Slashdot Mirror
A New Meaning For Geotargeting At Monster.com
Duke submits a link to this New York Times story, according to which "it seems that Monster.com has taken the U.S. government's policy of sanctions against certain countries and run with it where no man has gone before. Monster 'has deleted resumes that list current addresses in those countries.' and more fun stuff. If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you." Update: 04/28 01:34 GMT by T : Note that the New York Times ran the story, but like many other newspaper stories, the real credit goes to the Associated Press.
Yes, it's a dupe.
Why bother.
it's their service, it's 100% free, and something tells me they covered there ass in the EULA. Is it nice? is it moral? probably not. But it is their company, and their service. Is this smart of them to do? Probably not, bad publicity could spell disaster for them.
If you don't agree with me, then discuss your view point, don't just mod me down cuz you disagree with me. FP.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Monster has removed all resumes with Arab-sounding names and has forward their contact information to der fuhrer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Mr. Ashcroft.
If we have sanctions against other countries, people from those countries shouldn't be able to make money from jobs or companies in the US anyhow. So we are just preventing them from violating the law.
Thank you and God bless America.
George W. Bush
President, United States of America
Slashdot endorses Karma-whoring!
"If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you."
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
After all, if its not the American Way, its the highway.
This isn't quite as bad as the "Freedom Fries" bullshit, but its pretty bad.. Can't people deal with the world at large without placing labels on certain ethnic groups, nationalities, etc. Perhaps that's too much to ask.
Yay patriotism..
Clearly that says: "SEE, YOU! 'EM BE OX! FIRE!"
He's telling you: "WATCH OUT, YOU! Those large animals are dangerous! Draw your weapon and SHOOT!"
The message is clear. The "large animals" represent the terrorist threat from middle-east nations. (The "OX" or beast of burden is clearly a reference to the primitive lives lead by many in the Middle East).
The admonishment to "shoot" is a sign that we must use our overwhelming force (as a man with a gun vs. an ox) to put down these countries, before they use their sheer mass (large populations) against us.
Make no mistake: Jesus is telling you (and us as a nation) that we must CONQUER and DESTROY the threat, we must create a great crusade against the EVIL that is someday going to come charging our way.
I guess you're not used to secret messages from Jesus delivered to you via your computer's entropy device file. That's okay, surprised me the first time too.
Advice to job seekers: never, ever, ever deal with Monster.com or their subsidiaries. I have monster.com and flipdog.com in my spam filters.
Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase
The biggest problem in many of the countries that the United States is currently sanctioning is that (relative) poverty has driven people to hate the United States. Terrorism is a funtion of that very hatred of our economic superiority. The only way to deal with a problem like this is to address the economic discrepancies between our nation and theirs and help to allow countries and people that have gotten left behind to join the global community. By preventing US companies from hiring these people, job sites can exacerbate that discrepancy and become part of the problem instead of a possible solution.
**When craziness is bliss, 'tis folly to be sane**
This is an associated press article and u can access it without the registration here
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
".. including immigrants wotj ties to some of the countries in question.."
Glad to see the New York Times have their spellcheckers working correctly.
Hopefully, companies will realize that there is some talent out there that cannot be filled by a US citizen. I'd like to see Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf get his own late -night talk show. He'd beat the crap out of Conan or Letterman (or at least strenously deny there presence).
Instead of framing this story about monster.com and the righteousness of their policy, the editors have used this story as yet another "infringement" of your rights. Of course the editors have no clue that monster.com can do as they please, but somehow they think you have a right to do whatever you like, and monster.com are the bad guys.
this is why i like coming to slashdot... for a good laugh at the idiocy at this site.
Now if we can get india, china and russia out of the picture, We can bring programming jobs back!
or not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Monster.com has already partially retracted this new policy. Now you just can't pick one of the blacklisted countries as a place you'd like to work. News.com has the updated story.
If you can't even send so much as a marshmallow peep to these TERRORIST-RUN states, why the heck would you HIRE anybody from there? We should sever all ties with these corrupt regimes.
The corrupt regime or the people over whom it has dominion? They aren't the same thing.
Why doesn't monster.com do us all a favor and disallow resumes from India as well.
Okay, okay, I'm kidding. Well, sort of.
For the last few months whenever I've been forced to register for any site, in the process of making up a fictitious address, I've set my country of origin to some random third world country. Afghanistan is nice and close to the top of the list, so it certainly gets used a lot. Otherwise, I tend to prefer Sudan. Lots of sun. Of course, I wouldn't do this on something like monster where they actually have a REASON for asking my address. I guess I'll have to stop though before the practice becomes more widespread.
Didn't know where else to put this, but I hope that one of the admins here will see it. A lot of your adds seem to be trying to install the Avenue A Inc. Cookie on my comp. Is Spyware really something Slashdot should be supporting?
An excerpt:
All this while Hussein et al were shitting on golden toilets. Did the sanctions hurt Saddam? Sure. But the damage done to the Iraqi people was orders of magnitude worse. Twelve years of sanctions, and what was accomplished? The task of removing Saddam through the use of military force was made easier, I suppose. But the primary reason for using sanctions in the first place is to avoid the use of military force. So, our sanctions against Iraq inconvenienced Saddam, killed a quarter-million children, and failed miserably at their stated purpose.
Way to go, Monster. That'll teach 'em.
...it's not like anybody is really hiring, sponsoring visas, etc. That and it sounds like a publicity stunt to me (no such thing as bad PR).
It's an outdated, Marxist view of conflict as "class struggle".
The fact is the majority of terrorism that exists today is state sponsored and has nothing to do with economics. To steal from Mark Steyn:
As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, 'We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.'.
From the horses mouth, that little quote destroys your argument.
Ultimately terrorism isn't about getting money, it's about getting power. After all, terrorism is an expensive business. Terrorists usually aren't poor, and even the foot soldiers (like the ones in the September 11th attacks) usually have good economic prospects.
Terrorists don't attack us because we have 3 TV's per capita and they don't. If you follow that logic to it's logical conclusion, you'll give the terrorists 3 tv's and still have people hating and killing you.
Ultimately the best cure for curing terrorism is killing the terrorists and destroying the infrastructure (states) that support it. There really is no other way.
There's a good chance it's going to be an idiotic post concerning violations of your "rights", usually by a Republican but sometimes by an evil Corporation.
We don't need the terrorist link. India already has WMD (nuclear bomb). That is enough reason to impose sanction or even invade it. Oh, it is the US's ally, please just turn your head and pretend you don't see it.
The Kurdish area of Iraq got the same amount of money under the sanctions as the rest of Iraq, yet they had no starvation there, nor did they have the thousands of dead infants. Iraq wasn't short of medicines...in Jordan at pharmacies they would ask if you if you wanted name brand, generic, or Iraqi.
The sanctions didn't kill the Iraqi children...Saddam Hussein did. Rather than channel the aid to people who needed it, he resold it (illegally) and kept the money for himself while starving the Iraqis in the south.
The point of this is, that part of the Iraqi economy that was under the control of the Hussein regime was used to enrich the Hussein regime. This was true before sanctions were ever in place.
The solution to this was NOT to end the sanctions regime.
The solution was the removal of Hussein from power.
Its almost impossible to get web based spyware using mozilla. IE is damn permissive in letting spyware into your box, espcially cookies.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Not to stray too far off topic here, but since when has any story submission not prevented people at Slashdot from making a self-rightous post? ;-)
For one thing, we weren't taking money "away" from Iraq...just limiting how we would do business with them and what we would sell them.
They could buy all the food and medicine they wanted (and in fact, Iraq imported more food in 2002 than it did pre-Gulf War I).
But I'm curious...were you pro-war or anti-war here? Personally, I think we should've finished the job back in 1991, but I disagree that the Iraqis that Hussein killed after then were somehow "caused by us". No, they were caused by Hussein.
With ideas of "this isn't fair", "people are poor and starving over there", and if you go to any sort of liberal rallies you will see people using very expressive (sometimes overly exaggerated speech). Keep this in mind, this is a common technique to excite people and get them involved emotionally in your cause. And emotions have no place in logic.
HA HA sorry man I was totally with you up until this part of your post. I really don't think you can point the finger at libbies on this one.
How about when the president says "september 11" in every other sentence? How about whenever somebody says a certain law is unconstitutional, the other guy says "3000 lives lost ... tragic events of 9/11 ... post-9/11 world ... blah blah".
Seriously, when the guy across the table is talking about people who died in terrorist attacks, you'll look like a FOOL if you question his plan to install cameras in every bathroom around the country at a taxpayer cost of billions of dollars.
How many people die in a year from non-terrorism related accidents..let's have some perspective...whenever somebody invokes the "tragic events of 9/11" he should be removed from the table and replaced with someone who can make a reasoned argument.
They interviewed the guy who was pouring expensive French champagne down the toilet and they asked him why .. he said "because 3000 of my countrymen died on 9/11" .. that doesn't even make any SENSE... but you can't say anything because invoking the ghosts of those people who died instantly shuts up all critics.
Cop: "Why did you just run that red light?"
Me: "On that tragic day September 2001, the world changed."
Cop: *sniff* "Yeah, shit, what was I thinking .. go ahead man .. may God be with you."
Emotional manipulation is at the core of any politician's speech.
simple
I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people? or for a company not to hire mexicans?
Just because you own something dosn't mean you should be able to do whatever the hell you want on it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
with the fact that your dislike of Bush is largely irrational. That doesn't mean you don't have real or even good reasons for disliking him, but like a lot of people that seem to dislike him, if you strip the good or real reasons, you are still left with a large amount of bile.
This is somewhat similar to the way conservatives viewed Clinton, only the Democratic/left hatred of Bush is of substantially greater magnitude...bordering on the black helicopter crowd.
I suggest you do some more research on the US-Iraq relationship. It was never as cozy as the left likes to claim. All of the stuff we gave Iraq that went to their WMD was dual use chemicals, of which the primary purpose was not the production of WMD. We certainly didn't help him in his quest to produce VX. For that, you can blame the Germans.
Back to Bush, what exactly is Bush doing that you fear so much?
But... but... I thought you had the right to remain silent? I thought that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law? I thought you had the right to an attourney, and that if you couldn't afford one, one would be appointed to you?
[Ashcroft] This is normally the case, except the terrorism terrorist was terrorizing September 11th terrorist weapons of mass destruction nuclear biological radiological terrorist chemical radiation death September 11th die fear terrorist terrorism pain alert death red alert nuclear radioactive terrorist terrorist.
[Public] Oh my God, lock him up! Terrorist?! Terrorism?! Make it stop, please! We'll do anything just-make-it-stop!
Pathetic.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
(Ok, slashdot is not the place to ask this.)
But don't the USA have laws against racism and discrimination that might apply?
Poor Balki Bartakamous, cast out because he's from Mypos.
I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people?
Sure, I don't have any problem with it. It's perfectly legitimate for organizations that practice discrimination along just about any lines they want to exist. There are a few very specific rules: government organizations and even private businesses when it comes to employment have some constraints on them. It's part of letting ideas flow freely. If people want to hang out with a bunch of other white supremacists and not let blacks join a club, I think they should certainly be entitled to do so. Trying to prohibit something like this becomes completely unenforceable, because race plays a role in all sorts of small organizations.
However, a business is more than entitled not to sell their product to anyone they want to, if they so choose.
or for a company not to hire mexicans?
As long as they're Mexican-Americans, legal citizens of the United States of America, I don't think it's legal to hire based on race, though it can be hard to prove.
Actually, I wish even this restriction was eliminated. Let natural selection take over. If IBM decides that it doesn't want to hire any Hispanics at all, and Apple does, and Miguel de Izaca works for Apple instead, it's IBM's loss.
When I see lawsuits like the infamous Hooters one (where a male was suing because he couldn't work as a waiter in a Hooters restauraunt), I get a little disgusted with the state of enforced PCness.
May we never see th
Apartheid?
Apartheid is a legitimate choice that the people of South Africa decided to live with for a while (and as it happened, went away after a while). I think it's a bit silly, but the US has no business waltzing in and shaking things up. The US has a far darker history of racial problems than most nations do.
I *do* think that it might be legitimate for the US to push the idea that if someone wants to emmigrate to the United States, and the United States is willing, that the host country should be forced to allow him to do so (barring a few international crimes like spying or espionage). That would solve quite a few problems...if the US wants to allow people to have the US's value system, they can open their arms to the people that want to take part.
Communism?
Communism is also a perfectly legitimate view. The only time it's potentially nasty is when it's advocating global revolution and actively trying to foment revolution. Communism was quite popular among intelligentsia for a long time, and we have a Communist Party in the United States.
Taking over a country to wipe out a communist regime is pretty disgusting, frankly. The US promotes the concept of self-determination, and then simply waltzes into other countries and forces a government and political system on them. You can't have it both ways.
May we never see th
I really liked the parent post, and would recommend reading it over to moderators.
May we never see th
"Corrupt regime".
That's funny compared to the country that won't offer jobs to people of an Arabic origin, stores illegal prisoners in concentration camps in countries they have, or dream of, occupying, that has effectively abolished any form of civil rights in less than one century and traded it for "National Security", and whose foreign policy roughly translates "bomb them before they can copy our weapons". (And sell their harbor to Denmark, no less.)
Which, I wonder, is more corrupt? Between Saddam Hussein and Bush, I would actually have to think for a couple of minutes if I were to choose one of them as my leader.
We, the non-Americans, or "everybody else", if you will, see this, but still, being the forgiving people we are, still don't go out of our way to delete your resumes.
Go ahead and check yours. It's probably still there.
Even if you put up a picture of Hitler over your bed and shout on National TV, "burn the Arabs! Fight the Arabic-Gay-Democrat conspiracy!", your resume will probably still be safe.
It's a shame, I think, that the Arabic people, whose only crime is to have crooked noses and bushy eyebrows, don't have this same privilege.
Did you buy the propaganda about terrorists hating the US due to it being such a free country, too? You don't think it has anything to do with US policies? Invading countries and stageing coups across the world since the second world war? No matter if you think it was right or wrong, don't you think you'd find yourself lots of enemies that way?
No, the dual use stuff really is dual use. For example, thiodiglycol is a pre-cursor of mustard gas, but it is also used for, among other things, producing ink for ballpoint pens.
A lot of the dual use chemicals we sold to Iraq have legimate uses in the manufacture of pesticides (or in some cases WERE pesticides). Not only are we talking about materials where the civilian use is legitimate, we are also talking about chemicals were the vast bulk of the uses are legimate. It is almost as if you are talking about banning the sale of bathtubs because Yates drowned her children in it.
There have been some legitimate and illegitimate criticisms on Bush's administration on transparency. It seems, among some other things, that Bush is covering up some of the Clinton excesses. I'd like to know why.
Bush isn't claiming protestors are no better than terrorists. And considering these terrorists, er, I mean protestors are claiming that Bush is no better than Hitler, can they really complain? The problem with the left is they think freedom of speech means freedom from criticism (unless they are doing the criticizing). It's a bit hypocritical to call Bush Hitler then get all bent out of shape when someone calls you a terrorist sympathizer. And it's also a bit disengenous. The protestors aren't being muzzled. You see them and their POV on the news every night.
The Santorum thing was a hatchet job. This is what he said:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
Which is ipsofacto true. It is a slippery slope. The same fundamental argument could be applied to incest (assuming we are talking about adults).
What he also said is, the Supreme Court should stay out of it. Whether or not the acts (in this case, sodomy) should be viewed as criminal should be left to the states, not the Supreme Court.
It was a long way from gay bashing, which is what this has been spun into being.
Hey, guess what, I'm an atheist too. But Bush or Ashcroft being religious doesn't bother me. No one has made me go to Church since they've been elected. To be honest, I feel more comfortable with someone like Bush or Ashcroft who believe their might be a reckoning for their actions than I do with someone like Clinton who (despite finding religion at all the right moments), obviously did not.
War Powers Act...well, that piece of legislation was probably un-Constitutional anyway. But, to a degree, you are correct, the judicial and executive branch are taking on more and more power over time. But what do you expect when both parties obstruct the functioning of government in Congress (see judicial nominations being blocked now by democrats..."advise and consent" is the charge given to the Senate, not "filibuster and obstruct")?
Karma bashing...we are probably both safe. I think we've nested far enough down where we are the only ones reading this.
I'd argue that given the liberal tilt of Slashdot, I probably have more to fear than you do.
BTW, enjoyed the debate. Good luck to you.
Wow, so now somehow the entire United States of America is refusing resumes from people in Arabic-speaking countries? Do you even know what the article is about?
It's not that I disagree with the fact that the U.S. is a corporate oligarchy, but generally when making a strong argument for or against something, it helps if the very first piece of evidence that you give isn't blatantly incorrect.
If you'd read the artical, you'd see the quote from someone at the government agency responsible for implementing those regulations saying that what monster did is not required by the law.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The reason it's legally permissible to shoot an intruder is because there is a definite risk associated with someone if they break into your home, not because of some legal right to kill whoever you want on your property.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Considering the wealth of information about those in sanctioned countries and that Ashcroft is till the stormtrooper in charge of infromation gathering..I seriously doubt Monster.com actually did this..
They proably truned over the reocrds to Ashcroft without Ashcroft even saying please..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
We already embargoed and/or sanctioned all those countries, so there's not a lot of work you'd be doing there anyways. Or, if you did land a job in Syria, you can expect a visit from the FBI. This has already been in place for years.
stuff |
--the act has a provision to re-classify you as a terrorist (primarily from participation in a protest 'threat, intimidate, coerce',or membership in an organization they deem terroristic, etc, fairly broad, you donated 5 bucks to some group before, they get classified as a terrorist group, whoops, you lose), which means you are no longer a "citizen" with any born with rights. This classification is completely on their say-so, no hearing or anything is required, they (any nameless governmental employee) merely state such and such is true, they win, you lose. You can then be "detained" and held in secret,deported to some other country, prosecuted, and punished up to the death penalty. It's about as extreme of a dictatorial move as you can get. Anyone who is aware of your detention and reclassification into sub human non citizen status is forbidden by law to inform anyone else, violations of which can get you reclassified. See above.
The gestalt is they left it broad enough that they can apply it to virtually anyone if they choose to do so. That is patriot act 1. Patriot act 2,which is even more extreme, after being leaked and denied, has now been chopped up and parts of it inserted into various other bills to disguise it.
What has happened is in essence the entire critical parts of the constitution have been re written, and most born-with rights are now null and void. Originally the constitution was written to detail government restrictions. Even the so called bill of rights was just a further description of the limits of government, as the basic fundamental to the constitution was that individual persons and the states had the most power and soverignty. The constitution doesn't "grant" anyone any "rights". You are born-with ALL rights, then there's a small sections of restrictions delineated in some detail which primarily apply to "government". That is now completely reversed, as full a 180 as is possible.
We are not supposed to have a royal, neo-royal, VIP class of "citizens" who are above the law. This explicitly applies to governmental employees. Explicitly, that was the entire purpose of the original secession from england and royal rule, there was no other reason of note. We got rid of the overlord class. that was the deal. This treatment of governmental employees as VIPs with unlimited powers to just grant themselves more powers, even calling them "laws" is not supposed to occur, nor are they even remotely *allowed* to grant themselves powers that they clearly do not have.
Any governmental employee who engages in unconstitutional actions, whether knowing or unknowing, is doing so under the explicit notice under the constititution that at some point they may be held personally liable for some serious citizen reactions, ie, "you don't want to go there", with "you" being any said employee,either elected, appointed, volunteered, or hired on, any "branch" or "level" or "title", civil, military, or "paramilitary", in any "government" federal, state, county, incorporated township or territory or unincorporated territory.
It's absolutly moraly wrong, and it's also illegal.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It's insightfull.
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
Not on mozilla
I don't think, race had much to do with the Monster's decision. They "filtered" based on the address. Black or yellow -- the resumes don't say. So, don't get too worked up. This is not the cause -- yet...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Seriously.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
This story did two things for me. One, it annoyed me that a company would bend so far over backwards to make the government happy and, two, it reminded me that I no longer need my monster account anyways.
So, I went to the site and logged in, hoping to find a nice little link from the Help or FAQ section, or maybe the My Account area that would tell me how to remove my account from monster.com.
I didn't find one. Nor did I find a way to email anyone about this. It isn't listed in the Topics you can email them about. So, what gives? Shall I just load up my resume with bogus references to the Middle East so that they will kick me out? Should I email admin@monster.com in the dim hopes that they have one?
Or should I just sit back and not give a damn one way or another? After all, for three years I've only had my resume seen 15 times and only got one bogus offer from it. So, it's not like it's a big deal or anything.
Still, my question is: Does anyone know how to remove your account from monster.com?
sig not found
What would happen if, say, a bank were to introduce "single-look-and-feel" personal banking functionality... and then couldn't implement it because of not only the countries on the list now, but the fact that Yanks like to add a place or two to the list every once in a while?
Well, the project could go forward, but not in the United States. Certain parts of the system would have to be served abroad. We're not just talking about functionality here though -- legally you can't even link to Iranian-hosted resources from a US web site without the possibility of incurring criminal charges not only against the person in charge, but against everyone involved in the project (Thanks mmr. Helms and Burton! You bastards).
This is not just theoretical. These are ongoing concerns with a number of companies; I used the example of a bank because that's what seemed most obvious to me.
I used to roll my eyes when people called for "regime change in Washington"... now I'm not so sure the idea is either silly or unnecessary. Looks like the US Gov't. is falling victim to the Internet -- a tool it created.
My sig is too lon
I just realized something kind of amusing, yet sad.
The dialogue on US foreign policy usually goes something like this:
"The US is fucked up man."
"What are you talking about, they're so much better than (insert nasty regime here)"
"Oh yeah they are."
"Give me some examples."
And of course, people have posted some examples here.
Who the fuck cares whether the US is better or worse than the Khmer Rouge (for example, could have been many others). The Khmer Rouge was seriously fucked up. If there's even the slightest possibility that the two regimes are in any way comprable, then that's a pretty bad sign. Comparing a country to the worst regimes in history is setting the bar pretty low. "Nice, we do less raping and pillaging than the vikings (norsemen or football team, both apply)... we're the fucking best."
If you've got that much money and that much power and there's even the slightest doubt about your country's record, that's a pretty bad sign.
At the same time, I feel pretty fucking immature for all this US bashing I tend to do. It doesn't really solve anything. If we can make more US citizens understand what is going on in the world, then that's good thing, but if we just really piss them off and make them defensive and xenophobic, the world is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. It seems more like I'm kicking them when they're down than trying to help them see things differently.
Civil Rights Act of 1967:
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
U.S. Law also makes it illegal to cooperate in any boycott against Israel by other countries.
I wonder how the U.S. would take it if other countries prohibited U.S. companies from doing business there if they cooperate in boycotts against Cuba, North Korea or those countries, or required them to comply with their anti-boycott rules if they prohibited such practices?
Not that I personally agree with how those countries operate, I find it rather amusing that the U.S. requires a boycott of certain other countries, but makes it illegal to follow required boycotts by some countries of their disfavored country(ies).
Paul Robinson < postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>, or < paul@elusive-butterfly.net>
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Groups like Al Qaeda are fighting to restore the Caliphate, and impose Islam on the 'House of War'.
They hate us quite simply because we are infidels. That hate us even more because we are powerful and stand in the way of them imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of the world.
What, exactly, do you propose as a counter-solution? Embrace Islam and start praying 5 times a day? Adopt the shariah as the Constitution and have all non-Muslims pay a poll tax in order to not be killed by the devout followers of the prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him?
Again, most terrorism does not come from the wellspring of injustice. It is not about righting wrongs. And the suppression of terrorism by violent means is QUITE effective historically speaking. Historical fact is on my side, not yours. In fact, I challenge you to find a case where accomodating the terrorists ended terrorism. Has yet to work for Northern Ireland, and that's the best case I can think of off the top of my head.
When it comes to hiring, they may as well be.
do you really think the public is SO DUMB that they can't make concience decisions fro themselves?
Ignoring your spelling mistakes...as a matter of fact, I DO believe that the public as a whole is stupid. While a person may be smart, the general public is incredibly stupid. It does not follow logic that the things that an individual does not agree with, when the PUBLIC says it, they go along with as if they had no problems with it.
If the public were truly intelligent, they would protest the way the government treated its own citizens after 9-11. They would protest the limiting of freedoms in the sake of "national security". Let's face it...all the new laws and regulations created to help "protect against terrorism" do is limit the freedoms of normal people. The only difference is that instead of getting on a plane and blowing themselves up, now they have to go to a public building where there are more people to kill because of the security at the airports.
Much as I hate to restate what so many people have already said, the references to 1984 and the McCarthy era are becoming closer and closer to reality.
NeoChichiri
http://www.neochichiri.net
"I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people? or for a company not to hire mexicans? "
That depends on what the club or company does, but in almost all cases I'd say its not "perfectly alright". I would think it is bigoted.
It is also not legal.
But, I think it should be legal.
GASP! Yes, that's right, I think it should be legal for other people to do something that I think is morally wrong. I know that is a strange concept to some people, but I happen to think that if some lefthanded dentist without tonsils wants to set up a business, club, or other organization that only hires or serves or offers membership to other lefthanded dentists without tonsils... then I think he ought to be free to do that. I, on the otherhand, should also be free to not like (and not do business with) stupid bigots. But, as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights*, they should be free to associate with, do business with, and snub whoever they want. I do think that making such non-equal opportunity organziations ineligble for gov't funding would be a good policy.
* Before anyone tries telling me that people have a Right to a certain job, or a Right to a certain house, or a Right to a car loan, or a Right to be a member of the Left-handed No-tonsil Destist Association, I think I should point out that I am niether a socialist nor a commie, so I don't think those are real Rights.
Is September 11 the new Godwin's Law?
cpeterso
http://www.unknownnews.net/stickers.html
cpeterso
The whole idea is disturbing. It's not a question of whether a private free service has the right.
What if
it was a company's hiring policy to reject resumes from certain places (other than jails and the like)?
Do people expect the origin of an otherwise qualified person to determine whether they are hiring a troublemaker?
For Pete's sake, these resumes are coming from the Internet so they are coming from a civilization advanced enough to even have computers.
A lot of people want to work in the US to escape their oppressive governments. They're being told that they are bad people.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Now that is something very American. In Germany, where I come from we have certain taboos. Talking this openly about segragation would not be possible. Even though I am very sure what the outcome has to be of those discussions and it really gets to me when someone speaks on favour of some very stupid things the whole discussion seems to be necessary.
In Germany we just had a case of police torture. The officer in question thought he could save the live of a boy be torturing the guy he thought to be the one who kidnapped the boy. Turned out the he was right. Then a judge publicly stated that if the life of a child is in danger and You have the guy that is responsible for it it is OK to torture that person (ignoring the fact that one can always be wrong and You can get anything You want using torture, if You torture me I will confess that I killed Kennedy).
Since the public discussion about that subject was held so uptight, because we were talking about a taboo many people I met came out with the opinion that torture would be OK, something the society that originally imposed the taboo didn't have in mind, I think.
Anyways, there seem to be still people out there that think there is a difference between emporer A trying to rid the people of king B and waging for for religous/ownership/whatever reasons or bullying that king into doing something using military threat and the current situation in Iraq and in Syria. An interesting effect that democrazy has on people. But public support for wars came about with the emergence of nation states. In times of kings people had to be pressured to do military service. That is the reason why George Washington was successful. The colonists fought against people that didn't give a damn (many Germany were sold to the English as soldiers and fought on the British side). In WWI the Germans were eager to get to the front, even though we still had a king. So I don't blame democrazy for people so stupid to support wars, they started earlier. Maybe nation states are to blame. I dunno.
IIRC, I-N are Intiger unless declared real, therefor, Magic is Integer unless declared Real.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Perhaps companies that use Monster.com for potential hires don't want to have to worry about accidentally hiring a terrorist, hacker, or someone with a grudge.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I don't think PETA likes those nasty furriners either.