Racism? Really?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:why does everything have to be about Bush? obsessed much? guy is retired in Texas, give it up bro.

Let's see. You are interested in whether the Obama's got special entrance preferences. You are not interested in whether Bush got special entrance preferences. Humm, I wonder what is different between Bush and the Obamas? Thinking....

[Anonymous]

yep, one is the president now and one is not. not too hard to understand ...

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the only race issue I'm interested in regarding Obama is whether or not he benefited from affirmative action ... love to see his SATs, LSATs and grades from college and law school. From Michelle as well. If he was accepted b/c of AA, it would further the national debate on the topic, and if his SATs were 1590 and his LSATs were 98th percentile, many skeptics would truly see him as a brilliant intellect.

President Obama graduated from Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude, meaning he was in the top 10%. Michelle Obama graduated Cum Laude from Princeton. Even in grade school she attended gifted classes. But, frankly, I don't know why anyone who has been paying attention to these two would need this information to understand that both are extremely smart.

A clear recipient of university entrance preferences was George W. Bush who gained entry to Yale on the basis of his legacy status. He then proceeded to achieve a "C" average. Not surprisingly, his worst class was economics.

I don't know whether the Obamas were beneficiaries of affirmative action. Regardless, their performances show that they deserved the opportunities. If they did receive special preferences, they were no different than the previous president.

I agree both are smart; though I thought President Obama had a lackluster college career until mentored by a Prof who pointed him to Columbia. Then at Harvard that is great if he graduated Magna Cum Laude. As to the law review, was he not the first elected editor (meaning it was not based on anything he had published or grade point, or whatever the criteria for editors past?). What is most interesting to me about that is not that he is not 'smart', but this President has been running for some kind of office for just about forever!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the only race issue I'm interested in regarding Obama is whether or not he benefited from affirmative action ... love to see his SATs, LSATs and grades from college and law school. From Michelle as well. If he was accepted b/c of AA, it would further the national debate on the topic, and if his SATs were 1590 and his LSATs were 98th percentile, many skeptics would truly see him as a brilliant intellect.

President Obama graduated from Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude, meaning he was in the top 10%. Michelle Obama graduated Cum Laude from Princeton. Even in grade school she attended gifted classes. But, frankly, I don't know why anyone who has been paying attention to these two would need this information to understand that both are extremely smart.

A clear recipient of university entrance preferences was George W. Bush who gained entry to Yale on the basis of his legacy status. He then proceeded to achieve a "C" average. Not surprisingly, his worst class was economics.

I don't know whether the Obamas were beneficiaries of affirmative action. Regardless, their performances show that they deserved the opportunities. If they did receive special preferences, they were no different than the previous president.

I agree both are smart; though I thought President Obama had a lackluster college career until mentored by a Prof who pointed him to Columbia. Then at Harvard that is great if he graduated Magna Cum Laude. As to the law review, was he not the first elected editor (meaning it was not based on anything he had published or grade point, or whatever the criteria for editors past?). What is most interesting to me about that is not that he is not 'smart', but this President has been running for some kind of office for just about forever!

WTH? You are in your own spin zone. No one is the editor of the Harvard Law Review unless they are very smart. Who feeds you this stuff that you aren't sure if he graduated Magna Cum Laude but you are sure that there is some flaw in how he became editor of the Harvard Law Review? Surely you can see that your information sources are not being well-rounded in their assessments.

Well, for what it's worth, he was both an editor and President during his time there. Editor is based on grades and writing. President is elected by the editors. So he was both popular and accomplished.

Sorry, when it comes to any job, smart is interesting. And you should question your news sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and Democrats 'boo-ed' President Bush during the State of the Union. Even my grammar school students know that's wrong. Yes, disgraceful. We don't want to be like....England. We should have decorum. But racist? That sounds like a mass hallucination if ever I heard one,

The first Precedent I can find for booing and hissing is 1993 - When Republicans did it to Clinton:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PAUL BEGALA (CNN host): Let me correct your history -- 1993, I was with President Bill Clinton in that House chamber when he addressed a joint session of Congress. And Republicans heckled him when he cited Congressional Budget Office statistics about the deficit. [CNN, Crossfire, 2/3/05]

JOHN GIBSON (FOX News host): Maryanne Marsh, what did you think of those audible jeers, boos, for the president? It sounded a little like the House of Commons: that grumbling that comes from the back-benchers when they don't like something [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair said. That isn't very common for state of the union speeches, is it?

MARYANNE MARSH (Democratic strategist): I don't ever remember hearing it, and was very surprised. But I have to say at least the good news is the Democrats are fighting and they're on offense. And they're more united than they've ever been against George Bush and the Republicans. [FOX News, The Big Story with John Gibson, 2/3/05]

In addition to the 1993 State of the Union, during which, as Begala pointed out, Republicans heckled Clinton, they also voiced their disapproval in three other Clinton State of the Union addresses, which were presumably attended by then-members of Congress Scarborough and Barr:

"Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare to allow Americans as young as 55 to buy into the system drew shouts of "no" and some boos from Republicans during his speech." [Chicago Tribune, 1/28/98]

"Only once did they unmistakably and collectively show their disapproval -- when Clinton spoke disparagingly of a GOP-sponsored constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many Republicans hissed and some booed." [Los Angeles Times, 2/5/97]

[Anonymous]

I see a major difference between the boos and "You lie." The boos may be raucous. but the meaning is "We disagree." That is a different, and much more acceptable message! Of course, if Wilson had yelled out "I disagree". it would have been even weirder than "You lie." The reasonable message just does not fit the extreme medium of the lone shout.

Even on this list, it seems to me, "I disagree" is standard debate, while "You're lying" is personal.

[Anonymous]

13:09 -- very articulate and nuanced discussion of the problem! Thanks for adding that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the only race issue I'm interested in regarding Obama is whether or not he benefited from affirmative action ... love to see his SATs, LSATs and grades from college and law school. From Michelle as well. If he was accepted b/c of AA, it would further the national debate on the topic, and if his SATs were 1590 and his LSATs were 98th percentile, many skeptics would truly see him as a brilliant intellect.

Deal. As long as we get to see what kind of "affirmative action" John McCain got at the Naval Academy, given that he was a bit of a screw up (at the time -- he grew up later) coming in from a prominent Navy family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree both are smart; though I thought President Obama had a lackluster college career until mentored by a Prof who pointed him to Columbia. Then at Harvard that is great if he graduated Magna Cum Laude. As to the law review, was he not the first elected editor (meaning it was not based on anything he had published or grade point, or whatever the criteria for editors past?). What is most interesting to me about that is not that he is not 'smart', but this President has been running for some kind of office for just about forever!

Wow, a politician who continually runs for something. What a wonder to behold. Never heard of that before!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public option is not going to be run by the government?

The public option, if there even is one (and that is far from certain), will be government-administered health insurance. The actual health care will be provided by non-governmental providers.

That is scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the only race issue I'm interested in regarding Obama is whether or not he benefited from affirmative action ... love to see his SATs, LSATs and grades from college and law school. From Michelle as well. If he was accepted b/c of AA, it would further the national debate on the topic, and if his SATs were 1590 and his LSATs were 98th percentile, many skeptics would truly see him as a brilliant intellect.

I have had some weird experiences with this. Years ago, for fertility reasons, I was looking for a sperm donor. I wanted someone as intelligent as my husband, who scored 1540 on his SATs (without studying). We needed a white male, but to make a long story short I picked donors who went to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT. When we got the actual SAT scores of the donors, they were all LOW. None had a score above 1400. I was shocked. So much for this reverse discrimination. There are TONS of white men who go to these schools who do not do well on their SATs. Something to think about.

Yes, this is a very basic story, I am leaving out detail. PLease do not flame me about caring about SAT scores and so on.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public option is not going to be run by the government?

The public option, if there even is one (and that is far from certain), will be government-administered health insurance. The actual health care will be provided by non-governmental providers.

That is scary.

What is scary?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public option is not going to be run by the government?

The public option, if there even is one (and that is far from certain), will be government-administered health insurance. The actual health care will be provided by non-governmental providers.

That is scary.

What is scary?

Uh-oh, my doctor is a non-governmental provider. Should I be worried?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public option is not going to be run by the government?

The public option, if there even is one (and that is far from certain), will be government-administered health insurance. The actual health care will be provided by non-governmental providers.

That is scary.

What is scary?

The middle man who gets rich from government contracts.

[Anonymous]

Uhhh, what middle man? The health insurance entity, whether government run or not, pays the medical provider. Where is this mythical middle man?