Boycott the NFL

[Job]

White

White doesn't trump affirmative action.

So what do whites have that is equal to affirmative action?

 

[Stranger]

Keep reframing it. We are see you for what you are.

I have always said who I was. We are finding out who you are. A black racist and hypocrite.

You refuse to play on a level playing field. You want your advantages and you will deny and deny and deny that you have them.

Affirmative Action is not a level playing field. You speak of white privilege and equality, yet it is blacks who get preferential treatment. In the blacks mind, preferential is equality. Absurd.

So, blacks in the NFL make millions of dollars...then they crap in their own bird nest. They pollute their own home by using it as a venue to disrespect the flag, country, and anthem, which will cause its decline. Their aint enough preferential treatment to give the blacks to make them happy.

Stranger

 

[n2thelight]

Affirmative Action is not a level playing field. You speak of white privilege and equality, yet it is blacks who get preferential treatment. In the blacks mind, preferential is equality. Absurd.

So, blacks in the NFL make millions of dollars...then they crap in their own bird nest. They pollute their own home by using it as a venue to disrespect the flag, country, and anthem, which will cause its decline. Their aint enough preferential treatment to give the blacks to make them happy.

Stranger

And why do you think we have that,and we still get screwed,would hate to see if we didn't have it.

 

[n2thelight]

RACE - The Power of an Illusion
BACKGROUND:

A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites



Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Early Racial Preferences

We all know the old history, but it's still worth reminding ourselves of its scale and scope. Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.

Jim Crow laws, instituted in the late 19th and early 20th century and not overturned in many states until the 1960s, reserved the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools and hospitals for white people.


The Advantages Grow, Generation to Generation

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

These government programs made possible the new segregated white suburbs that sprang up around the country after World War II. Government subsidies for municipal services helped develop and enhance these suburbs further, in turn fueling commercial investments. Freeways tied the new suburbs to central business districts, but they often cut through and destroyed the vitality of non-white neighborhoods in the central city.

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.


Reaping the Rewards of Racial Preference

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


Rather than recognize how "racial preferences" have tilted the playing field and given us a head start in life, many whites continue to believe that race does not affect our lives. Instead, we chastise others for not achieving what we have; we even invert the situation and accuse non-whites of using "the race card" to advance themselves.

Or we suggest that differential outcomes may simply result from differences in "natural" ability or motivation. However, sociologist Dalton Conley's research shows that when we compare the performance of families across racial lines who make not just the same income, but also hold similar net worth, a very interesting thing happens: many of the racial disparities in education, graduation rates, welfare usage and other outcomes disappear. The "performance gap" between whites and nonwhites is a product not of nature, but unequal circumstances.

Colorblind policies that treat everyone the same, no exceptions for minorities, are often counter-posed against affirmative action. But colorblindness today merely bolsters the unfair advantages that color-coded practices have enabled white Americans to long accumulate.

It's a little late in the game to say that race shouldn't matter.

 

[Stranger]

And why do you think we have that,and we still get screwed,would hate to see if we didn't have it.

Always someone else's fault. Blame it on whitey. Never your own.

It doesn't matter how much preferential treatment blacks get. They, just like the black millionaires in the NFL crap in their own bird nest. They will destroy their own place. Just like the riots that take place in the 'black lives matter' marches. ' We will show whitey. We will burn our town down. ' Real smart.

You have preferential treatment because the country operates on the false belief that all men are created equal. And we are not. Equal before God, yes. But not all are created equal. So the country gives first of all, equal rights to all...thinking the level playing field will change the black race. But it didn't. What is the solution? Give the blacks preferential treatment with affirmative action. Does it work. No. No matter what the black race, as a race gets, it will crap in its own bird nest, and eventually destroy. The country will never admit it. So they must continue to bend over backward for the black race. Give them what they want. Surely they will appreciate it and rise above. Think again.

Black millionaires in the NFL disrespect the flag, country, and anthem, that gives them preferential treatment. They have ruined the NFL for many of us. For those who continue to watch it, they swim in polluted waters.

Stranger

 

[tabletalk]

RACE - The Power of an Illusion
BACKGROUND:

A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites



Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Early Racial Preferences

We all know the old history, but it's still worth reminding ourselves of its scale and scope. Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.

Jim Crow laws, instituted in the late 19th and early 20th century and not overturned in many states until the 1960s, reserved the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools and hospitals for white people.


The Advantages Grow, Generation to Generation

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

These government programs made possible the new segregated white suburbs that sprang up around the country after World War II. Government subsidies for municipal services helped develop and enhance these suburbs further, in turn fueling commercial investments. Freeways tied the new suburbs to central business districts, but they often cut through and destroyed the vitality of non-white neighborhoods in the central city.

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.


Reaping the Rewards of Racial Preference

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


Rather than recognize how "racial preferences" have tilted the playing field and given us a head start in life, many whites continue to believe that race does not affect our lives. Instead, we chastise others for not achieving what we have; we even invert the situation and accuse non-whites of using "the race card" to advance themselves.

Or we suggest that differential outcomes may simply result from differences in "natural" ability or motivation. However, sociologist Dalton Conley's research shows that when we compare the performance of families across racial lines who make not just the same income, but also hold similar net worth, a very interesting thing happens: many of the racial disparities in education, graduation rates, welfare usage and other outcomes disappear. The "performance gap" between whites and nonwhites is a product not of nature, but unequal circumstances.

Colorblind policies that treat everyone the same, no exceptions for minorities, are often counter-posed against affirmative action. But colorblindness today merely bolsters the unfair advantages that color-coded practices have enabled white Americans to long accumulate.

It's a little late in the game to say that race shouldn't matter.

I have a small amount of experience with "segregated white suburbs that sprang up around the country after World War II."
I grew up in a suburb like that.
But, shouldn't a Christian be "colorblind", so to speak?

 

[Dcopymope]

I have a small amount of experience with "segregated white suburbs that sprang up around the country after World War II."
I grew up in a suburb like that.
But, shouldn't a Christian be "colorblind", so to speak?

Does being colorblind fit with having strong delusion? I could car less if you claim to be Christian. Anybody claiming to be totally colorblind is lying to himself and to God. If it was possible for anyone to be truly colorblind in this world run amok we would have seen it by now.

 

[tabletalk]

Does being colorblind fit with having strong delusion? I could car less if you claim to be Christian. Anybody claiming to be totally colorblind is lying to himself and to God. If it was possible for anyone to be truly colorblind in this world run amok we would have seen it by now.

A truly colorblind person would be sinless, I think. Not possible.
But I don't think God shows partiality concerning the worth of a person, for all have sinned and fall short of His glory. Christians should reflect that characteristic of God.

 

[Dcopymope]

A truly colorblind person would be sinless, I think. Not possible.
But I don't think God shows partiality concerning the worth of a person, for all have sinned and fall short of His glory. Christians should reflect that characteristic of God.

:) Well at least we have one honest person on this site. There are lots of Godly characteristics we should be living up to but never have and never will. I would love to know how many of those dirt bags that torched Tulsa were self-proclaimed "Christians". The Birth of a Nation was probably one of their favorite movies.

 

[Stranger]

:) Well at least we have one honest person on this site. There are lots of Godly characteristics we should be living up to but never have and never will. I would love to know how many of those dirt bags that torched Tulsa were self-proclaimed "Christians". The Birth of a Nation was probably one of their favorite movies.

What was wrong with the movie 'Birth of a Nation'?

Stranger

 

[Dcopymope]

What was wrong with the movie 'Birth of a Nation'?

Stranger

Is this something an honest person would bother asking?

 

[Dcopymope]

Putting the entire relationship between blacks and the police force into perspective.

How the U.S. Got Its Police Force

Olivia B. Waxman
Updated: May 18, 2017 9:45 AM ET
police officer is a figure who has existed since the beginning of civilization. That's the idea on display in the proclamation from President John F. Kennedy on the dedication of the week of May 15 as "National Police Week," in which he noted that law-enforcement officers had been protecting Americans since the nation’s birth.

In fact, the U.S. police force is a relatively modern invention, sparked by changing notions of public order, driven in turn by economics and politics, according to Gary Potter, a crime historian at Eastern Kentucky University.

Policing in Colonial America had been very informal, based on a for-profit, privately funded system that employed people part-time. Towns also commonly relied on a "night watch" in which volunteers signed up for a certain day and time, mostly to look out for fellow colonists engaging in prostitution or gambling. (Boston started one in 1636, New York followed in 1658 and Philadelphia created one in 1700.) But that system wasn't very efficient because the watchmen often slept and drank while on duty, and there were people who were put on watch duty as a form of punishment.

Night-watch officers were supervised by constables, but that wasn't exactly a highly sought-after job, either. Early policemen "didn't want to wear badges because these guys had bad reputations to begin with, and they didn't want to be identified as people that other people didn't like," says Potter. When localities tried compulsory service, "if you were rich enough, you paid someone to do it for you — ironically, a criminal or a community thug."


As the nation grew, however, different regions made use of different policing systems.


In cities, increasing urbanization rendered the night-watch system completely useless as communities got too big. The first publicly funded, organized police force with officers on duty full-time was created in Boston in 1838. Boston was a large shipping commercial center, and businesses had been hiring people to protect their property and safeguard the transport of goods from the port of Boston to other places, says Potter. These merchants came up with a way to save money by transferring to the cost of maintaining a police force to citizens by arguing that it was for the "collective good."

In the South, however, the economics that drove the creation of police forces were centered not on the protection of shipping interests but on the preservation of the slavery system. Some of the primary policing institutions there were the slave patrols tasked with chasing down runaways and preventing slave revolts, Potter says; the first formal slave patrol had been created in the Carolina colonies in 1704. During the Civil War, the military became the primary form of law enforcement in the South, but during Reconstruction, many local sheriffs functioned in a way analogous to the earlier slave patrols, enforcing segregation and the disenfranchisement of freed slaves.

In general, throughout the 19th century and beyond, the definition of public order — that which the police officer was charged with maintaining — depended whom was asked.

For example, businessmen in the late 19th century had both connections to politicians and an image of the kinds of people most likely to go on strike and disrupt their workforce. So it's no coincidence that by the late 1880s, all major U.S. cities had police forces. Fears of labor-union organizers and of large waves of Catholic, Irish, Italian, German, and Eastern European immigrants, who looked and acted differently from the people who had dominated cities before, drove the call for the preservation of law and order, or at least the version of it promoted by dominant interests. For example, people who drank at taverns rather than at home were seen as "dangerous" people by others, but they might have pointed out other factors such as how living in a smaller home makes drinking in a tavern more appealing. (The irony of this logic, Potter points out, is that the businessmen who maintained this belief were often the ones who profited off of the commercial sale of alcohol in public places.)

At the same time, the late 19th century was the era of political machines, so police captains and sergeants for each precinct were often picked by the local political party ward leader, who often owned taverns or ran street gangs that intimidated voters. They then were able to use police to harass opponents of that particular political party, or provide payoffs for officers to turn a blind eye to allow illegal drinking, gambling and prostitution.

This situation was exacerbated during Prohibition, leading President Hoover to appoint the Wickersham Commission in 1929 to investigate the ineffectiveness of law enforcement nationwide. To make police independent from political party ward leaders, the map of police precincts was changed so that they would not correspond with political wards.

The drive to professionalize the police followed, which means that the concept of a career cop as we'd recognize it today is less than a century old.

Further campaigns for police professionalism were promoted as the 20th century progressed, but crime historian Samuel Walker's The Police in America: An Introduction argues that the move toward professionalism wasn't all good: that movement, he argues, promoted the creation of police departments that were "inward-looking" and "isolated from the public," and crime-control tactics that ended up exacerbating tensions between police and the communities they watch over. And so, more than a half-century after Kennedy's 1963 proclamation, the improvement and modernization of America's surprisingly young police force continues to this day.

Link: How the U.S. Got Its Police Force

 

[bbyrd009]

Its not even supposed to be a democratic process in the church, yet many of them do. Its not supposed to be up to every single church member to decide who becomes pastor. Its supposed to be up to the elders only. We see a similar set up even in heaven with God and his 24 elders. It won't be just the elders either so it seems, as the prophet Daniel in chapter 7 described his 'ministers' by the thousands that will be set up on judgement day. That's as far any democratic process will go under Gods rule, if that's what you even want to call it, because these are elders and ministers that God alone elects. Thankfully, neither your friend or Stranger with his prejudices will have a say in the matter.

yes, and thankfully most of those "church elders" will not either, by the way things are going.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, that still sounds like a better arrangement than having the entirety of the church making any decision of the kind that they have no business making. If I was the pastor I would pick someone much closer to make the transition a lot easier, but whatever happens, as long as the flock is kept out of it, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

yes, by any means let's keep the Church out of the decision of choosing their next Right Pastor lol

 

[Dcopymope]

yes, by any means let's keep the Church out of the decision of choosing their next Right Pastor lol

Yes, because that's the way God intended it. If you don't like it....well who cares. Keep doing what you are doing and keep away from the churches. Your "democratic process" can go with you as well.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, because that's the way God intended it. If you don't like it....well who cares. Keep doing what you are doing and keep away from the churches. Your "democratic process" can go with you as well.

? i would draw lots myself, but then i am the Church, i don't go to church for an hour a week or whatever, and listen to people who have made financial arrangements with the world where Christ is concerned; may they be blessed. As blessed as bakers, i pray.

I sell old churches on Craigslist, lol, once they go "bankrupt." Financially bankrupt, that is.

Imo we are a long way from "what God intended," although you may not agree, i certainly understand.

 

[Stranger]

Is this something an honest person would bother asking?

You brought it up. So answer the question. Or are you just repeating what you have always been told.

Stranger

 

[Dcopymope]

? i would draw lots myself, but then i am the Church, i don't go to church for an hour a week or whatever, and listen to people who have made financial arrangements with the world where Christ is concerned.

I sell old churches on Craigslist, lol, once they go "bankrupt." Financially bankrupt, that is.

Imo we are a long way from "what God intended," although you may not agree, i certainly understand.

Your democratic process is the definition of being a long way from what God intended. It has single-handedly ruined many churches, driving many members away. Democracy is mans system, and dare I say may very well be of the Devil himself, not the way of the Lord, nor will it be when he is ruling the nations with a rod of iron. I'm sure you may not agree with that since you seem to think you have a right in the way the church, and henceforth the state is run.

 

[Dcopymope]

You brought it up. So answer the question. Or are you just repeating what you have always been told.

Stranger

Is this supposed to be a request or an order?

 

[bbyrd009]

Your democratic process

the one that i do not have, and strenuously avoid? So now white is black, and drawing lots=voting?