Slashdot Mirror


Algorithm Names Powell 'Ideal' Vice President Candidate

CWmike writes "Turns out the ideal vice presidential candidate for Sen. John McCain is the same person as the ideal vice presidential candidate for Sen. Barack Obama, according to a sophisticated online survey based on technology developed at MIT. Mr. Ideal? Colin Powell, a former U.S. Army general and former secretary of state. Affinnova's survey methods doesn't use the typical polling method of asking respondents to pick a name from a list. Instead, it gives respondents larger concepts, including photos, biographical information and possible first-term priorities. Affinnova calls this algorithm 'evolutionary optimization.' Steve Lamoureaux, the company's chief innovation officer, said of the VP finding: 'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'"

34 of 543 comments (clear)

  1. Meet the new boss... by sohp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. same as the old boss.

    'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'

    What? The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are all the same? That unpossible!

    1. Re:Meet the new boss... by pclminion · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you're missing the point, which is that Powell in some sense falls into both parties and this is WHAT makes him (at least according to this) such a good candidate. I've done my own data mining studies on the US Senate, and the computer was able to easily divide the Senate into two camps. Uninterestingly, it placed almost all the Democrats into one camp, and all the Republicans into the other. So even a stupid computer can tell the difference.

      You're taking the one guy who bucks tradition and using it as an example for why the parties are indistinguishable. You have it completely backwards.

      (And by the way, the only Senator my data mining system got "wrong" was Hillary Clinton -- she ended up placed with the Republicans.)

    2. Re:Meet the new boss... by Fozzyuw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      thus it's not particulary suprising that they are very similar in certain policy.

      more appropriately, I think it should be said that they "at least claim to be" very similar in policy.

      As you said, "the more things change...". What's the last time any politician full-filled campaign promises, besides GWB, who's pretty much said he isn't pulling out of Iraq? As some of my friends, who never waste a chance to fire a few shots off, said: "The one thing about Bush, he'll been honest. He said he's screw up this country and he did!" *badda bing*

      McCain's changing his stance as fast as Obama. There's more than enough sound clips out there of the two directly contradicting themselves in the hopes to obfuscate and confuse votes to make them believe they're on the right side. That's just par for the course. Has anything changed with the Democrat controlled congress? Nope, more Pork Barrel Ear Marked spending on pet projects and no balls to actually live up to their "out of Iraq" promises.

      The only real record one has is the voting record, which Obama doesn't have as much history of as McCain.

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    3. Re:Meet the new boss... by Krater76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has anything changed with the Democrat controlled congress? Nope, more Pork Barrel Ear Marked spending on pet projects and no balls to actually live up to their "out of Iraq" promises.

      Oh yes, let's blame the Democrats. They are in a situation which is unwinnable. They have tried to pass many times an Iraq timetable but it doesn't get past the senate because it doesn't have any Republican support and/or Bush will veto it anyways. Without overwhelming support in the house and senate it can't survive the veto. And that's not going to happen because the White House is playing partisan politics because Bush can't stand to lose.

      Also, the Democrats have to vote for more war spending because if they don't they are sacrificing our military, and that doesn't go over well with any voter, whether you're blue state or red state.

      Giving Bush his war will hopefully weigh on many of our elected officials for the rest of their lives. They are all guilty of being fed false information and not taking the time to question it. As one of the few who voted against it, Obama is literally the only sane choice for president. That is, unless you would like to have a war with Iran as well?

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    4. Re:Meet the new boss... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh yes, let's blame the Democrats. They are in a situation which is unwinnable.

      I'm really tired of that argument. The Republicans rammed their agenda down the Democrats' throats when the Republicans had a small majority. Given how hated the Republican Party is right now, the Democrats could easily crush Republican resistance if they did pulled all the parliamentary dirty tricks that the Republicans were famous for, if the Democrats did their PR right and IF THEY HAD THE COURAGE, but they keep rolling over EVERY G*D*MN time the neo-con attack machine barks.

      The Democrats are completely in charge of setting the Congressional agenda. They don't have to propose anything they don't want to, and there's nothing the Republicans can do about that. They could shut Republicans out of making any sort of legislation at all, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. The Democrats could refuse to allocate any money at all for Republican pet projects, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. They can make the Republicans do song-and-dance routines on the Senate floor to keep a filibuster going, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. The Democrats could do public investigations on all of the most-corrupt neo-con leader finances, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about it. But the Democrats KEEP ROLLING OVER.

      The Democratic leadership MOST DEFINITELY bears a huge responsibility for continuing the status quo, as does people like you who keep making excuses for them.

      Also, the Democrats have to vote for more war spending because if they don't they are sacrificing our military, and that doesn't go over well with any voter, whether you're blue state or red state.

      You do remember how the Vietnam War was ended, right? Congress refused to allocate any more funding for it - and suddenly, it was over.

      We can either end it now, bring everyone home, and try to use what resources we have left to lick our wounds & repair our crumbling infrastructure, or we can wait until we have NO RESOURCES left, and then they'll have to come home anyway, back to a collapsing economy where it's hard to find a job, and we're hated by the world even more then we are now - especially if we attack Iran!

      The _only_ reason Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld haven't been perp-walked by now is because the Democratic leadership doesn't have the courage to do what is necessary to crush the neo-con leadership & restore the Rule of Law to this country.

  2. Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices imo by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Powell strikes me as a vastly better civil servant than politician. But if Obama wins, he should definitely ask Powell to be Sec Def or Sec State. Hell, same with McCain for that matter. He was a good Sec. of State in an administration that didn't give two shits about him or his opinions, imagine what he could do if the President actually tried to make use of his experience and expertise.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  3. An alternative they didn't seem to face by Tanman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is that their algorithm is severly flawed.

    For example, most people - dem or rep - want responsible spending, national security, etc. Where the difference lies is in the road to take to get to that point. Any survey that says one of the primary party leaders would be the same person for either party is obviously in error.

    1. Re:An alternative they didn't seem to face by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any survey that says one of the primary party leaders would be the same person for either party is obviously in error.

      Why? It reminds me of an example from a class I took once. Imagine you have a beach with two ice cream salesmen, for the exercise assume the customers are uniformly distributed, price is equal and they have no preference or loyalty. Now the theoretically optimal is obviously that they set up at 1/4 and 3/4, each getting half the beach and the customers walk as little as possible. But then, one of the ice cream salesmen decides to stand a little closer to the center, catching more than half. The other moves closer to compensate and so it goes. Eventually they'll stand right next to each other on the middle of the beach. With both fighting for the customers in the center, they'll become more and more equal until there's basicly no difference at all.

      Try mapping it directly over to politics, with the customers as the voters and reps/dems as the icecream salesmen and the distance to the ice cream salesmen as the political distance. Everyone's fighting over the independent voters so both focus on what they want. I think what happened here is that you showed they're so close, if one is a little better at buzzword bingo it could "win" both sides. I think he should run for both parties, would be funny... Obama/Powell vs McCain/Powell, maybe it'd clue people in on how little choice they really have.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. Algo source code by LotsOfPhil · · Score: 4, Funny
    It isn't that surprising of a result if you know Java.

    ...
    public static String pickIdealVP(Party party)
    {
    String s = "Colin Powell";
    return s;
    }
    ...

    --
    This post climbed Mt. Washington.
  5. Flawed candidate by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Colin Powell was the face of the deception campaign the Bush administration orchestrated. He was the one who went to the United Nations, and made a whole bunch of claims that turned out to be false. He's damaged goods. Why on earth would someone suggest he'd be a good candidate in a year when the electorate is itching to repudiate everything about this war?

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  6. Empty Slate is liked by all! by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shock and Amaze! A politician who has made almost no memorable positions known on any domestic policy beyond truism of cooperation is liked by everybody!

    Of course he's a top pick by everybody--he's like Opera-- nobody knows what his actual beliefs and agenda is, therefore nobody disagrees with him. If Colin Powell were so audacious as to actually make his position known on a politically hot subject he would suddenly see his popularity plummet.

    This is America. If you agree with me you're a good guy. If you don't, you're a muslim terrorist. The only way to be liked by everybody is to say nothing of consequence.

  7. mmmkay by Bearpaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yup, what the US really needs is a VP who has shown that he's willing to help out his boss by publicly giving excruciatingly bad "intelligence" to the United Nations.

    1. Re:mmmkay by Speare · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've said it before, but it didn't seem like ANYONE reported on the timing of Colin Powell's shift to supporting the war. He was steadfastly the only administration dove, until the week that he gave very off-party-line comments defending affirmative action admissions policies in universities. It was like he was given a bone, allowed to speak his mind on university admissions, in exchange for future devotion to the hawk position on Iraq. I could just imagine the "come to Jesus meeting" that must have happened in 2003. That very week, I lost all respect for the man.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  8. Re:Makes sense... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many voted for JFK?
    Or Elvis Aaron Presley?
    Or Santa Claus?
    Or Dart Vader?
    Or SpongeBob?

    The better question is, how many of those would do a better job...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. Who does age matter to? by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I keep hearing "McCain is too old" and then read other age-relative statements about VP selection and wonder who age really matters to. Yes, at the extreme, I worry about the ages of the candidates but only to the extent that it is extreme and has other impacts (eg, health or lack of experience).

    But are there people out there who are like "Gee, he's too old" even when the candidate's age has no bona fide health impact? Do the same people think "Gee, he's too young" about someone younger? Obviously there's no health issue, but experience could matter a lot.

    I don't think of age outside of physical health, but I worry from the way the media portrays McCain's age that we're falling a little victim to the cult of youth.

     

    1. Re:Who does age matter to? by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As people age they're more likely to suffer health problems. Older people are significantly more likely to die or become incapacitated due to health. There's a certain amount of unrest with people at the idea of the president becoming incapacitated.

      But what's this "cult of youth" and where can I join one? Does the YMCA host a local chapter?

    2. Re:Who does age matter to? by treeves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wheelchair-using != incapacitated. And get some cough drops.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    3. Re:Who does age matter to? by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Drive behind a 72 year old for awhile and see if you think you want them at the wheel of the country.

      I'm sorry if that's harsh. We certainly do a lousy job honoring our senior citizens in this country. They should be much more respected and valued for what they've been through and what they have to offer. But they should also be less entitled than they are. Bad reflexes, an often fuzzy mind, a full pharmacy in their cupboard w/ all the side effects of that. And often a set of values that doesn't reasonably translate to the world of today. We could certainly find better ways to value and honor our most senior population, like making them an important part of the community, spending more time with them, not sticking them away in a home, etc. Blindly handing them the keys to cars or the White House, regardless of age, isn't respect, it's irresponsible appeasement.

      If they want those things it's only sensible that they regularly pass the same tests a 30 year-old would have to pass for the same privileges. Being old doesn't give you the right to be dangerous. Proving your driving ability every 5 years starting at 65 or 70 is not the least bit unreasonable.

      How about a 200 question *timed* multiple-choice test at a surprise time like 4am for eligibility for public office?
      However it's done, testing a candidate's mental capacity and stamina would be quite helpful. The last 8 years would have been completely different.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    4. Re:Who does age matter to? by mysticgoat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Alot of people in McCains age group are racist, religious, sexist, homophobic and hold hatred toward countries for things that occured 70years ago.

      Interesting. Yet parent post offers no evidence, citations, or examples to back up this assertion. It is a value judgment placed upon a societal segment without being encumbered beforehand by any facts.

      Can you say "prejudice"?

      Very good!

      Now, can you say "ageist"??

      BTW, I will be voting for Obama. In one of those weird ironic twists, I think Obama has a better handle on how to fix this country's age prejudice than McCain does, even though Obama hasn't been on the carousel for anywhere near as many go-rounds.

    5. Re:Who does age matter to? by Chibi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not immensely knowledgeable about politics, but a lot of people feel that the US government has pretty much become a 2-party competition, and elected officials generally follow party lines. So, depending on the context of the comment, it could either be a compliment or an insult.

      As a compliment, you can think of him as someone who thinks outside of the normal party lines. I believe McCain has co-sponsored bills with Democratic members of Congress. While this would seem to be common sense (being able to compromise with others), not everyone views that way. Some look at his as being disloyal or maybe not tough enough.

      McCain has been called "not conservative enough" by some, and that was meant as an insult. They worry that he won't push the traditionally Republican viewpoints (opposition to abortion, for example).

      It probably doesn't need to be pointed out, but US politics is in poor shape. It's not the fault of either party, but a collective failure. I'm not sure exactly when, but it almost feels like the venom in government got considerably stronger during Bill Clinton's presidency. I'm not saying its his fault, but if you look at Clinton, then George W. Bush, and now this round of campaigning, it seems like politics has just become petty and people are focusing on the smallest, silly things. I'm not necessarily an Obama support, but there were some press trying to question his patriotism because he wasn't wearing a US flag pin. Just silly.

      As for effective government, don't make me laugh. The bureaucracy is just ridiculous. Most people in government (both elected official and civil servants) aren't interested in making a difference. They just want the status quo and to continue living off tax revenue.

      Sorry for an unfocused and slightly rambling comment. I spent a couple of years working in government, and it was just very depressing to see how low the bar was set.

      --
      If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
  10. Re:Makes sense... by pluther · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Call me an elitist jerk all you want, but I think you should have to be a property owner to vote. Not physical property, but some kind of net worth. I don't even pretend to be able to create such a system, but you should have something invested in the government before you are able to decide what is best for "everyone".

    Including what is "best" for non-property-owners?

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  11. Re:Seriously? by trolltalk.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As VP Colin would be in a much better position to be heard than in his previous positions where he was basically told to make things look good, which he did well enough, IMHO.

    Not to the rest of the world, he didn't. Everyone outside the US knew his presentation in the UN was a sham for the US public, and not for the world, since the rest of the world got to see the TV reports (funny how the US stations didn't carry them, hmmm ...) debunking his "findings" before he even presented them.

    More like "Semi-Colin Powell" or "Up Your Colin Powell", since he's at best, a half-measure, and at worse, helped give everyone the shaft by presenting known lies as truth.

  12. nice theory, but for one small detail by spirit_fingers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a good example of why even the best algorithms are poor predictors of human behavior. Powell probably IS one of the best, if not THE best, choices for McCain's VP. If only the world could fit neatly into the parameters considered by the algorithm. It's just not going to happen. Powell is on record saying that his wife has vetoed him being on a Presidential ticket. Period. She has personal issues around it and it's simply not in the cards. End of story. And end-of-line for El Algorithmo.

  13. The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? by Forge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not only am I playing the Race Card. I'm dealing it from the bottom of the deck :).

    At the end of Gulf Wars episode one, a lot of Americans were suggesting Colin Powell for president. Then I went online and checked around. Turns out that most of them did not even know he was black.

    I don't know what is going the rounds in America but where I live (a Caribbean country where over 90% of the population is at least part black). The popular fear is that if Elected Obama won't survive to inaugeration.

    Giving him a black VP would mean bumping him off would still leave America with a Black President.

    That calculation of course would just ruin the plans of whichever secret organization conspiracy nuts like this week.

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    1. Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But I, nor any white man I know, is racist.

      Well, congratulations on yourself, but how do you know nobody you know is racist? You're white, so they aren't going to be racist against you. And if they know you consider yourself to proudly be non-racist, why would they reveal that to you? Or, maybe, you just don't know the right subset of the population, don't live in the right areas. Is where you live mono-cultural? As in nobody says anything bad about blacks because there aren't any around to bother them? Do you live in a truly integrated neighborhood/city? It seems like it's mostly in the conflict areas, white-dominated areas facing a minority 'incursion', where this happens...

      Cus I've certainly met some of them. I've had people openly express their racism to me, under the assumption that I'd be sympathetic as another white man (which I mostly am). I've heard people openly slander blacks in their earshot, even store owners talking trash while black customers are in their store. From Chicago to New York to Texas, I've heard some vile, vile racism.

      I can't say this nicely, I assure you I mean nothing personal, but it seems to me the only ones who say there is no anti-black racism in America are simply sheltered from it.

      Not that this is ultimately a bad thing... I believe racism is learned, and the more people are simply not exposed to it, and grow up wondering how or why anyone could be racist, the better the next generation will be.

      White Americans are, by and large, afraid of even being thought of as racist.

      That doesn't mean they aren't. It means they're going to be much less likely to be openly racist unless they're safely among their friends. And even then, not always, but those are the worst cases. Your "average" racist is simply going to leave their mouth shut and wield their racism more subtly.

      And given what I've seen and heard, I shudder to think of what would be said and done if there weren't such a huge stigma against it.

      We can see the same thing, more obviously, with homophobia. It's starting to get less and less acceptable to be openly anti-gay, at least in the more progressive parts of society, while absolutely not the case in the less-progressive. But has this actually made all these people unwilling to gay-bash into non-homophobes, or has it just made them reluctant to express their discomfort and disgust? Isn't that the inherent joke of "not that there's anything wrong with that", a superficial statement of tolerance that immediately follows a vehement rejection of the very concept?

      Not that there's anything wrong with that.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  14. Al Gore Rhythm picks optimal vice president by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

    Divination through dancing retired politicians is no way to run a society!

    Watery tarts throwing swords is clearly a superior methodology.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  15. Re:Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices i by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well the fact is that he told his bosses the truth, and they didn't want to hear it. They told him to go speak a pack of lies, and he did. You can feel free to hold that against him, following orders is no excuse and all that. That doesn't change the fact that in the employ of an administration that wanted to listen to his honest opinions, he would be a tremendous asset.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  16. Re:Makes sense... by iMaple · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should I let a illiterate imbecile (snip) vote about my future?

    On similar lines:

    Why should I let a uncouth non-college-graduate vote about my future ?

    If you aren't smart enough to get a PhD, how can you decide what good for the entire country ? We should allow only PhD's to vote.

    The simple answer to that is because its not just your future they are voting for, its their own future too. If you live in city, should the president you elect not have any powers to make any changes in the rural areas ? Why should an urbanite decide a farmers future. etc. etc.

  17. Algorithms... bah! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As parent says, most people are incapable of rational thought, so using a rational approach to predict their behavior is bound to go awry.

    People will say they want the person with the best tax policy, yet vote for the guy with the nicest shoes or looks like a hero. The Governator is only there because he dealt to the bad guys in the movies, not because of anything he's done in Real Life.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  18. Re:Makes sense... by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Call me an elitist jerk all you want, but I think you should have to be a property owner to vote.

    While what you're saying probably comes across as a step (or several) in the wrong direction to many people (it is very politically incorrect after all), I understand where you're coming from. It kind of reminds me of the political system at work in Heinlein's Starship Troopers. From that link:

    ...in the Terran Federation, the rights of a full Citizen (to vote, and hold public office) must be earned through voluntary Federal service. However, the franchise cannot be exercised until after honorable discharge from the Service, which means that active members of the Service cannot vote. Those residents who opt not to perform Federal Service retain the other rights generally associated with a modern democracy (e.g. free speech, assembly, etc.), but cannot vote or hold public office. This structure arose ad hoc after the collapse of the 20th century Western democracies, brought on by both social failures at home and military defeat by the Chinese Hegemony overseas (i.e. looking forward into the late 20th century from the time the novel was written in the late 1950s).


    I don't know how well it would work in our situation, even just considering the difference in scale, but I do find it interesting. I admit I wish we had a system where people who have no idea what the issues are or what candidates (supposedly) claim to support don't vote, but finding and perfecting such a system would be impossible I think. We're doomed to have our future chosen largely based on the candidate that's thrown the most buzzwords around and has the worst^H^H^H^H^Hbest MySpace page.

    (Oh, and has the strongest lobbyists. You want to seriously try and fix the system? Start with getting rid of them.)

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  19. Re:Unlikely by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...Usually a Pres. and Vice-Pres. are in the same general age range..."

    Not entirely true. Look at Bush/Cheney: Dick Cheney, a known Vampyre, is dated to be at least 450 years old, making him nearly 20 generations older than Bush.

    --
    If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  20. Obama & Powell by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you're missing the point, which is that Powell in some sense falls into both parties and this is WHAT makes him (at least according to this) such a good candidate.

    And I think you hit the nail on the head there, but there might ba a deeper insight there.

    Powell has always struck me as an excellent choice for a presidential candidate: He has spent time 'on the inside' in the whitehouse, so he understands the job. He does not aspire to power (or he covers it far better than most), he is intelligent, and he does not seem tied too closely to the idiology of either party. In short, a competent guy who isn't a professional politician.

    Now, if a VP candidate has qualities like this that are desireable to the public at large without a strong tie to the political left or right, they will of course be desireable to both parties. The interesting thing is that qualities that make Powell an good candidate (intelligent, honest, outsider) are the same qualities that Obama seems to posess.

    McCain is a war hero, and a passable senator but I think hes going to get stomped in November. An interesting election would have been if the Republican had put up Powell.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  21. "Not Me!" by anti-human+1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bullshit. Dems deserve blame because they have squandered congressional majorities, and went along with the bullshit (PATRIOT Act for one) the Reps brought to the table. Crying 'Poor us!' then passing totalitarian legislation anyway isn't an excuse from blame, its just being a group of pussies.

  22. Plenty of racism to go around! by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am absolutely sick and tired of this "white America is overtly racist".

    Well, white America is overtly racist. I know you talk about social chastisement for being a racists white but I've never met a white guy that wasn't popular for making a black joke every now and then. You really just need to quit pretending that there is any other case. It's just a fact of life. People that think that a few speeches by Martin Luther King and a couple of segregated schools can change the attitudes of a nation in a generation are utterly stupid. Being racist, in many people's eyes, is that they aren't allowed to call black people n---rs any more, and so, because they don't do that, they don't see themselves as racist...

    except that...

    More white people, if they see a black guy in a Lexus getting pulled over by the cops, will assume that the guy was doing drugs or is some kind of a gangster than a guy with a business or an advanced degree. If alone, they'll cross the street when they see more than one black guy.. if with a bunch of people, they'll sing Sweet Home Alabama and make that black guy go to another block. How is it in America that we have major corporations investing billions of dollars in building up data centers in places from the phillipines to india and you don't as much as even a server placed in an inner city?

    There's plenty of white people too, that say that would prefer a white quarterback to their favorite NFL team. There's more to white America than a few suburban towns. All you have to do is take a drive through the civil war museums and you'll find that Confederate flags and merchandise sells on par with that of the Union. If you go into prisons, you immediately find that whites all band up into neo-nazi gangs, and, if there is a criticism of the right wing these days about religion, it is that christianity, with its message of peace, has been used to pollute the white race.

    In fact, I'd be willing to bet that we'd see confederate flags -everywhere-, should Obama get elected. Like he's seriously going to get a lot of votes in the South.. Come on... where's all the black NASCAR drivers? I see confederate flags more now, than I ever have before. I live in a mixed neighborhood and you have the white side of the street with guys flying the Stars and Bars and on the black side of the street you have a bunch of black guy dressed up like gangstas. People do not talk to each other -at all-, and its no different than it was when blacks and whites were throwing bricks at each other during the race riots of the early 1980s.

    If there's any institution out there that is -not- racist, it is the membership of pro sports teams, and the US military. There's plenty of white soldiers that don't like blacks and plenty of whites that don't like black, but, when a black man saves a white man's life, and vice versa, things like race just don't matter, and, in this present war, there's an aweful lot of that going on.

    This isn't to say that whites are all devils (Farrakhan joke deliberate), or that blacks are angels. It is to say that racism is far from dead in the USA and quite honestly I do not think it will ever be. There will never be a day where we do not have to have some sort of affirmative action in university or even in some workplaces. There will never be a day where we do not have to constantly police ourselves to ensure that people are not being judged on anything different than their ability. Racism isn't like a disease that you cure, its a chronic condition that requires persistent and determined management by the nation, the government, companies and finally the people.

    --
    This is my sig.