Journal Notes - Many time if one actually saw people process before dealing w/ subjects, forming an opinion, or writing out anything of concern... it can look like a complete mess & many time remain incomplete. If one was able to see many of the issues expressed in forums & see behind the minds of those expressing them; sometimes some that seem very wise could appear quite foolish. :) Anyways... so here is an example for those see what a friggin' simpleton that I really am. :D

Imagine what JA's process of thought would look like if I wrote them out in the course of making my reply or presentation. What would it look like in an old reply like (MN) The Kerry Flip-Flop Debate (Complex Form) or a condense social statement as in The Song Remains The Same. Imagine the thoughts that could be running all around while just typing it, just like imagine what is roaming around my head at this moment.

Are there items hidden that may suggest opposite of my actual purpose of writing my thoughts? Do I leave them out to save the meaning? So many unknown question on the "what if's" in regards to all those that express their thoughts. That can question how secure one really is in expressing anything. Many times in society we damn the person behind the words cause of bia's or lack of any real conviction. The items below simply suggest that there are many items that I express opinions on but shows example those opinions could change at anytime if more information is presented to myself. Also notes that my viewpoints in many items that I have many items left incomplete & going simply on guts or maybe a define personal agenda.

-----

===== ACBates - "... Go check Clinton's cabinet, you won't see close to that in his top cabinet positions."

Currently, the numbers are very close in minorities appointed in Both Presidential Cabinets. Yet, it is acknowledge that Bush has more minorities which was done w/ less total appointments & does have a more -diverse- (Backgrounds) cabinet than Clinton. That does not wash out Clinton for setting the tone, cause the previous three presidents did not even have a combine total to what Clinton had in minorities appointed to cabinet positions (That probably speaks to all previous presidents until Clinton.) Clinton made the major leap & now Bush is exceeding it. Both should get high praise & respects for what has been done.

Bush Haters - To those that diminish Bush's Cabinet as PR/Political Gains...

Let's just say Bush doesn't give a crap about Black People, Poor People, or Minorities in general. The fact that any group is recognized in existence from those attempting to gain their support is a step to having power in the system. That mean they acknowledge if they don't show signs of catering there will be a negative to either themselves or the party they represent later down the road. This is where all groups of concern must take -advantage- of the situation when it presents itself. That is the essence of the Political World & instead of viewing it as a negative... uses it to create a positive.

What both Presidents have achieved is that future Presidents must take into account what has occurred previously, thus a nudge to be mindful of promoting a diverse cabinet or be judge w/ curious eyes if one does not. This also changes the social image or consciousness in general... cause we are seeing minorities in high Public Positions. This will ultimately help counter what Naveed mention on general media creating negative images & stereotypes on various groups. It is now up to those individuals to take advantage of the situation & show any ignorant bastard that it's not the colour or gender - it's talents that will dictate success.

====== ACBates - "Hispanics and blacks make up only roughly 20% combined of the U.S. population."

I was viewing the US Consensus stats for 2000/2004. One problem I notice is that they did not place Hispanics of many races into one category of "mix"... thus many categories got extra #'s per individual. Yet... something that could be a concern depending on what one focuses on. The white population grew to 5.3% while the total minority camp grew only 2%.

About ten years ago there was a thought the total minority population would exceed the majority in population. I even thought the "mix" camp would be the biggest gain over due time but it appears they actually dropped in numbers. Ultimately the majority camp due by shear numbers will squash any minority. This could cause concern to minorities in general in which our leaders may not need to cater to these groups in the future. It also leads to questions on what is actually happening or has happened to stunt growth of many of the minority camps.

RAC spelled backwards = GOD

Edit #1 - Correction -

===== JA - "It also leads to questions on what is actually happening or has happened to stunt growth of many of the minority camps."

Actually, after looking at the stats & working it for specifics. This possible question only applies to mix races because they were the only ones that actually went down in population. From examination are pretty equal in ratio w/in the other groups.

The rise in percentage is total population is due to size of the groups. Yet it still leaves a note of separation in regards to racial backgrounds & can lead to a concern of being left out in the natural progression of our population.

Edit #2 - A moment of "WTF"

After writing the previous item... JA subconscious mind says something is not connecting correctly... due to the fact percentage should not change even if one outnumbers another just by size if ratio is equal... must think.

Edit #3 - Consensus Report is Screwed...

Ok, it appears the report eliminated a group called "Some Other Race" (5.5% in 2000) & -somehow- distributed to other groups. From just looking at the stats I can guess the white population took most of these fellows.

With a .9 drop in mix, Some other race most likely going to white, & Hispanics/Latino somehow fitting in multiple races has basically created a confusing report. -must think-

Edit #4 - New Configuration

OK... it seems quite clear the white percentage lead was assisted from the elimination of "Some Other Race." Thus in reality the stats of 2000 & 2004 may actually be very similar than suggesting whites having a spike in population. It could even suggest whites might of loss ground in percentage point... but hard to know cause lack of information on where some individuals were placed into what group.

For example - Black/Hispanic together in 2004 equal to 26.9 of the population & 24.8 in 2000. It can give the suggestion that white might of actually gone down w/ the mixed category. Thus my previous comment the thought the total minorities population was thought that in due time will outweigh the majority group still is in effect.

Thus back to edit #2 it seems to not raise concerns in relation to a "stunt" in growth w/ minorities cause it appears nothing dictates a stunt & possible social concerns that could come from it. After some thought in relation to simple population numbers due to majority size does not change anything (Nothing dealing w/ stats, just change of JA's mind) cause it's still equalized in ratio.

JoeAnthony@LiveJournal.Com
MN - LJ (09/10/05)

Tags: mn-(forum), political, social
Current Music: Alice In Chains - Got Me Wrong - SAP [EP]