Obama just announced a $200 million program for non whites only

[theDoctorisIn]

And how exactly do you think they're paying for this?

I thought you said you read the article.

It's all coming from private donations.
.

Doc, Doc my friend. I think you are in a state of denial. Obama is directing agencies in our executive branch of government (who are run solely with taxpayer money) to "ensure opportunity for boys and young men of color." If I also remember correctly, a Presidential Memorandum also carries with it the weight of law, which means it does violate the 14th Amendment and in some ways the Civil Rights Act. I thought we weren't in the habit of launching race specific initiatives?

Presidential Memorandum do not, in any way, hold the weight of law.

That's basic civics.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I thought you said you read the article.

It's all coming from private donations.
.

Doc, Doc my friend. I think you are in a state of denial. Obama is directing agencies in our executive branch of government (who are run solely with taxpayer money) to "ensure opportunity for boys and young men of color." If I also remember correctly, a Presidential Memorandum also carries with it the weight of law, which means it does violate the 14th Amendment and in some ways the Civil Rights Act. I thought we weren't in the habit of launching race specific initiatives?

Presidential Memorandum do not, in any way, hold the weight of law.

That's basic civics.

Then um, why are they often compared to Executive orders, which do?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Huh?

"seeks to intervene in the lives of boys at key points: by providing prekindergarten education, lifting third-grade reading proficiency, leading schools away from “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that kick misbehaving students out of school, and persuading businesses to train and hire young men of color."

That would be called "getting" something. Based on nothing more than the color of their skin. Wanna try again?

And by the way, you didn't answer my question: What if someone is only 25% or 50% or 75%? Are they fucked? Do they have to prove they're 100%?

.

That would be pre-k for everyone, not just for black kids.




.

Where does it say "Pre-K for everyone", doc?

Where does it say "Pre-K for just black kids"?

I'll tell you what, if it comes out that anyone relevant suggests that only black kids get Pre-K, I'll admit that I was wrong, and be just as upset at this as you are. But that's staggeringly unlikely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahh, debating minutia... a sign of a clear lack of a cogent argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

I guess whites can't be poor

It's not that whites don't need help where there is poverty and oppression also.

But to solve the problem with black poverty and crime, the mentorship relations work better with young men listening and working with brother and father figures they can relate to. With the culture they are brought up, the most troubled can often better relate to men than to women, and some DO respond better to Black men not White men if that comes across as patronizing or controlling them. Or else they rebel against anyone they don't respect.

I ran into this, and I am not even white but asian and it was still too controlling, like the "privileged class telling others what to do." I was accused of being racist, and of "making people slaves" when I was the one paying for all the costs of the space to organize volunteers. I wasn't paid for my volunteer work either, but got blamed and yelled at.

Not only me, but the property owners who were an older asian couple and black woman were maligned and threatened legally, trying to override property contracts where these young men "assumed we didn't know the laws they did" so they thought they could take over. Had some MEN they respected been in charge, maybe this would not have happened.

So it is very important to have "role models" and mentorship relations set up right.
And yes, race and gender can be factors that help prevent distractions and disruptions.

I hope Obama's organizational outreach actually makes it to endangered national historic Black communities like Freedmen's Town, and works WITH the local leaders who have been volunteering on their own dime to save national history. Unlike all the other programs that "come in with good intentions" but have bought out, sold out, or bypassed the local residents, in order to control the community through competing forces taking over instead of empowering the local programs and neighborhood leadership already established.

I hope the RIGHT leadership comes forward to UNITE the African American community that has otherwise been divided by party, class and media stereotypes, and brings together mentors from all sectors to uplift the poor to break the cycle of poverty and victimhood.

the same way this can be done for African American neighborhoods, the same solutions will work for all communities. This is in keeping with Obama's findings on the reparations issues, is that the same investment it takes to end poverty helps all impoverished groups, not just African Americans. By addressing poverty in general, all people will be helped.
We do need to encourage communities to organize and help each other across the board.

Because of the long history of political poverty of African Americans in particular, the solutions that have come from leaders in this community can solve related problems with oppression in all forms, affecting all people of all classes: http://www.houstonprogressive.org

Every community needs and deserve similar help to mentor local leaders and mentors to build sustainable schools for training in business and government to become independent.

This program should in no way be limited to just helping African Americans, but push for all communities to organize resources around their own plans for sustainable development.

 

[nitroz]

It's wasteful spending. We don't need money helping minorities... or majorities. We need money that will help aneryone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That would be pre-k for everyone, not just for black kids.




.

Where does it say "Pre-K for everyone", doc?

Where does it say "Pre-K for just black kids"?

I'll tell you what, if it comes out that anyone relevant suggests that only black kids get Pre-K, I'll admit that I was wrong, and be just as upset at this as you are. But that's staggeringly unlikely.

Weren't you reading anything at all?

This initiative:


"seeks to intervene in the lives of boys [of color] at key points: by providing prekindergarten education, lifting third-grade reading proficiency, leading schools away from “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that kick misbehaving students out of school, and persuading businesses to train and hire young men of color."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Where does it say "Pre-K for everyone", doc?

Where does it say "Pre-K for just black kids"?

I'll tell you what, if it comes out that anyone relevant suggests that only black kids get Pre-K, I'll admit that I was wrong, and be just as upset at this as you are. But that's staggeringly unlikely.

Weren't you reading anything at all?

This initiative:


"seeks to intervene in the lives of boys at key points: by providing prekindergarten education, lifting third-grade reading proficiency, leading schools away from “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that kick misbehaving students out of school, and persuading businesses to train and hire young men of color."

You are seeing what you want to see. You want this law to be racist, so that's what you see.

If I'm wrong, and someone is actually suggesting that only black kids get universal pre-k, than I'll be happy to admit it and march right next to you protesting this.

What will you do when that never happens, though? Will you admit that you were wrong?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ahh, debating minutia... a sign of a clear lack of a cogent argument.

It's not "minutia", it's your entire argument. You're claiming this violates the 14th. It doesn't.

 

[francoHFW]

Hater dupes don't understand that one party likes doing things for the good of the country...

 

[Nosmo King]

Equal protection still applies. How can you exclude whites? There are poor whites. What compelling state reason is there for excluding whites?

Since when are Conservatives so concerned about the poor? After listening to Conservative rants about the poor, we have come to believe that Conservatives see them as lazy, shiftless, dependent scum who should not receive a dime of help from the government!

This thread puts all that rhetoric on thin ice. Unless your concern about the poor is really a racist attack.

That's it, isn't it? You're more racist than ideologue. Your real agenda is race, not poverty.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Equal protection still applies. How can you exclude whites? There are poor whites. What compelling state reason is there for excluding whites?

What is anyone being "excluded" from?

 

[Political Junky]

Obama launches ?My Brother?s Keeper? to help young minority men

Did you miss that "My Brother's Keeper" is privately funded?

From your link:

It’s still unclear just how broad the initiative will be beyond the $200 million nonprofit investment. Jarrett told reporters on Wednesday that the White House is still signing on private businesses and does not have a final number for how much they have committed to “My Brother’s Keeper.” The White House hopes corporations will pledge to mentor and hire young minority men.
And some of the foundations that are involved in the effort were already planning on making investments in young minority men before the White House got involved. Robert Ross, the CEO of the California Endowment nonprofit, said his organization had already pledged $50 million over seven years for its “sons and brothers” program, which aims to reduce school absences and suspensions among young black children and boost their third-grade reading proficiency levels.
But Ross said that having the president involved in the issue will be “a huge injection of rocket fuel” for the cause. The president’s use of the bully pulpit could be a game changer for Ross and others who work in this space, he said.

 

[SuMar]

Where does it say "Pre-K for just black kids"?

I'll tell you what, if it comes out that anyone relevant suggests that only black kids get Pre-K, I'll admit that I was wrong, and be just as upset at this as you are. But that's staggeringly unlikely.

Weren't you reading anything at all?

This initiative:


"seeks to intervene in the lives of boys at key points: by providing prekindergarten education, lifting third-grade reading proficiency, leading schools away from “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that kick misbehaving students out of school, and persuading businesses to train and hire young men of color."

You are seeing what you want to see. You want this law to be racist, so that's what you see.

If I'm wrong, and someone is actually suggesting that only black kids get universal pre-k, than I'll be happy to admit it and march right next to you protesting this.

What will you do when that never happens, though? Will you admit that you were wrong?

If this excludes whites, then it is racist.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Weren't you reading anything at all?

This initiative:


"seeks to intervene in the lives of boys at key points: by providing prekindergarten education, lifting third-grade reading proficiency, leading schools away from “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that kick misbehaving students out of school, and persuading businesses to train and hire young men of color."

You are seeing what you want to see. You want this law to be racist, so that's what you see.

If I'm wrong, and someone is actually suggesting that only black kids get universal pre-k, than I'll be happy to admit it and march right next to you protesting this.

What will you do when that never happens, though? Will you admit that you were wrong?

If this excludes whites, then it is racist.

It doesn't "exclude" anyone. It's not the sort of program that you apply to, and they send you money.

It's an "educational" program. None of that money is going to be given to Black people, nor will it be used to create programs that will "exclude" white people. That money is going to be spent on people coming up with high-fallutin ideas as to how to help black kids, maybe for a few posters and TV ads, lots of promotional literature, etc.

 

[SuMar]

Obama launches ?My Brother?s Keeper? to help young minority men

Did you miss that "My Brother's Keeper" is privately funded?

From your link:

It’s still unclear just how broad the initiative will be beyond the $200 million nonprofit investment. Jarrett told reporters on Wednesday that the White House is still signing on private businesses and does not have a final number for how much they have committed to “My Brother’s Keeper.” The White House hopes corporations will pledge to mentor and hire young minority men.
And some of the foundations that are involved in the effort were already planning on making investments in young minority men before the White House got involved. Robert Ross, the CEO of the California Endowment nonprofit, said his organization had already pledged $50 million over seven years for its “sons and brothers” program, which aims to reduce school absences and suspensions among young black children and boost their third-grade reading proficiency levels.
But Ross said that having the president involved in the issue will be “a huge injection of rocket fuel” for the cause. The president’s use of the bully pulpit could be a game changer for Ross and others who work in this space, he said.

What happen to the good ole days when corporations and companies hired most qualified workers no matter what race you were?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I question whether you've read the article because you keep claiming things that aren't true, and are explained fairly clearly in the article.


.

And you aren't explaining to me why these things I claim aren't true. Doc, this isn't like you. And what exactly is "explained fairly clearly in the article"? In that article alone, the article refers to people of color 15 times. I think it explains very clearly who it is specifically designed to help, which while a noble effort, is against the law.

I have tried to explain, but I've been posting on my phone, and it's harder to get my point across.

Here are a few of the issues I was talking about:

1. The program is entirely funded by private donations, not federal funds. The "task force" is, as the article explains, nothing but a way to centralize the local efforts. The members of the "task force" are already employed by the government, and won't be getting a raise.

2. Who the initiative is intended to help is irrelevant. Intentions don't hold legal status, and nothing about this program will create any laws that discriminate, or deny any rights to anyone. Therefore, it doesn't violate the 14th. Domestic violence programs are generally "intended" to help battered women. Do you think those violate the 14th?

1) The program uses government agencies to implement. Are you seriously not getting the message yet? These agencies ARE run by Federal funds. And yep, this task force is already employed by the government, which means they are being paid taxpayer money. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Whether they receive a raise or not is irrelevant.

2) Aha! You were making such a big deal about who it was supposed to be serving earlier. You said the it was meant to help "everyone." That, sir, is a concession. The very language of this initiative is discriminatory. "Color" this, and "color" that; to say that it doesn't discriminate against a certain demographic group is egregiously false. Presidential Memorandums are similar to, if not identical to Executive Orders, which means they BOTH carry with them the force of law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is this program: USDOJ: Office on Violence Against Women "sexist" because it "intends" to only help women?

Does it violate the 14th?

 

[whitehall]

Wouldn't you think the freaking president of all the people would have thrown poor rural white kids and (legal) Hispanic kids a bone with our freaking taxpayer dollars? Let's cut to the chase, mid terms are coming up and Hussein needs to solidify his base. Meanwhile Hilly is telling white college kids in Fla. that unemployment is liberating. Tell me the democrat party isn't imploding.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And you aren't explaining to me why these things I claim aren't true. Doc, this isn't like you. And what exactly is "explained fairly clearly in the article"? In that article alone, the article refers to people of color 15 times. I think it explains very clearly who it is specifically designed to help, which while a noble effort, is against the law.

I have tried to explain, but I've been posting on my phone, and it's harder to get my point across.

Here are a few of the issues I was talking about:

1. The program is entirely funded by private donations, not federal funds. The "task force" is, as the article explains, nothing but a way to centralize the local efforts. The members of the "task force" are already employed by the government, and won't be getting a raise.

2. Who the initiative is intended to help is irrelevant. Intentions don't hold legal status, and nothing about this program will create any laws that discriminate, or deny any rights to anyone. Therefore, it doesn't violate the 14th. Domestic violence programs are generally "intended" to help battered women. Do you think those violate the 14th?

1) The program uses government agencies to implement. Are you seriously not getting the message yet? These agencies ARE run by Federal funds. And yep, this task force is already employed by the government, which means they are being paid taxpayer money. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Whether they receive a raise or not is irrelevant.

2) Aha! You were making such a big deal about who it was supposed to be serving earlier. You said the it was meant to help "everyone." That, sir, is a concession. The very language of this initiative is discriminatory. "Color" this, and "color" that; to say that it doesn't discriminate against a certain demographic group is egregiously false. Presidential Memorandums are similar to, if not identical to Executive Orders, which means they BOTH carry with them the force of law.

I never said anything close to that.

I said that legally, the program does not discriminate against anyone.