Affirmative Action Banned!

My state (Michigan) has wisely followed in the foosteps of California and banned racist/sexist affirmative action programs in Michigan, that would have discriminated against people based on nothing but their gender or the color of their skin, all in the name of promoting equality.  

It passed by a pretty wide margin 58% - 42% of the vote.. or, another way of looking at it: 

2,137,574  ---  YES on stopping AA
1,552,459  ---  NO on stopping AA

Hopefully this'll spread like wildfire throughout the rest of the states. 

AC is getting her ass kicked.

>>198

You're confused. I don't think meritocracy is racism, I simply haven't seen any indication that:

1. America is a meritocracy.

2. That Affirmative Action is opposed to the concept of meritocracy.

Why do you immediately assume that because his mother is white she is rich and doesn't need a job? Racist.

Because typically speaking a vast majority of the whites in this country control a vast majority of the wealth. Because the majority of blacks in this country live below the poverty line. If it's wrong for me to insinuate that generally whites are middle-class or higher because there is a historic instituationalized cultural and social feedback-system in place to insure their success and meritability, then it is wrong for you to insinuate that blacks are generally low-class due to an intrinstic lack of ambition or ability on their part- therefore making them "unmeritable by default".

>>199

Let's say the black applicant isn't meritable--- what is the real choice here? The choice is a meritable candidate vs. a less meritable candidate.  The meritable candidate should win.

I understand that. But, what I have repeatedly asked is why is it assumed that the black applicant isn't meritable in the first place? Why is it assumed that all positions or potential positions held by a white person were gained solely based on meritability? What is wrong with Affirmative Action if all it does is force racist company owners to employ meritable races who's demographic could, quite frankly, use the "boost". Why are these questions so hard to answer and why have they been constantly avoided? 

The very notion of affirmative action is rooted in the same kind of primeval racist collectivism that you are espousing here.  That kind of racial collectivism really has no place in any good society.

Would you say western society, or more specifically American society, is basically "good"? If so, I have some bad news: Western society was built upon racial collectivism. If just for one second, you'd use your brain for something other than divising clever ways to disguise your obvious lack of cognitive ability, you'd see that Affirmative Action actually address that racial collectivism in a way that many had not predicted.

Affirmative Actions brings light to the fact that as things now stand...America is clearly not a meritocracy. And simply based on racial disparity stats alone- it doesn't appear to be making any attempt to be. The kind of society you think you live in; simply doesn't exist for others...or perhaps...it just doesn't exist for anyone.

>>202
"I don't think meritocracy is racism...

...2. That Affirmative Action is opposed to the concept of meritocracy."

Now you're talking sense.

>>202
"Because typically speaking a vast majority of the whites in this country control a vast majority of the wealth. Because the majority of blacks in this country live below the poverty line."

Blacks are more likely to commit crime. Are you giving your fellow racists the green card to discriminate against blacks?

>>204

Blacks are more likely to commit crime because they are more likely to need to commit crimes. And I don't have to give anyone a "green card to discriminate", I'm assuming they'll arrive to the conclusion that blacks commit crimes because they are black and not because they are poor-- on their own and due to their own prejudices.

>>203

Not so cute. It's funny to me that you would so willingly twist my words, while at the same time not addressing anything in the rest of my post. Way to "win the debate", genius. To clairify, in case you simply fail at reading comprehension...

I am saying that there is no proof, what so ever, that Affirmative Action is opposed to meritocracy. Would you care to offer an actual rebuttal to that, or would to prefer to continue talking in circles?

Im going to not hire afroamericants inspite of this threat.

>>202
Lets not confuse terms here.  We don't want an meritocracy - that is a form of government, if I'm not mistaken.  I'm happy with our democratic republic.  I want meritable candidates, however, to get a given job they apply to though, provided they fit the job. 

>>205
"I am saying that there is no proof, what so ever, that Affirmative Action is opposed to meritocracy. Would you care to offer an actual rebuttal to that, or would to prefer to continue talking in circles?"

I would gladly rebut that.  Look, it is really pretty simple.  If the quota in a given affirmative action program is set at 10% for a given racial demographic, and the applicants of said demographic are not the most meritable, then said candidates would have to be hired anyways - because of nothing but their race, and the government with its quotas and mandates.  If the candidate was to be picked based on nothing but merit, race would not be a factor.  Since race is indeed a factor in affirmative action programs, these programs are not meritocratic in that they involve promotion of a given person based on race, rather than merit.  If you are to have a society that hires based solely on merit, then affirmative action quite simply runs contrary to this image because it brings something into the picture that has absolutely nothing to do with merit or qualification for a given position - race. 

>>202
"If just for one second, you'd use your brain for something other than divising clever ways to disguise your obvious lack of cognitive ability, you'd see that Affirmative Action actually address that racial collectivism in a way that many had not predicted."

Oh I see, it addresses racial collectivism by creating more racial collectivism? Here's a novel idea:  to fight racial collectivism, don't be racist! Racial collectivism will continue unless people start hiring not based on 'groups' or 'races', but based on merit.  Affirmative action, since it brings something other than an individual's merit or qualification into the picture (its stupid racial collectivism), perpetuates racial collectivism, and runs contrary to the idea that an individual's race should have nothing to do with his or her chances of getting hired. 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=racist

>>208

On the surface I'm sure it seems pretty simple, but given your general lack of deductive ability...even simple concepts seem to be beyond your understanding. But, here we go again...

Affirmative Action isn't a policy based on merit because it addresses the problem of a lack of meritocracy in the private sector where certain companies are not hiring based on merit and are, instead, hiring based on race. Race is only a factor in affirmative action programs, because race appears to be a factor in the hiring process of certain companies within the private sector.

If you are to have a society that hires based solely on merit, then affirmative action quite simply runs contrary to this image because it brings something into the picture that has absolutely nothing to do with merit or qualification for a given position - race.

IF.

Our society isn't based on merit. Then again I supposed this goes back to what I said in >>202:

"Would you say western society, or more specifically American society, is basically "good"? If so, I have some bad news: Western society was built upon racial collectivism. If just for one second, you'd use your brain for something other than divising clever ways to disguise your obvious lack of cognitive ability, you'd see that Affirmative Action actually address that racial collectivism in a way that many had not predicted.

Affirmative Actions brings light to the fact that as things now stand...America is clearly not a meritocracy. And simply based on racial disparity stats alone- it doesn't appear to be making any attempt to be. The kind of society you think you live in; simply doesn't exist for others...or perhaps...it just doesn't exist for anyone."

Would you care to rebut the above statement or is it going to take you a couple of snide posts to warm up first because you lack the ability to do so?

>>207

Are you being contenious for the sake of being contenious?

mer·i·toc·ra·cy /ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsi/ [mer-i-tok-ruh-see]

1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.

2. a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced: The dean believes the educational system should be a meritocracy.

3. leadership by able and talented persons.

>>210
"Our society isn't based on merit."

I disagree.  It doesn't matter what race you are - if you work hard in the USA, and you have the ability to go along with that, you can indeed get ahead.  Occasionally, hard work is ALL it takes to get ahead.. possibly coupled with a willingness to take risks.

>>208 = win

Nobody should ever have to put up with discrimination. 

Life would be so much better with just one race.

>>210
I understand your argument perfectly, you are finally admitting that affirmative action is racist, but that you think necessary due to the amount of racial disparity. If this were the case I would agree, however there are 3 points you have ignored. I will refer to racist affirmative action as RAA from now on.

1a: Making assumptions about people based on their race is always going to cause problems, humans are not perfect beings and you cannot simply say "oh well it's their fault for not being perfect so I'm not going to change my policies". Thus we must only use such actions in extreme circumstances and resort to treating people equally as soon as we can.

1b: RAA does not cover all instances of discrimination and makes assumptions about people based on their race. Other replacements such as increasing civil rights enforcement, regulation of employment to ensure companies which do not choose the highest qualified prospective employee are investigated and compensation programs based on the actual priviledges people have been denied fulfil the same objectives.

2: Wealth isn't the only cause of racial disparity and if RAA was necessary it could only ever be a temporary measure.

I am very bored now. From now on when you respond I will refer you to one of these 3 points and give a brief explanations as to why it applies.

mer·i·toc·ra·cy /ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsi/ [mer-i-tok-ruh-see] <--- definition of how life works

>>211 = win.

>>211

You must be very young or naive. Sometimes, I seriously yearn for those days when I could so easily perscribe to such a simple and optimistic worldview.

>>215

1a: Making assumptions about people based on their race is always going to cause problems, humans are not perfect beings and you cannot simply say "oh well it's their fault for not being perfect so I'm not going to change my policies". Thus we must only use such actions in extreme circumstances and resort to treating people equally as soon as we can.

I disagree; this approach simply hasn't panned out long term according to a racial disparity that is expressed in just about every facet of our culture and society. It's my firm belief that once whites are lumped in the "discrimination stew" along with everyone else; race relations will improve because everyone is dealing with the same adversities, even racism. You seem to think perfect equality entails everyone, regardless of race, being treated fairly. Well, from my worldview the world is hardly fair...so my idea of perfect equality is everyone, regardless of race or gender, being treated unfairly.

1b: RAA does not cover all instances of discrimination and makes assumptions about people based on their race. Other replacements such as increasing civil rights enforcement, regulation of employment to ensure companies which do not choose the highest qualified prospective employee are investigated and compensation programs based on the actual priviledges people have been denied fulfil the same objectives.

The only assumption made is that a meritable person was rejected for employment because of their race. "Increasing Civil Right Enforcement" is too vague of a phrase for me to take it as a serious deterrent to discrimination. You might as well just tell me to "Stay the course" or "Let things continue they way they have".

2: Wealth isn't the only cause of racial disparity and if RAA was necessary it could only ever be a temporary measure.

It took a certain degree of social engineering to get where we are. And I don't think this engineering has the best interests of the commonwealth in mind. My suggestions are in the vein of using social engineering for the good of the commonwealth; so of course AA would be temporary and there would come a point where AA won't be nessacary. But, as for dealing with the present...AA will work just fine.

>>218
"You must be very young or naive. Sometimes, I seriously yearn for those days when I could so easily perscribe to such a simple and optimistic worldview."

You didn't offer shit in the form of a refutation. 

I disagree.  It doesn't matter what race you are - if you work hard in the USA, and you have the ability to go along with that, you can indeed get ahead.  Occasionally, hard work is ALL it takes to get ahead.. possibly coupled with a willingness to take risks.

>>219

And what the fuck is there to refute, you little dipshit? You say hard work is all you need to get ahead; but that's just not the case- and that's apparent when you open up the newspaper or turn on the TV or the radio. The experiences I have had have led me to disagree, sorry if this fucks up whatever shitbrain argument you're trying to continue on with.

>>221

"And what the fuck is there to refute, you little dipshit?"

My statement, you fucking retard.

>>218
Discrimination is a crime and thus everything we have learned about the nature of crime applies to it.

"It's my firm belief that once whites are lumped in the "discrimination stew" along with everyone else; race relations will improve because everyone is dealing with the same adversities, even racism."
Would it help to go to some peaceful small town and start tipping bins, smashing windows and robbing liquor stores until the small town LOOKS as crime ridden as the Detroit projects? It would do more good to increase tax so that law enforcement can increase in Detroit and ACTUALLY reduce crime until detroit is as crime free as small town America. Whites occupy the majority of the middle income taxpayers bracket so the reduction in white wealth is much more efficient if you use it to improve civil rights law enforcement.

"Increasing Civil Right Enforcement" is too vague of a phrase for me to take it as a serious deterrent to discrimination."
Well it works. If an employee has proof that they are being discriminated against they can press charges. So it wouldn't be much of a step to increase the scope of regulation so even in situations where discrimination is not apparent to the employee, proof of discrimination can be brought up.


AA would be fine if it were to help people who have been denied rights or children who have been disadvantaged.
You wish to discriminate against people based on the colour of their skin. That sounds pretty much the definition of racism to me. You don't support AA, you support RAA so I have corrected your typos.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/necessary

"RAA would be temporary and there would come a point where RAA won't be necessary. But, as for dealing with the present...RAA will work just fine."

If someone commits discrimination and enjoys the benefits, those benefits can be called priviledges and they should be punished by all means.
However the state of not being discriminated against isn't a priviledge. It's a right and stripping people of rights is a crime.
It would do wonders for social engineering if people were taught the different between the 2. Why don't you begin with that?

>>223

Nah. You're wrong. AA's conception came from the ineffectiveness of "civil rights enforcement". not the other way around. 

>>222

Refute my dick in your mouth, faggot. America isn't a meritocracy.  Therefore, "hard work" isn't needed for success.

>>224
Excuse me, wtf are you doin?
This isn't a case of what came first and I never said RAA came first.

Not that this matters, but in fact RAA did come first. US universites used quotas to keep out people from certain ethnic groups and religions on a frequent basis before the civil rights movement.

>>224
"Refute my dick in your mouth, faggot. America isn't a meritocracy.  Therefore, "hard work" isn't needed for success."

LOL 'hard work' isn't needed for success? Well, I guess that depends on what you call 'success'.  You might have a different view of what constitutes success than I do, so until you can be more specific, there is really no point in arguing further.  You also have still not refuted my earlier statement. 

>>225

Like I give a shit. This is not the incarnation of AA this thread is based on- and like I've constantly outlined- this form of AA was created to deter implict racism in hiring practices, period. You can sit here nitpicking and spell checking all you want- but face facts: You have no proof that AA insures work for unmeritable minor over a meritable white person (white people: your only concern).

So your "it's not fair unmeritable people get ahead" sounds like a bunch of bunk bullshit. The only other argument you can possibly have is one based in what you claim to take no part in: RACISM.


>>226

Are you just completely fucking retarded? Of course hard work is needed for success and you're just straight up 11 kinds of stupid if you thought I was inferring that it wasn't needed.

What I'm saying is that we live in a world where the Quarter Back for the 49'ers can make more money than a Microbiologist. I really wonder how hard the Paris Hilton's and the George W. Bush's of this world worked. You really think these people deserve their "success"?

In all liklihood, you haven't even graduated college yet. You don't know what the fucking hell goes on in the real world and this shows in your quaint little world view. You can have any degree you want, but if you're too fat, too black, too anything-- you just might get passed up for someone else.

America isn't a meritocracy, no one looks at people's "merits". The idea of "merit" can- in the end- be boiled down to pure subjectivity.

What you're not getting is that there is clear difference between the way things should be and the way they actually are. Discrimination sucks, yeah, but you have to deal with reality on reality's terms here...making it so that no one is ever discriminated against has proven an utter failure. Google "racial disparity" if you don't believe me.

It is merely my hope that the inverse will work. If everyone is a victim of discrimination at some point- then that about as equal as it's gonna get. Part of this- is dismantling white privilege, which no matter what you say, definately exists and has always existed. This is entire argument is about a bunch of white people who still want to be treated like "oh so holy white people" because of the perverse and sick notion that they work harder than any other race.

What is there to refute, really? The defintion of "Hard Work"? The definition of "success"? Of "Merit"? Come on now, Grow up and argue the points or stay the fuck out of the thread.

Race shouldn't matter to anyone, it should be about skill and who has the most earning potential. Hiring people based on skin color is jack shit and is racism. Discrimintation is a part of life, fucking get over it. Theres nothing to stop people from packing up their bags and walking to the next city over. Afirmitive action is for complaining bitches who can't get their asses up and do what they really need to do. The only people that should take care of eachother are family, no one owes you a fucking job.

>>228

Exactly, you're right. Discrimination is a part of life, so whiny whites with Phd's should "get the fuck over it" and move the next city over. I'm just making a simple ethics call here, the poor meritable black person may not have that option of moving the next city over, and even if they weren't meritable--- it's not like we live in a diehard meritocracy.

As for your family comment, we are all apart of the human family. Yet, family is a lofty concept to me- just like- the idea of across the board lack of discrimination. It's more problematic than anything. So make it so that anyone can be a victim of discrimination and instantly solve the problem of equality by insure that all are treated unfairly.

We can talk about merit and meritocracy when we become a society completely based on merit, until then your arguments solve no problem, help no one, are as implictly racist as they are antiquated.

>>228

*claps*

>>229
Or, rather than treating everyone unfairly, we could treat everyone fairly, giving them equal rights before the law.

>>227
"Like I give a shit. This is not the incarnation of AA this thread is based on- and like I've constantly outlined- this form of AA was created to deter implict racism in hiring practices, period."

LOL! Deter racism by racially discriminating?

"You can sit here nitpicking and spell checking all you want- but face facts: You have no proof that AA insures work for unmeritable minor over a meritable white person (white people: your only concern)."

Actually, I do have proof that that has happened.  In fact, it happened at a local university.  The university had an affirmative action program, and a young white girl in my area got discriminated against based on nothing but her race.  She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the university, and won.  (The university is a public university.)

"So your "it's not fair unmeritable people get ahead" sounds like a bunch of bunk bullshit."

See above, retard.


>>226

"Are you just completely fucking retarded? Of course hard work is needed for success and you're just straight up 11 kinds of stupid if you thought I was inferring that it wasn't needed."

Really? So I'm stupid because I thought you where saying hard work isn't necessary for success when you said the following quote:

'Refute my dick in your mouth, faggot. America isn't a meritocracy.  Therefore, "hard work" isn't needed for success.'

Ahahahaha.

"I really wonder how hard the Paris Hilton's and the George W. Bush's of this world worked. You really think these people deserve their "success"?"

Paris Hilton and GWB are two very different stories.  Bush was a businessman who graduated from Yale, and incidentally had higher grades than Kerry during much of his schooling there. 

In the case of Paris Hilton? No, she certainly didn't deserve it - but in her case, the person whose rights are in question are not hers, they are her parents.  Whether or not she deserves what she got is completely beside the point - her rich parents can and should be allowed to give her all the money they want, seeing as how it is their money anyways.

"You can have any degree you want, but if you're too fat, too black, too anything-- you just might get passed up for someone else."

Yes, there's a chance you'll get discriminated against.  There's a bigger chance I'll be discriminated because I'm white than that you would be discriminated because you are black though (government affirmative action programs).  Or, well, there WOULD have been, anyway, had we not abolished them. 

"What you're not getting is that there is clear difference between the way things should be and the way they actually are."

Yes.  People SHOULD be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of other people.  Unfortunately, this is not exactly the way things are. 

"Discrimination sucks, yeah, but you have to deal with reality on reality's terms here...making it so that no one is ever discriminated against has proven an utter failure. Google "racial disparity" if you don't believe me."

I've already said and explained away racial disparities in education and the economy.  People of different ethnicities have different cultures, raise their children differently, etc.  This all has consequences with far reaching effects on a given person's future.  This is not something an INDIVIDUAL couldn't overcome (because of course some do), but it is something present. 

"If everyone is a victim of discrimination at some point- then that about as equal as it's gonna get."

Well, good thing the supreme court is full of justices who realize what a racist piece of trash you are.

"Part of this- is dismantling white privilege, which no matter what you say, definately exists and has always existed."

I disagree.  This has not been proven, either.

"This is entire argument is about a bunch of white people who still want to be treated like "oh so holy white people" because of the perverse and sick notion that they work harder than any other race."

It might not necessarilly be that either.  I think racial disparity has more to do with cultural differences than anything else, although hard work may indeed have something to do with it as well.

"What is there to refute, really? The defintion of "Hard Work"? The definition of "success"? Of "Merit"? Come on now, Grow up and argue the points or stay the fuck out of the thread."

My statement.  You made several allegations that you never bothered to support or back up.  If you don't do as much, I think it is somewhat stupid to assume people will take you seriously (and clearly they aren't, by and large).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svTR-Y4L3kg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svTR-Y4L3kg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svTR-Y4L3kg

>>227
So what policies exactly are you pushing then? Quotas WILL replace people with better qualifications with people with worse qualifications.

>>229
"Discrimination is a part of life, so whiny whites with Phd's should "get the fuck over it""
Child rape is a part of life, so whiny children who rapists find sexually attractive should "get the fuck over it".

>>232


Actually, I do have proof that that has happened.

[Insert Bullshit story here]

This would be acceptable proof if this was a short story contest. I want to see solid proof that unmeritable minorities are being hired over meritable whites. I want to know why it even matters when we don't live in a meritacracy in the first place.

Really? So I'm stupid because I thought you where saying hard work isn't necessary for success when you said the following quote:

Yeah, you're pretty much a completely fucking idiot if you can't understand the difference between my ideals and my ideals applied to reality. Of course hard work brings success, but that's only in a soceity that's actually based on merit (which is one we don't live in)

Yes, there's a chance you'll get discriminated against.  There's a bigger chance I'll be discriminated because I'm white than that you would be discriminated because you are black though (government affirmative action programs).  Or, well, there WOULD have been, anyway, had we not abolished them.

Yeah, so now whites can just do whatever the fuck they please again! Yay! Here's to the white man and his completely underhanded style of "meritacracy"! Wow! You're so genius, Mr. CrackerMan! Let's go back to the days where you didn't have to "employ them niggers".

I've already said and explained away racial disparities in education and the economy.  People of different ethnicities have different cultures, raise their children differently, etc.  This all has consequences with far reaching effects on a given person's future.  This is not something an INDIVIDUAL couldn't overcome (because of course some do), but it is something present.

You can't "explain away" 400+ years of oppression and subjegation, you fucking idiot. This isn't just about "different cultures" when Anglo-Americans created a culture based around the subjegation of other cultures. If you really think it's that simple, you need to step out of your bubble...or just...GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL.

>>235
"This would be acceptable proof if this was a short story contest. I want to see solid proof that unmeritable minorities are being hired over meritable whites."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

If I'm not mistaken, she later became involved with (or possibly founded? I'm not quite sure), MCRI, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - which pushed prop.2 through Michigan, abolishing affirmative action programs based on race or gender.

"I want to know why it even matters when we don't live in a meritacracy in the first place."

Because if we are going to pass laws protecting one 'demographic', we should have equal protection of all 'demographics'.

>>235
"Yeah, you're pretty much a completely fucking idiot if you can't understand the difference between my ideals and my ideals applied to reality."

So basically, you aren't putting your ideals into practice.  You preach your ideals, and don't live by them.  Hypocrisy anyone?

"Yeah, so now whites can just do whatever the fuck they please again!"

Michigan abolished affirmative action, and sky hasn't fallen yet, nor has it in California.  There was a third state that had a similar measure enacted, and I haven't heard of any problems there either, although I forget which state that was. 

"If you really think it's that simple, you need to step out of your bubble...or just...GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL."

Based on your hideous spelling and grammar, I'd say it is you who should go back to high school, if that was what you were trying to say. 

"This isn't just about "different cultures" when Anglo-Americans created a culture based around the subjegation of other cultures."

I was referring to present-day racial disparities, not past racial disparity. 

>>237

"Yeah, so now whites can just do whatever the fuck they please again!"

"Michigan abolished affirmative action, and sky hasn't fallen yet, nor has it in California.  There was a third state that had a similar measure enacted, and I haven't heard of any problems there either, although I forget which state that was. "

LOL, I think the pro-affirmative action folks are just unhappy about losing their free ride.  Pay no heed.

>>238

Again: WHERE IS THE PROOF OF A FREE RIDE? There isn't any! Just a handful of outlandish stories from white nationalist! One trial doesn't even count. Of course someone who is unmeritable shouldn't be getting work, but then again...why play by rules that don't exist? On the otherhand: [u]What is wrong with AA when the person hired is meritable?[/u]

Michigan abolished affirmative action, and sky hasn't fallen yet, nor has it in California.  There was a third state that had a similar measure enacted, and I haven't heard of any problems there either, although I forget which state that was.

And you're not going to hear of any problem either, because you're white. The sky hasn't fallen for you yet, but you live in an insular bubble of white privilege. You don't know what the fuck is going on with anyone who isn't white.

I was referring to present-day racial disparities, not past racial disparity.

So was I. White people will do anything to avoid talking about the issue of race, even though they play their part in this debacle everyday of their lives. It's quite sad really.

>>239
Quotas are bullshit. People should just register their qualifications with the government and if an employer chooses someone with worse qualifications than them it means the employer is discriminating.

Frankly I don't give a fuck whether white priviledge exists or not, I want to know that my work is legitimate with no baggage. Do you get what I'm saying? How about instead of trying to cover up injustice you actually go out, get your hands dirty and solve the problems? You're just lazy, that's not right.