You may want to rephrase that, seeing as, like Sotomayor, I too am Puerto Rican but I do not agree with her appointment as judge. So I am not happy and will not vote accordingly, not that I can vote for her.

I do not believe in Affirmative Action, I have never used it. To me, this is just a way to, rather than eliminate the problem of racism, accpet it but find a way around it. This is like living in a city that is overrun by crime and rather than our leaders doing something to eliminate crime, they simply give every person in the city a gun so that they have equal ability to fight the criminals themselves, but in the end never resolves the issue and in turn actually makes those who were not criminal take a criminal mentality in order to survive the crime infested city.

Affirmative Action has a similar effect, basically it attempts to overcome racism by giving those in minority positions more power to succeed but what no one realizes is, like Obama's stimulus package, this power (money) has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is those who actually work hard and earn higher positions and more money but are denied these rewards because it's not fair to those who don't work hard enough or are not capable of reaching the goal to earn these rewards. Basically, what this does is, rather than raise our society to a higher level by bringing everyone up to higher standards, we lower our standards so that those at the bottom are equals.

We are basically creating a society where it's learning curb is not the smartest person but the least smartest.

Imagine if the position of President of the US was based on those same premises? Imagine where we would be today had our ancestors based their leadership on the least smartest person?

I know what affirmative action is supposed to achieve, but I wonder how a person can be proud of the fact that they got something because of their color. I wouldn't for me. I guess it really boils down to money...I got mine, screw you. The best way IMO to achieve equality is not by give-a-ways. The problem needs to be fixed at the root, starting with education. The minorities also have to want to fix the cycle, there are many that do. But, I'm amazed at times to live in a society where mediocrity is encouraged and thugs with poor languages skills are idolized. Sadly it's washing over to much of the youth regardless of race or culture.

When I go to a place of business (local government more than commercial) and I see that everyone behind the counter is a minority, that's fine by me. When that person asks me to repeat myself while using the worst grammar in the English language all while acting like they are doing me a favor (entirely different attitude while assisting a member of their own minority), that's when I perceive a problem. When the best and brightest are passed over for this, what is the point of trying? Whenever I have an experience with someone on top of their game, especially a younger person, I always express to them how much I appreciate their assistance (or whatever the reason for the interaction).

We willingly on average except and expect sub-par performance. Just look at government for examples. We shouldn't be so surprised by statements like Sotomyor's. Accomplishment is not the only way to have your ticket stamped and entitlement is a badge of honor for some. We've had veteran presidents from the Revolutionary War through WWII, now we have our first veteran of affirmative action president. It makes one so proud to be an American.

You're one man; I'd be willing to bet that most of the (non-Cuban) Latino population---traditionally Democratic voters, which is why the Democrats harp loudest on amnesty for illegals---look favorably on Obama for this favor, and will vote his way in 2012.

Other than that, I agree completely with what you wrote. Affirm. Act. does nothing to lift anyone up, as it was intended; rather, it allows them, and thus our society and culture, to stagnate, since it pretty much brings everyone to the same level, and thusly they've nothing to fear from failure.

For a microcosm of that idea, just look at the Republican Party today!

We just got some new neighbors, and they have a young daughter, a 13-year old, who is starting 8th grade next year. I met her last evening, and was so impressed with her use of vocabulary and grasp of some very mature concepts (she made a comment about Obama that I found most heartwarming; especially coming from such a young person).

I asked her if she knew the meaning of the word "articulate"; she guessed wrong, so I explained it to her, and how she was very articulate and well-spoken. We're moving, and I won't be around to mold her properly---LOL---so I told her to keep at it, stay smart and make something of herself; don't get sucked into the willful downward spiral of so many of the slacker doofuses in this general area.

Wow, are you ignorant of Darwin's theory. Impressive!

Not really; I just boiled it waaay down; this was a letter to the editor, and space is limited.

If you don't mind me saying, it would be nice to see people point out why they think someone is ignorant. It's easy to call someone ignorant, but be considerate of those who also read these articles and the comments on them. We can't read minds.

I can assure you there are more although I had to admit that our numbers pale in comparison to those who would celebrate Sotomayor's appointment.

Hah!, Never looked at it that way.

I wrote many many articles on Darwin's theory.

In this case the simply point is that Darwin's theory doesn't say anything about rights. It's like someone said in another discussion here on JU (and I should really remember who it was because it was excellent): the theory of gravity does not suggest that we have a moral duty to find the lowest possible spot on the planet and assemble there.

If liberals support Affirmative Action to change the world, it doesn't mean they are hypocritical when they also advocate Darwin's theory of evolution any more than the Civil Aviation Authority is hypocritical by creating regulations for air traffic while being convinced that the theory of gravity is true.

It was meant as kind of a humorous analogy, Leauki; not a doctoral thesis paper on the theory itself.

So, they'll support crow-barring the weakest, less talented and less intelligent people into postions for which they aren't at all suited, while excluding the people who are. Yet, at the same exact time, they'll fanatically embrace the idea that the strongest should survive, while the weakest should make way.

In fact, they'll move Heaven and Earth to teach that theory to children as undisputable scientific fact, even though it's full of enormous holes and creates its own, unanswerable questions. Which is why, even after 150 years, it's still called the "Theory" of Evolution.

You don't find that the least bit hypocritical?

I'd say the "stronger overcoming the weaker" is more the law of the jungle than Darwinism. But RW, I believe I understood what you implying. That evolution eventually replaces obsolete types with ones that are more viable under changing circumstances. I don't think anybody needs to argue semantics here as it seems most of the replies are from folks right of center.

IMO when topics like these, which I believe are as clear as night and day, devolve into a discussion on theory or religion, the topic strays from the real problem of right and wrong. Leauki, since this is a political topic, I believe we should forgive any real or perceived transgressions by RW on evolution, and like Charles said, give an insightful response to a comment, if so inclined.

People can be very passionate about AA in the US, as it affects all citizens at some point in their life. I know for a fact I've been pass up for an assignments over my time in the military because they needed a minority to fill the job. I have no problem with anyone of any race or color getting the position because they were the best choice. When I made decisions, I always used the best person for the job, and made sure they were recognized for their effort, That's how it should work, based on personal responsibility. 

Unfortunately and obviously, however, that's not always the case, which is why AA is faulty and ill-conceived. Giving people jobs and grades and positions they didn't earn by sweat of brow and/or aren't actually capable of holding, isn't right, fair or safe. Also, the load they may have to carry as part of their job may fall on others, since they may be incapable of carrying that load.

Is that fair to the others?

Agreed.

No, they do not embrace this idea at all. And neither does Darwin's theory.

Ignoring the fact that Darwin speaks of "fittest", not "strongest", which in this context is irrelevant as your choice of words correctly implies (and so I will use "strongest" for "fittest" below), Darwin's theory says that the strongest _will_ survive, not _should_.

Liberal policies react to the fact that without intervention the strongest will survive, while according to liberal ideology, the weakest should have the same good life.

Liberals here differentiate between nature and morality. They say that even though they KNOW and understand that in nature only the strongest will survive, they BELIEVE that the weakest should be favoured by the system just as much. This is not hypocritical at all, it is merely what morality is about.

It's like recognising that a lion WILL eat the prey but that we might want to BELIEVE that we should help a helpless human child about to be eaten by the lion. When we save the child it doesn't mean we are hypocritical just because we also recognise the fact that without our help the child would have been eaten.

NATURE: Only the strongest survive.

HUMANITY: We can help the weakest.

NATURE: Metal does not fly.

HUMANITY: We can build aircraft and make it fly.

NATURE: Lions eat human children.

HUMANITY: We can interfere and shoot such a lion before he eats the child.

Darwin's theory is indisputable scientific fact. It is right that they should teach it as such. There are no "enormous holes", which is why you will find that only those people see those alleged holes who don't understand Darwin's theory (or what a "theory" is).

You won't find biologists like Richard Dawkins speak of "enourmous holes". The reason is not that he is trying to cover them up, it's simply that he understand Darwin's theory and hence doesn't see the holes which don't exist.

It's easy to see holes in a theory one doesn't understand. Most people who see those "holes" still don't understand what a species is and why there are no "species borders" that could possibly be crossed or not crossed.

And yes, it's obviously still called the "theory". What else would you call it? It's a theory, like the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity or any other scientific theory. It is also fact. You misunderstand the term. A scientific theory is an explanation for facts. It doesn't matter how often it is verified and shown to be fact, it still remains a theory forever or until someone finds evidence that it isn't true after all. If you think that not believing that humans evolved from the same ancestor as apes is a "hole", think again. Because Darwin's theory explains the mechanism by which it happened and unless you find evidence that it cannot have happened, you haven't found a hole at all. (And again, claiming that "species borders" cannot be crossed is not a hole either, because there are no "species borders" in Darwin's theory or on nature. Species branch, they do not border.)

Merely stating that there are "holes" in a theory one doesn't understand (and doesn't want to learn about) isn't enough to demote a theory. And there is also no level beyond "theory" that a "theory" could become. In science a "theory" is the highest level that can be reached.

If you want to doubt a theory, doubt gravity. There is a hole in the theory of gravity. For example, if matter attracts matter, why do gas molecules not fall to the floor but instead fly around the room? Why do gas molecules not attract each other? The theory of gravity is not perfect and scientists are looking for a better theory.

But there hasn't been such a challenge found for Darwin's theory yet. And again, challenges made up by people who don't know what Darwin's theory says do not count.

No. As I said, I find your understand of Darwin's theory wanting. But the idea that even though recognising that nature does X it is possibly for humans to promote the opposite -X is not hypocritical at all, even though I disagree with liberals on the usefulness of going against nature in this case.

An airline pilot who flies an aircraft heavier than air through the skies is not a hypocrite when he acknowledges that without propulsion of some kind the same aircraft would drop to the earth as the theory of gravity would predict and would be an idiot if he decided not to teach children in schools that it would.

And a liberal who advocates a social welfare state is not a hypocrite when he acknowledges that without a welfare state the weakest would be the losers and he would be an idiot indeed if he decided not to teach children in schools that that is the case.