  The Problem is... Affirmitive Action makes this worse.  Since if you have a quota... you need to have race on an employment sheet.  In a perfect world, one would not put there name, race or gender on a job application, but instead be recognized simply by an employment number until called in to work.

Of course what school you go to and where you live can also be problematic... not for race reasons so much as schooling reasons for college.  I mean is it better to be 1 in the bottom 50% schools... or 50th in the top 10% of schools?

This isn't just a case of discrimination, but of the quality of learning you get.  Which again... can be fixed by wealth.  By intergrating neighberhoods.  Which tends to happen due to defacto segregation, largely because white people of and equal income as black people can usually afford richer houses because of... well... wealth again.  Outside of white people who started off in the same situation.

I'm just talking biologically. Look at a male dog and a female dog. Which one will do stupid shit, tear things up, and attack things more readily? More than likely it will be the male.

Actually no.  More than likely it will be the female.  It just goes to show how sociology trumps biology.

Many people believe that female dogs make better pets...female preference seems to be ingrained in these people. Most calls for pet dogs have people wanting a 'sweet girl'. They don't think females display alpha behaviours like 'marking' and/or 'humping'. They believe that they are more docile and attentive and do not participate in fighting over dominance.

Well folks, this is not true and they don't call them a 'bitch' for nothing!

In the dog pack makeup, females usually rule the roost, determine pecking order, and who compete to maintain and/or alter that order. The females are, as a result, more independent, stubborn, and territorial than their male counterparts. The females are much more intent upon exercising their dominance by participating in alpha behaviors such as 'humping'. There IS a reason people utilize the technical dog term of 'bitch' in a negative way-and it refers directly to the behaviors exhibited by the females of the dog world. Most fights will usually break out between 2 females. Males, on the other hand, are usually more affectionate, exuberant, attentive, and more demanding of attention. They are very attached to their people.

http://pocketpuppy.com/maleVSfemale.asp

I don't want to speak for Kasz but I didn't take that from his comments at all.  I absolutely think racism still exists and I don't think Kasz or myself has said otherwise.  I think we both believe that racism does not exists as a major component, feature, or part of these protests specifically though. 

Kasz has said that AA is a bad way to treat a symptom rather than addressing the problem and I've said that I think AA is reverse Racism.

Kasz has explained himself pretty well but my logic is pretty simple: If a white man and a black man apply for a job and the policies of the employer dictate in ANY scenario that one should get a preference based in part or whole on the color of their skin...that is racism. 

We call it racism when a white man gets a job over a black man even subconsciously...but we call it affirmative action if the black man gets a job over the white man for the same reason? 

It's pretty clear to me that the way you combat racism in the interview room is by, to borrow the line, "not be judge by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".  Affirmative action keeps race as part of the equation...when we should just have two people applying for a job affirmative action requires us to distinguish the two..it imposes an artificial difference when the point of the civil rights movement was to declare that people were, in fact, equal.

Basically.

Nor does the data show that racism tends to have a big effect in outcome of how people are hired.

There are racists out there... but there aren't too many racists power brokers out there.  The world is too competitive otherwise.  People who refuse to hire the most talented people based on race won't get as good results.  These people are screwed in a capitalist society.

Racism is also very closeminded... and being closeminded is just a recipe for failure when it comes to trying to get a management job.

White privilage isn't about people getting advantages because of their skin color....  so much as it is white people getting advantages because of who they know.   A lot of jobs you apply for you find out through contacts.... white people tend to be related to other white people.  So your Uncle may own a factory, or your uncles friend may own a factory, while a black persons uncle is more likely to work at that factory.

Which is once again... more wealth based then anything.  Wealth based initatives and/or integrating society more... (which would likely require wealth based initatives) are the only ways to solve such problems.

I never said they were a part of the protests, and I never agreed with Garofolo at all, but instead said that maybe only 20% of those people are actually racist.

And this is what I mean by racist. If any decision is made, in a negative way, based on a person's skin color. Imagine you are a manager hiring new applicants and you have 4 qualified people's resumes on your desk; 2 are white 2 are black (people). Say you still need to cut at least one more person from the list due to standard practices. If you cut a black person because you think that either a) they get enough help already from AA or b) hiring a black person will not help their stature in life due to... "wealth". Then you have just decided something using a racist bias.

I was merely saying that at least 20% of those people were like that, and might possibly also carry a problem with a black person in an authority position. The mind is a tricky thing, and just thoughts like, "black people are poor because they do not come from old money", can subtely become reasons for dissent.

I was arguing against a point that less than 1% of people are racist, which simply isn't true.

@kasz, citing journal articles tries my patience, I don't like to spend all my time reading pages upon pages of articles, especially at work where my internet connection is like 2bs per sec...

I kind of got off topic, but I really think you should understand that racism is not an overt practice. It is covert and subtle, and people will dress it up as anything else in order not to get in trouble over it.

In response to the transitive assets idea. I understand what you guys are trying to say. But what you don't realize is that it is just a rebranding of the word slavery.
Transitive assets are the houses and money brought over from europe, and early companies set up in the 17-1800's. Black people have had almost no rights until the 60's and have had no opportunity to develop these assets. Transitive assets might as well have been illegal as far as the discussion is concerned.
Taking away AA in lieu of TA is a terrible reason. That is all I'm arguing here.

I just want you guys to know that there hasn't been much backlash against the president's color. There should be. In this day and age, there should be a lot more, but we don't hear about it. That's because it's being similarly rebranded as something else. We need to be vigilant of motivations like these, and that requires both sides playing devil's advocate and really trying to prove our own sides wrong before we buy into them.