It is utterly impossible to morally or logically defend the practice of affirmative action, for to do so undermines all justification for affirmative action in the first place. By saying some forms of discrimination are acceptable in some cases, even for supposedly beneficial goals, one also allows for those practicing other forms of discrimination to justify their own biased practices. In other words, if you apply the fuzzy reasoning that purple people can discriminate against all blue people because of the past discriminatory practices of some blue people, then the ethical loophole has been opened for blues, for example, to turn around and justify their own discrimination of all purples based on the negative, harmful behaviors of some purples (say high crime rates, or annoying musical trends, long finger nails, whatever). There is no way around this. Bigotry is bad cannot be used as an argument for bigotry is good.
In that vein, the California Department of Transportation continues to ignore common sense and honor, and continues to flip their collective middle finger at the California voters who were brave, sane, and well-meaning enough to pass proposition 209, by attempting to reward individuals contracts simply on the basis of their skin-color.
Caltrans on Wednesday petitioned the federal government to begin using race as a consideration in awarding transportation contracts.When will this unprincipled desire to tribalize our nation end? Rewarding contracts based on race, besides being insanely unfair, simply costs the tax-payers more money, time and resources, and endangers the well-being of the state and its population. Rationality is tossed out the window, and businesses are judged on secondary, unimportant elements like the pigmentation of their owners (not even the racial make-up of their employees!) rather than on logical factors like cost and quality of service and product. Intelligent thought takes a back-seat to ethnic quotas.
One need look no further than deathtrap Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital in the Los Angeles area to see how poor services can be when they stem from empty-headed decision making based on racial preference. I heard a commercial the other day stating that the state of California needs more nurses, especially those equipped to deal with the diversity of the state population. What the FUCK DOES THAT MEAN? No, the state and its hospitals do NOT fucking need to be using "racial sensitivity" as the criteria for nursing qualification. For fuck's sake, we're talking about peoples' health and lives here. We need people actually capable of doing the job. The racially sensitive, diverse state at King-Harbor, chosen for non-medical, non-job performance reasons, are completely inept, leaving people to die, mistreating them. That racial sensitivity was the ONLY qualification even mentioned in the goddamn commercial shows just how fucked up the priorities of this state have become. You'll be misdiagnosed and murdered by medical incompetence, but at least the racial makeup of the hospital staff is equivalent to the ethnic proportions of the state population. FUCK YEAH! That's worth dying over.
Along the lines of that point,
Civil rights groups have blamed Proposition 209, which voters passed in 1996 to outlaw affirmative action, and a 2005 federal court decision for a long decline in transportation contracts to minority and woman-owned businesses.One cannot with any moral authority blame Proposition 209 for this decline, one can only blame the minority and woman-owned businesses themselves for failing when forced to compete on a level playing field.
Here's the supposedly awful change that Proposition 209 made:
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.Oh my god! Treating people FAIRLY is being blamed for a decline? That's simply inane.
According to some stupid, downright evil, twat named Monique Morris:
"This is significant, because it demonstrates that in this diverse state, there is not equal opportunity" that was promised by the promoters of Prop. 209. "There is a need to address whether Prop. 209 was a mistake or a failure in providing equal opportunity."No, you vile scumfuck, it's complete bullshit to claim there is not equal opportunity. The opportunity is there, and finally equal. It's time for minority and women-owned businesses to step up to the plate. Don't blame the state, or that white dude over there surfing. In no way should "equal opportunity" mean "proportionately awarded based on skin-color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or how many eyeballs you have." It means there should be no bias in the process of awarding contracts based on these factors. There is absolutely no way in hell "Prop. 209 was a mistake or a failure in providing equal opportunity," because by its very wording and application, except where it is superseded by other racially biased laws that take precedent, it ends the legalization of unequal opportunity.
What people seem to mean when they say "equal opportunity," is not "opportunity" at all, but equal or proportionate RESULTS. And in no way should the state, or anyone else, be held accountable if people fail to take advantage of opportunity. And that's not the same thing at all.