From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:27:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas > 
>Legacies generate huge amounts of money for colleges, since those whose
>children attend a school as a legacy are far more likely to make alumni
>donations.  Legacies are good business for colleges, not a form of
>discrimination.
>

Oh god! I never heard such a load of bullshit rationalization in all my life
If you give preference to those whose parents went there (and give a lot of 
money, to be honest) over equally well qualified candidates, that is 
discrimination in the most objective sense of the word. By your logic, the 
affirmative action you so despise would be "good business" too-the college
practicing it would gain a reputation for giving minorities a break, so they 
would be in a position to receive more applications-and tuition checks-from 
minorities.

>This is the whole point of Enterprise zones, as put forward by Jack kemp
>and rejected by the Democratic Congress.  The government should focus
>its efforts on bringing jobs to poor areas.  However, if it ever
>actually did it, significant parts of the local population wouldn't have
>to depend on the government for a handout, and democrats would lose
>their seats.  So they stonewall all real efforts in this area and then
>call the Republicans cold hearted for wanting to make people get off the
>dole and into a job.

There was an intersting article in the New Republic a while ago about an 
enterprise zone created in Baltimore several years ago. Aside from one big
company that employs few local residents, there is no noticeable improvement
(a few businesses have moved in, but there are still many vacant storefronts,
and crime remains rampant). To be fair, Kemp wrote in and criticized it, 
pointing out that that one had been created by the state of Maryland, and for it
to work, federal tax breaks are needed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, the whole idea of enterprise zones 
is inherently unconservative. The government is trying to get capital to go 
where it doesn't want to. This sounds like-industrial policy! And I thought that
they were against that. And what do you do about an established businessman who
just happens to be just outside the zone? Isn't he being hurt by his tax-free
competition? Does that create an unfair advantage? Can he sue under the Supreme
Court's Lucas decision (I would)?
> 
>The 68 cent figure is one of the most biased figures ever generated.  It
>does not count in the fact that many women choose to work part time (so
>they can raise families) or that women may have to take extended time
>off from a job for child bearing.  When men and women work the same job,
>with the same experience and qualifications for the same length of time,
>they are paid the same.  many studies have shown this to be the case. 
>And where it is not the case the is legal recourse.
> 

"Many women choose to work part-time, so they can raise families". Oh God! 
That's rich!!! Only someone with no idea what it's like in the current minimum-
wage service sector slave pits would talk like that. 

Maybe lawyers can *choose* to work part-time, but at the lower end of the wage
scale, choice is a moot point. Hell, if these women had any choice, they wouldn't
be working at all in the first place!! They work because there's no such thing as
family leave, because they have no other way to feed their children.

>>This sounds like the same old bullshit I've been hearing for years. 

It is.

You can make a conservative case for your points, but not with such ill-informed
arguments.

						Dan Case
						V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc