I support Dr. Ron Paul for president. The main reason I support him is that he is one of the very few politicians in our country who uses reason and logic to make decisions. His ideas closely resemble the ideas of many of our founding fathers. He believes the basic rulebook of our country, the Constitution, should be regarded and respected as the important document it is.
A few months ago people could have argued that Dr. Paul had no chance at winning and people often made this claim and touted it as fact. At this time it would be very difficult to argue that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican primaries. Paul's support is increasing greatly. His campaign funding is growing immensely and the grassroots efforts of his supporters are never ending.
December 16 is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Many supporters of Ron Paul have decided to celebrate this date by donating money to Paul's campaign. The "tea party" officially began at 12:00am EST. I expect the campaign to have broken their fourth quarter goal of $12 million dollars by 2:00am EST. I wish Paul's campaign the best of luck on this day.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Speech Regarding Affirmative Action
I recently attended a forum at UCLA regarding affirmative action. The three speakers present included Ward Connerly (founder and Chairman of ACRI), Richard Sander (faculty member of UCLA School of Law), and Peter Schwartz (former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute). The forum was mostly a discussion against affirmative action as it currently stands.
All three speakers argued in favor of California proposition 209, which banned state-sponsored discrimination based on race. Sander used statistics and findings from personal research to demonstrate that affirmative action is counter-productive in the battle against racism. He also argued that a comprehensive review of the affects of proposition 209 needs to be performed.
Connerly argued against the case Grutter v. Bollinger which allows universities to favor under represented groups in order to ensure diversity. Connerly argued that if this policy was enforced at UCLA then Asians could potentially be discriminated against due to their large over representation here.
Sander's arguments were very well formed, but I disagreed strongly with Sander's view that the wealthy kids could be discriminated against as a form of socio-economic justice. I respect Sander for the research he has done and for his immense patience during the brutal question and answer session at the end of the speech, but I think he is wrong in assuming that discrimination against anyone wealthy is justified.
Schwartz had the most capitalistic arguments of the night. Some of his statements were also somewhat accusatory towards audience members and people who support affirmative action. Although Schwartz expressed his views in a somewhat extreme fashion, I agreed with his views more than the other two speakers present. Schwartz brought up many points that the other two candidates did not. The most important point Schwartz brought up was in response to a question about how to solve the root of this problem of classism and racism. Schwartz's response was a simple one: give children a better education and ensure everyone has the education they deserve. I have argued this solution to the problem of racist and classist discrimination before.
The thing that surprised my the most about this speech was the demeanor of the protesters present. I honestly was not very surprised by the large number of protesters because so much controversy surrounds this issue. The protesters that spoke up, there were many that did, used circular logic or attacked the speakers with very outlandish accusations. Little respect was shown for the speakers while the speakers seemed to have nothing but good intentions.
All three speakers argued in favor of California proposition 209, which banned state-sponsored discrimination based on race. Sander used statistics and findings from personal research to demonstrate that affirmative action is counter-productive in the battle against racism. He also argued that a comprehensive review of the affects of proposition 209 needs to be performed.
Connerly argued against the case Grutter v. Bollinger which allows universities to favor under represented groups in order to ensure diversity. Connerly argued that if this policy was enforced at UCLA then Asians could potentially be discriminated against due to their large over representation here.
Sander's arguments were very well formed, but I disagreed strongly with Sander's view that the wealthy kids could be discriminated against as a form of socio-economic justice. I respect Sander for the research he has done and for his immense patience during the brutal question and answer session at the end of the speech, but I think he is wrong in assuming that discrimination against anyone wealthy is justified.
Schwartz had the most capitalistic arguments of the night. Some of his statements were also somewhat accusatory towards audience members and people who support affirmative action. Although Schwartz expressed his views in a somewhat extreme fashion, I agreed with his views more than the other two speakers present. Schwartz brought up many points that the other two candidates did not. The most important point Schwartz brought up was in response to a question about how to solve the root of this problem of classism and racism. Schwartz's response was a simple one: give children a better education and ensure everyone has the education they deserve. I have argued this solution to the problem of racist and classist discrimination before.
The thing that surprised my the most about this speech was the demeanor of the protesters present. I honestly was not very surprised by the large number of protesters because so much controversy surrounds this issue. The protesters that spoke up, there were many that did, used circular logic or attacked the speakers with very outlandish accusations. Little respect was shown for the speakers while the speakers seemed to have nothing but good intentions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
