There was a time before news was such a money maker that some news agencies had a sense of moral obligation to report what the believed the public needed to know. You are correct, now they give us candy instead of vegetables.
Up in central Washington, they have to feed the overpopulated Elk during the winter, otherwise there would be mass starvation. It is the price we pay for having eliminated most natural predators.
Some hunters do intentionally makes things more difficult, as the challenge is part of the game. Stalking instead of sitting, using bows, using black powder pistols, etc..
But that aside, it seems like a lot less painful death to be shot than dragged down by a wolf pack and slowly chewed on. But assuming we did reintroduce predators in large numbers, you'd end up with huge numbers of them being shot around cattle ranches.
For the record, I don't hunt (used to when I was very young). It turns my stomach now. But I don't really see it as barbaric. Maybe I was just around a different culture of hunters. Many of whom also lived on farms, and so slaughtering an animal for meat was just part of life. And the overpopulated Elk were just a once a year treat to a different meat./shrug
What about passengers? Driving is one thing, as that isn't a right, that is a privilege. Standing on a corner and being approached for proof of citizenship is quite another.
It's about time we did something to address our growing energy needs.
Now if we can get politicians to quit treating building more oil refining capacity as a political football, we might take another meaningful step toward energy independence.
Our number one export is fuel.... http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1
Old thread, so likely no one will read this, but....you're not serious right? The Citizens United ruling was basically the last nail in the coffin of 3rd party candidates. Sure, you might be able to get a million twitter followers, but you'll be blown away by the billions spent on commercials bad mouthing you.
The average citizen is going to be, well, average. They have never, and will never, take the time to really understand the issues. You can tweet the best ideas in the world, but you'll get nowhere unless you are on TV daily, have the backing of major media, and have large corporate funded super-pacs buying up ad time across the country.
True grass roots political candidates are dead in the water until we have serious campaign finance reform put in place.
The US (not sure about other countries) used to actually enforce following charters. As well as ensuring that the existence of a corporation was in the best interest of the public. There were occasions where corporations were actually disbanded.
Of course you're correct, but this is all the right-wing (and Tea Party) spin on the issues. The main article is written by a former official under Bush II who conveniently ignores the fact that the Republican party opposes EVERYTHING supported by any Democrats. The Democrats wanted to extend the payroll tax cut, while the Republicans opposed it until they finally gave in on a two month extension. They're also trying to kill any additional regulation of Wall Street, because these bills are usually being proposed by Democrats. And the "individual mandate" of the Obama health care plan? That was supported by Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, and even Romney way before Obama proposed it.
This is just typical rewriting of history.
Sad that I have to read 6/7th's of the way down the slashdot thread before finally someone mentions this fact.
If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
Well, be a little more honest about what sort of legislation we've seen coming out of Republican houses in the States the last couple years.
Enforcing immigration laws: Arizona's "papers please" law? Get pulled over for speeding and you have to show proof of citizenship? Yeah, how many white country folks are going to have to show their papers? The complaint of racism was quite valid given the new law's potential for abuse. Putting up a fence is neutral. Adding more border patrols is neutral. Giving local cops the ability to check for citizenship is just a horrible way of enforcing immigration laws.
Opposing abortion: Opposing abortion is one thing, but requiring a woman have a medically unnecessary ultrasound of the fetus and wait three days before the procedure? That is pretty much the definition of 'anti-woman' legislation. Or the many new proposed laws attempting to ban birth control? I could list dozens of more really, really stupid ideas that have come out of the states in the last couple years. It isn't the opposition to abortion that is the issue, it is the way in which Republicans have attempted to oppose.
Lowering taxes for everyone: Yeah, except every proposed tax plan favors the rich. Again, it isn't the concept of lowering the taxes that makes people label the Repubs as 'only rich supporters'. It is the fact that they clearly do support the rich more than the middle/lower in their tax plans.
You can honestly look back at the last couple years of abortion-related laws in the States and not see serious issues with them? Or that it is alright for a cop to ask you "papers please" for proof of citizenship? Or honestly see the Romney tax plan, or the Bush tax plan, or pretty much any Republican tax plan for the last 30 years and say that it didn't favor the rich?
I think the people could have a largely bloodless revolution just by recalling members of congress. Or the several times in the past years where 100,000+ people showed up to protest in D.C, what if that mob occupied Congress and the White House? Just sat there not allowing them to get anything down while recalls took place?
There have been several politicians and intelligent policy analysts speaking about how to repeal the SCOTUS Citizens United decision by having the States call a Constitutional Convention. If enough people care, it would be far easier to change your State congress to one sympathetic to a Constitutional Convention in order to amend the constitution to reform Congress.
You can see minor version of this happening in the States where politicians went too far and stripped union rights. Many successful recalls of politicians over that already, and more to come.
I think the vicious political divide, the tea party, the OWS folks, are real visible symptoms that the Country is awakening. The further D.C takes us from the Constitution, the further we slide away from the the ideals that formed this Country, and the larger the wealth inequality gets, I think you'll see an increasingly discontented population. Eventually it'll reach a boiling point. But I doubt it will lead to violent revolution. First the States, and people, have a myriad of things to try to force change.
The scientific method falls flat on its face on several subjects - a good one would be "I have terminal cancer - do I have a right to die at a time, place, and method of my choosing?"
Values and ethics are not subjects that are amenable to the scientific method.
I disagree, science can and indeed has been applied to the study of ethical questions. Google the Science of Morality.
Yeah, but how well? I can't recall any major decisions by any major governments or any recommendations by public health organizations that relied on scientifically determined morality as a basis for that decision. I skimmed the wikipedia article about it and couldn't find any either.
The Science of Morality seems more in its infancy than even most social sciences.
"they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits"
They qualify for enough other benefits that it is a major drain on certain industries. Illegal immigrant use of emergency rooms drives health care costs up for all of us. In fact, I was downsized years ago from a Hospital for that reason. Their kids go to public schools, they use common resources like roads, water, that taxes pay for, etc...
The only parts of society that benefit are those employers that use illegal immigrant labor. The rest of us are just subsidizing those employers profits with our taxes that go to benefit illegal labor.
I wish we'd be consistent on the issue: either provide a path to citizenship, or really crack down on our borders like most other countries do.
We know for sure that IP has rewarded innovation. But we can't be sure whether that reward led to a net gain in the amount of ideas produced.
Certain ideas were not allowed to grow or be expressed due to conflicts with similar patented/copyrighted ideas. What percent of new ideas are being suppressed vs what percent of ideas are worked on because of the incentive of a reward via monopoly? I doubt that anyone can answer that question without redoing the last couple centuries minus IP laws.
I couldn't find any that seemed cost effective for a group of 5-7 people. The smaller jets were around 2500 dollars per hour, which is at least double the cost of regular tickets for a trip like PDX to HNL.
Not just the laws. Pretty much the entire old testament is a mix and mash of far older stories, some of which even predate written history and were only known because latter city states retold them.
For example: baby Moses floating on the river and being found in a reed basket is a direct retelling of how Saragon (I) was found in Babylon. And this floating then being found thing was redone all over the place for royal births. http://www.moses-egypt.net/book1/moses1-cap2_en.asp
Pretty much all the major stories are symbolic writing, having nothing to do with historical events. It is pretty fascinating to read interpretations of ancient Egyptian stories. Nearly every aspect of every story is designed to symbolize some concept of the world or some aspect of their "science" (religious secrets).
And to think there was a time in this country where corporate charters were revoked if that corporation was not working in the best interest of society overall....
Prior to the 1990's there wasn't much of a race to the bottom. At least not at this rate.
Clinton signed massive amounts of free trade agreements and in the last 20-25 years our import tariffs are basically set at zero. Free trade has lifted a significant portion of China out of poverty, but it has basically been at the cost of US manufacturing jobs.
Clinton was a pretty smart guy, and I can only assume that he and others that promote free trade knew full well that free trade = draining US wealth and spreading it around the world. I guess they assume that as we lift the standard of living around the world, that eventually things even out and the US might be selling goods in China, and vice versa, at an equal level. To get there though, does require a race to the bottom.
But that race to the bottom is easily prevented by putting in place the tariffs we had in place prior to several administrations worth of 'free trade' agreements. I guess the question everyone should ask is, "Is it worth it?"
I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue.
I kind of feel like tariffs should be in place to reflect our society's morality. Take into account lax environmental laws, worker safety, etc.. and put a price on those externalitites, and then put a tariff in place to account for them. That means that any country that wants to sell in the US, has to act like the US in terms of pollution, safety, worker rights, etc...
And I don't think it should even be up for debate that tariffs should be in place to account for governments who massively subsidize an industry with the obvious intent to undercut the global market. China is doing that with solar panels right now. I heard an npr interview with a US solar panel maker that said that the cost of labor is a small amount of the total cost of solar panel production, but that his company can't compete with Chinese panels because their government directly funds their solar panel companies. That sort of practice just begs for a tariff.
I think what alarms some scientists and policy / planning analysts isn't the change itself, but the rate of change. Which, as far as they can tell, is far faster than what has occurred in the past.
I just wish we (analysts, media, politicians, slashdot:)) could move past the "Is it happening?" question and instead start a discussion based on the average predication of the most well regarded models.
If the average prediction is a 5 degree increase in 100 years, then lets talk about what that will cost us. If it is cheaper to more aggressively drop carbon output to zero in ~20 years than do nothing and deal with the consequence in 100 years, then lets figure out how to do it. In order to really debate it though, it is going to take a lot more global, comprehensive studies.
There are a very small number of people looking into it now (see http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html) and I sure wish there were more.
If if all the predictions very widely, I think it would be useful for the public to see what the best guesses are, and more importantly, the consequences. Something like, if we do nothing: 0.05%+/-0.02 chance of run away event turning Earth into Venus 30%+/-12% of US Bread Basket no longer being able to grow etc... And then the economists can take those predictions and work out the costs.
Can someone who is against gay marriage please explain their reasoning?
I have never heard any logical reason that explains how gay marriage would harm society.
As far as I can recall, there are many studies showing that people in committed relationships are better members of society on average. I've never seen a study that says the reverse about same sex couples.
But we make decisions about sentencing based on moral views all the time. Shooting someone to death is generally considered far worse than torturing someone to death. You'd definitely get a longer sentence if you tortured someone to death.
Society has come to realize that hate motivated crimes generally occur when there is a segment of society in which those hateful thoughts are perpetuated. That certain segment of society has essentially had those hateful notions ingrained into their culture. Breaking that cycle of hatred isn't easy. Just look at the history of civil rights and what it was like for a black American back then.
With hate laws in place, society was basically saying, "It is extra not-alright to kill someone based on racial hatred, because we know that those ideas stemmed from a sub culture in which that was acceptable. In order to stamp that culture out, we are going to punish that culture's criminal acts more severely".
Laws aren't just about punishment. They are oftentimes a reflection of a societies morality: a tool used to sculpt good behavior as much as a tool used to punish bad behavior.
In a similar fashion to the ideas you expressed, people sometimes criticize affirmative action laws. Again, this is society recognizing that there are sometimes extra hurdles for certain races to overcome, and on average a lower starting place in society for some races. Society (right or wrong) decided that those hurdles and lower economic/social status was because of historical wrongs. In order to compensate and level the playing field, we choose to OVER compensate by giving race A with score 100 no help, while giving encumbered race B with score 100 an extra 20 points.
The extra punishment for hate crimes and the extra help for being of a certain race are both efforts to stamp out serious cultural suppression in the past, and some amount in the present.
There will be a day when the majority of society will say, "OK, things are equal now", and it is worth debating whether we are close to that day. But as of right now, most people believe we are not quite there yet.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a time before news was such a money maker that some news agencies had a sense of moral obligation to report what the believed the public needed to know. You are correct, now they give us candy instead of vegetables.
The motivating factor behind the 'Operation' is that most of those involved believe that Santorum is far less electable than Romney.
Operation Hilarity
Up in central Washington, they have to feed the overpopulated Elk during the winter, otherwise there would be mass starvation. It is the price we pay for having eliminated most natural predators.
Some hunters do intentionally makes things more difficult, as the challenge is part of the game. Stalking instead of sitting, using bows, using black powder pistols, etc..
But that aside, it seems like a lot less painful death to be shot than dragged down by a wolf pack and slowly chewed on. But assuming we did reintroduce predators in large numbers, you'd end up with huge numbers of them being shot around cattle ranches.
For the record, I don't hunt (used to when I was very young). It turns my stomach now. But I don't really see it as barbaric. Maybe I was just around a different culture of hunters. Many of whom also lived on farms, and so slaughtering an animal for meat was just part of life. And the overpopulated Elk were just a once a year treat to a different meat. /shrug
ALL OF THEM. In fact, the biggest subsidies go to-- you guessed it-- the green technologies.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/exhibits/exhibit28-5.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/20/wind-power-subsidies-dont-compare-to-fossil-fuel-nuclear-subsidies/
What about passengers? Driving is one thing, as that isn't a right, that is a privilege. Standing on a corner and being approached for proof of citizenship is quite another.
It's about time we did something to address our growing energy needs.
Now if we can get politicians to quit treating building more oil refining capacity as a political football, we might take another meaningful step toward energy independence.
Our number one export is fuel....
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1
Old thread, so likely no one will read this, but....you're not serious right? The Citizens United ruling was basically the last nail in the coffin of 3rd party candidates. Sure, you might be able to get a million twitter followers, but you'll be blown away by the billions spent on commercials bad mouthing you.
The average citizen is going to be, well, average. They have never, and will never, take the time to really understand the issues. You can tweet the best ideas in the world, but you'll get nowhere unless you are on TV daily, have the backing of major media, and have large corporate funded super-pacs buying up ad time across the country.
True grass roots political candidates are dead in the water until we have serious campaign finance reform put in place.
The US (not sure about other countries) used to actually enforce following charters. As well as ensuring that the existence of a corporation was in the best interest of the public. There were occasions where corporations were actually disbanded.
Not so much anymore.
Of course you're correct, but this is all the right-wing (and Tea Party) spin on the issues. The main article is written by a former official under Bush II who conveniently ignores the fact that the Republican party opposes EVERYTHING supported by any Democrats. The Democrats wanted to extend the payroll tax cut, while the Republicans opposed it until they finally gave in on a two month extension. They're also trying to kill any additional regulation of Wall Street, because these bills are usually being proposed by Democrats. And the "individual mandate" of the Obama health care plan? That was supported by Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, and even Romney way before Obama proposed it.
This is just typical rewriting of history.
Sad that I have to read 6/7th's of the way down the slashdot thread before finally someone mentions this fact.
If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
Well, be a little more honest about what sort of legislation we've seen coming out of Republican houses in the States the last couple years.
Enforcing immigration laws: Arizona's "papers please" law? Get pulled over for speeding and you have to show proof of citizenship? Yeah, how many white country folks are going to have to show their papers? The complaint of racism was quite valid given the new law's potential for abuse. Putting up a fence is neutral. Adding more border patrols is neutral. Giving local cops the ability to check for citizenship is just a horrible way of enforcing immigration laws.
Opposing abortion: Opposing abortion is one thing, but requiring a woman have a medically unnecessary ultrasound of the fetus and wait three days before the procedure? That is pretty much the definition of 'anti-woman' legislation. Or the many new proposed laws attempting to ban birth control? I could list dozens of more really, really stupid ideas that have come out of the states in the last couple years. It isn't the opposition to abortion that is the issue, it is the way in which Republicans have attempted to oppose.
Lowering taxes for everyone: Yeah, except every proposed tax plan favors the rich. Again, it isn't the concept of lowering the taxes that makes people label the Repubs as 'only rich supporters'. It is the fact that they clearly do support the rich more than the middle/lower in their tax plans.
You can honestly look back at the last couple years of abortion-related laws in the States and not see serious issues with them? Or that it is alright for a cop to ask you "papers please" for proof of citizenship? Or honestly see the Romney tax plan, or the Bush tax plan, or pretty much any Republican tax plan for the last 30 years and say that it didn't favor the rich?
I think the people could have a largely bloodless revolution just by recalling members of congress. Or the several times in the past years where 100,000+ people showed up to protest in D.C, what if that mob occupied Congress and the White House? Just sat there not allowing them to get anything down while recalls took place?
There have been several politicians and intelligent policy analysts speaking about how to repeal the SCOTUS Citizens United decision by having the States call a Constitutional Convention. If enough people care, it would be far easier to change your State congress to one sympathetic to a Constitutional Convention in order to amend the constitution to reform Congress.
You can see minor version of this happening in the States where politicians went too far and stripped union rights. Many successful recalls of politicians over that already, and more to come.
I think the vicious political divide, the tea party, the OWS folks, are real visible symptoms that the Country is awakening. The further D.C takes us from the Constitution, the further we slide away from the the ideals that formed this Country, and the larger the wealth inequality gets, I think you'll see an increasingly discontented population. Eventually it'll reach a boiling point. But I doubt it will lead to violent revolution. First the States, and people, have a myriad of things to try to force change.
I disagree, science can and indeed has been applied to the study of ethical questions. Google the Science of Morality.
Yeah, but how well? I can't recall any major decisions by any major governments or any recommendations by public health organizations that relied on scientifically determined morality as a basis for that decision. I skimmed the wikipedia article about it and couldn't find any either.
The Science of Morality seems more in its infancy than even most social sciences.
"they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits"
They qualify for enough other benefits that it is a major drain on certain industries. Illegal immigrant use of emergency rooms drives health care costs up for all of us. In fact, I was downsized years ago from a Hospital for that reason. Their kids go to public schools, they use common resources like roads, water, that taxes pay for, etc...
The only parts of society that benefit are those employers that use illegal immigrant labor. The rest of us are just subsidizing those employers profits with our taxes that go to benefit illegal labor.
I wish we'd be consistent on the issue: either provide a path to citizenship, or really crack down on our borders like most other countries do.
If by profiling he was referring to how Israel does it, then he has a point.
Profiling based on observed behavior gathered via an interview seems to work quite well.
We know for sure that IP has rewarded innovation. But we can't be sure whether that reward led to a net gain in the amount of ideas produced.
Certain ideas were not allowed to grow or be expressed due to conflicts with similar patented/copyrighted ideas. What percent of new ideas are being suppressed vs what percent of ideas are worked on because of the incentive of a reward via monopoly? I doubt that anyone can answer that question without redoing the last couple centuries minus IP laws.
Thanks for attempting to explain.
I see basically two points to your comment:
1. Gay couples can't raise children as well.
2. Morality based on a religious belief.
Number 1 is the only point that can be logically debated using evidence and I've yet to see evidence beyond religiously motivated / biased 'studies'.
Could you post the companies that you use?
I couldn't find any that seemed cost effective for a group of 5-7 people. The smaller jets were around 2500 dollars per hour, which is at least double the cost of regular tickets for a trip like PDX to HNL.
Not to mention that Iraq has some of the oldest ruins and ancient monuments in the world. I'd love to go see them some day.
Not just the laws. Pretty much the entire old testament is a mix and mash of far older stories, some of which even predate written history and were only known because latter city states retold them.
For example: baby Moses floating on the river and being found in a reed basket is a direct retelling of how Saragon (I) was found in Babylon. And this floating then being found thing was redone all over the place for royal births. http://www.moses-egypt.net/book1/moses1-cap2_en.asp
Pretty much all the major stories are symbolic writing, having nothing to do with historical events. It is pretty fascinating to read interpretations of ancient Egyptian stories. Nearly every aspect of every story is designed to symbolize some concept of the world or some aspect of their "science" (religious secrets).
And to think there was a time in this country where corporate charters were revoked if that corporation was not working in the best interest of society overall....
Prior to the 1990's there wasn't much of a race to the bottom. At least not at this rate.
Clinton signed massive amounts of free trade agreements and in the last 20-25 years our import tariffs are basically set at zero. Free trade has lifted a significant portion of China out of poverty, but it has basically been at the cost of US manufacturing jobs.
Clinton was a pretty smart guy, and I can only assume that he and others that promote free trade knew full well that free trade = draining US wealth and spreading it around the world. I guess they assume that as we lift the standard of living around the world, that eventually things even out and the US might be selling goods in China, and vice versa, at an equal level. To get there though, does require a race to the bottom.
But that race to the bottom is easily prevented by putting in place the tariffs we had in place prior to several administrations worth of 'free trade' agreements. I guess the question everyone should ask is, "Is it worth it?"
I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue.
I kind of feel like tariffs should be in place to reflect our society's morality. Take into account lax environmental laws, worker safety, etc.. and put a price on those externalitites, and then put a tariff in place to account for them. That means that any country that wants to sell in the US, has to act like the US in terms of pollution, safety, worker rights, etc...
And I don't think it should even be up for debate that tariffs should be in place to account for governments who massively subsidize an industry with the obvious intent to undercut the global market. China is doing that with solar panels right now. I heard an npr interview with a US solar panel maker that said that the cost of labor is a small amount of the total cost of solar panel production, but that his company can't compete with Chinese panels because their government directly funds their solar panel companies. That sort of practice just begs for a tariff.
The only constant is change.
I think what alarms some scientists and policy / planning analysts isn't the change itself, but the rate of change. Which, as far as they can tell, is far faster than what has occurred in the past.
I just wish we (analysts, media, politicians, slashdot:)) could move past the "Is it happening?" question and instead start a discussion based on the average predication of the most well regarded models.
If the average prediction is a 5 degree increase in 100 years, then lets talk about what that will cost us. If it is cheaper to more aggressively drop carbon output to zero in ~20 years than do nothing and deal with the consequence in 100 years, then lets figure out how to do it. In order to really debate it though, it is going to take a lot more global, comprehensive studies.
There are a very small number of people looking into it now (see http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html) and I sure wish there were more.
If if all the predictions very widely, I think it would be useful for the public to see what the best guesses are, and more importantly, the consequences.
Something like, if we do nothing:
0.05%+/-0.02 chance of run away event turning Earth into Venus
30%+/-12% of US Bread Basket no longer being able to grow
etc...
And then the economists can take those predictions and work out the costs.
Can someone who is against gay marriage please explain their reasoning?
I have never heard any logical reason that explains how gay marriage would harm society.
As far as I can recall, there are many studies showing that people in committed relationships are better members of society on average. I've never seen a study that says the reverse about same sex couples.
But we make decisions about sentencing based on moral views all the time. Shooting someone to death is generally considered far worse than torturing someone to death. You'd definitely get a longer sentence if you tortured someone to death.
Society has come to realize that hate motivated crimes generally occur when there is a segment of society in which those hateful thoughts are perpetuated. That certain segment of society has essentially had those hateful notions ingrained into their culture. Breaking that cycle of hatred isn't easy. Just look at the history of civil rights and what it was like for a black American back then.
With hate laws in place, society was basically saying, "It is extra not-alright to kill someone based on racial hatred, because we know that those ideas stemmed from a sub culture in which that was acceptable. In order to stamp that culture out, we are going to punish that culture's criminal acts more severely".
Laws aren't just about punishment. They are oftentimes a reflection of a societies morality: a tool used to sculpt good behavior as much as a tool used to punish bad behavior.
In a similar fashion to the ideas you expressed, people sometimes criticize affirmative action laws. Again, this is society recognizing that there are sometimes extra hurdles for certain races to overcome, and on average a lower starting place in society for some races. Society (right or wrong) decided that those hurdles and lower economic/social status was because of historical wrongs. In order to compensate and level the playing field, we choose to OVER compensate by giving race A with score 100 no help, while giving encumbered race B with score 100 an extra 20 points.
The extra punishment for hate crimes and the extra help for being of a certain race are both efforts to stamp out serious cultural suppression in the past, and some amount in the present.
There will be a day when the majority of society will say, "OK, things are equal now", and it is worth debating whether we are close to that day. But as of right now, most people believe we are not quite there yet.