Colleges are now accepting less qualified males ahead of females in order to maintain what they believe is an equitable female/male balance.  Ever since women made the push for equal treatment at colleges female enrollment has increased to the point where they make up the majority of college campuses.  The acceptance of females is based on qualifications, not on gender, but at the same time males in competition with females have fallen short acamdemically, and now colleges are giving points to make sure diversity doesn't suffer.  Although this has been the case for some time challenges to male diversity haven't been challenged. 

This is the fault of women for being smarter and working harder.  I mean, can't the rest of you give us dumb caucasion males a break once in a while?  We want our own department!  I'm gonna major in "Breaking stuff and Hurting people."
:D

Okay...it might help if the menz worked a little harder instead of killing their brain cells on drugs and booze :P

Well, maybe by now, we'll finally realize that merit means more than diversity.

It's so ridiculous that we give advantages to people just because they are of a certain race or gender.  The only thing Affirmative Action should cover is helping the poor regardless of race or gender.

They didn't mention what  quota they have set for the males, or if the males in question have misgivings about taking the spot of a more qualified female.  I would guess that the thought had never even crossed their minds that they were thereunder an affirmative action plan.  Oh, the colleges do not like to label it that way.  What could we label this in doublespeak?

They should give people who have autism at least some money.

I'm getting jack! >:(

They should give people who have autism at least some money.

I'm getting jack! >:(


My son has autism.  He is 16, when he is 18 he will be getting about 700 a month if he is lucky.  What do you get, if you don't mind my asking.  You can send me a message if you don't want to put it on the forum, but I would appreciate any info.

Helping people out who have disorders and such is a good thing, but why just hand out money to people?  Wouldn't it be more productive to give these people things like free training for a trade or a discount on healthcare?  Things like tax rebates and handouts are rather pointless IMHO.

Helping people out who have disorders and such is a good thing, but why just hand out money to people?  Wouldn't it be more productive to give these people things like free training for a trade or a discount on healthcare?  Things like tax rebates and handouts are rather pointless IMHO.


It all depends on the level of the disability.  Lets face it, when in a capitalistic society in order to survive you must have capital.  Those who don't are vulnerable, and those without the wherewithal to get it are extremely vulnerable. Compassion only goes so far when you can't fend for yourself. Discounts are fine, but you must have something to discount from.  Training for a trade is fine as long as the person has the ability to train, and there are places to work that employ in those trades.

Helping people out who have disorders and such is a good thing, but why just hand out money to people?  Wouldn't it be more productive to give these people things like free training for a trade or a discount on healthcare?  Things like tax rebates and handouts are rather pointless IMHO.


States do provide healthcare to the disabled, though often it's insubstantial.  As Danoota said, it depeds on the level of disability.  Some people are too physically, cognitively and/or psychiatrically incapacitated to work.  Again, there are various vocational programs for people with mental or physical challenges, but usually these jobs don't pay enough for the person to earn a living and even so, a most will require some level of ADL assistance. 

BTW, sometimes a tax rebate is a fine thing, but the one the Bushies are promoting ticks me off.  It's like burning my house down and then offering me a free set of curtains!  The Repugs also nixed the extension of unemployment benfits in the bill.  Very compassionate!
::)

It all depends on the level of the disability.  Lets face it, when in a capitalistic society in order to survive you must have capital.  Those who don't are vulnerable, and those without the wherewithal to get it are extremely vulnerable. Compassion only goes so far when you can't fend for yourself. Discounts are fine, but you must have something to discount from.  Training for a trade is fine as long as the person has the ability to train, and there are places to work that employ in those trades.


Agreed, but I think we can also agree that many people choose to receive help without helping themselves.  There are many able-bodied people who choose to live off of aid rather than try to educate themselves more for a job.

When it comes to the people who truly must live off of the system because of their disabilities, then I totally understand why aid is necessary.

Agreed, but I think we can also agree that many people choose to receive help without helping themselves.  There are many able-bodied people who choose to live off of aid rather than try to educate themselves more for a job.

When it comes to the people who truly must live off of the system because of their disabilities, then I totally understand why aid is necessary.


Yes, but what Mr. Cleveland and I are pointing out are people for whom there isn't any doubt that long term assistance is needed.  Too often the argument is side-stepped by pointing to people who are abusing the assistance.  The biggest abusers of disability are police and firefighters.  Isn't that a sad, but not unexpected commentary. 

Yes, but what Mr. Cleveland and I are pointing out are people for whom there isn't any doubt that long term assistance is needed.  Too often the argument is side-stepped by pointing to people who are abusing the assistance.  The biggest abusers of disability are police and firefighters.  Isn't that a sad, but not unexpected commentary. 


I'm not sure where you get your figures from on that one, but at least we can agree that some people truly need help and should receive it.  I think we just differ in how much abuse (and what kinds) we're willing to put up with.

I'm not sure where you get your figures from on that one, but at least we can agree that some people truly need help and should receive it.  I think we just differ in how much abuse (and what kinds) we're willing to put up with.


I used to work for the State. Here's a hot tip, never give to charities sponsored by police or firefighters. They are the biggest abusers of charitable donations.

I used to work for the State. Here's a hot tip, never give to charities sponsored by police or firefighters. They are the biggest abusers of charitable donations.

Police and firefighters?  Tell me more, I'm intrigued.  A lot of us find hard to say no to police and firefighters, especially firefighters. 
???

Police and firefighters?  Tell me more, I'm intrigued.  A lot of us find hard to say no to police and firefighter, especially firefighters. 
???


I did a stint at the Division of Public Charities, they do their best to keep charities in line, but it is a struggle.  Police and Firefighter fundraisers are well known for having the lowest actual moneys donated to whatever cause. The important word is "proceeds".  Charities will say that all 'proceeds" will go to charity, but that is after costs associated with the fund raiser are paid, and that can include food, drink, venues, and the magic word is very ofter "consultants" which can mean anyone for any amount.  The "proceeds" from police and firefighter "fundraisers" tend to be close to negative. When you get a phone call from a "police officer" asking for "donations" and they will come and pick it up, it is usually a retired officer, or one on disablility who may or may not show up in uniform, how nice, and is getting paid for doing it(consultant).  The worst are the ones like after 9/11 asking donations for the fallen or sick firefighters families.  This may be insensitive, but the package given to the family of a fallen officer or firefighter would astound many who struggle with the loss or disability of a breadwinner.  The families in this case receive the firefighters full salary free of state and local taxes and free health and dental insurance.  They are in many cases given free tuition to state colleges, and priority on hiring in the respective departments. I would say that 99.9% of the money donated for families of fallen firefighters ends up paying for the parties, and in the pockets of the "consultants"  Sad but true.

I did a stint at the Division of Public Charities, they do their best to keep charities in line, but it is a struggle.  Police and Firefighter fundraisers are well known for having the lowest actual moneys donated to whatever cause. The important word is "proceeds".  Charities will say that all 'proceeds" will go to charity, but that is after costs associated with the fund raiser are paid, and that can include food, drink, venues, and the magic word is very ofter "consultants" which can mean anyone for any amount.  The "proceeds" from police and firefighter "fundraisers" tend to be close to negative. When you get a phone call from a "police officer" asking for "donations" and they will come and pick it up, it is usually a retired officer, or one on disablility who may or may not show up in uniform, how nice, and is getting paid for doing it(consultant).  The worst are the ones like after 9/11 asking donations for the fallen or sick firefighters families.  This may be insensitive, but the package given to the family of a fallen officer or firefighter would astound many who struggle with the loss or disability of a breadwinner.  The families in this case receive the firefighters full salary free of state and local taxes and free health and dental insurance.  They are in many cases given free tuition to state colleges, and priority on hiring in the respective departments. I would say that 99.9% of the money donated for families of fallen firefighters ends up paying for the parties, and in the pockets of the "consultants"  Sad but true.

Reminds me of that woman who claimed she had ovarian cancer (I think that's what it was) and collected a couple of hundred grand to pay for her treatment 'cos she didn't have any insurance!  Of course, she got busted and sent up for fraud!
::)