Jim Harper, who is idetified as the founder of Privacilla is a former staffer for the House Judiciary Committee. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same group who tried to push through the Communications Decency Act (the one that would charge you $250K if you said "fuck you" to someone, or talked about AIDS, etc.). And this is also the same group that approved the release of Monica Lewinsky's entire testimony on the web - which if CDA had passed would have meant they were all liable under that Act? And let's not even talk about the privacy implications of that move...
Given the selection of organizations supporting privicilla (where DID he ge that name?), it's clear Harper is more concerned with building a bureaucratic structure to financially support him - moreso than acheive anything substantive. He is the principal at http://www.policycounsel.com/ which is another store-front lobbying consulting firm, of which another 20 or 30 will pop up here in DC over the next few months as staffers to elected officials and political appointees find themselves without a job after November (I live and work in DC and have seen this more than a few times).
Given the conservative nature of the organizations supporting Privacilla (which according to the website do not include Cato) it seems curious - these are the same folks who would support censorship on the web, support Microsoft's closed-source business model, and don't really care which way the privacy thing goes, as long as their making money. I find it ironic that he wants to follow some "open-source" model for his project - given that the organizations that support him don't support open source....?
I think it's telling that he only has about 15 colleges signed up, and is "hoping" to add up to 25 - soon. There are something like 5000 4-year colleges and universities in this country. And the ones that you really need to worry about price are the competive ones - and they aren't going to sign up for some service so that their admissions committee can feel like they're at a cow auction. The only colleges that even could consider this service are the ones that only consider GPA, test score and how much money your parents make. And those you can get into anyway.
He also doesn't tell you who the colleges are, so you have no idea where you might be going. I think I'd be hard pressed to move to Alaska if that's the best offer...
"Also, it has NOT been proven that African Americans ARE discriminated against, only that they HAVE BEEN"
Wow. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you really need an education that bad, let me know, I'll send you some research. In the interim, check out the latest reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center http://www.splcenter.org/ and see how much discrimination doesn't exist. And let's remember that most of those hate groups that SPLC tracks are made up of individuals who identify themselves as white christians.
OK. maybe using hate groups isn't fair. How about some other information. How about the "egregious cases" from US Dept. of Labor's OFCCP - detailing some of the more heinous examples of systematic discrimination that have been documented in the last two years (if that's that current enough for you). See http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/media/reports/of ccp/egregis.htm
There has also been recent work done in the states of Washington and Georgia documenting ONGOING discrimination based on race and gender. I can't find a copy of the reports right now, but since I've met the guy doing them, I do know they exist.
But this does show your true intentions. You want to ignore the fac that racism against people of color exists, but you want to invent systemic racism against white males. A prefered of spin doctors - refuse to accept what reality is, and invent your own.
So, here it is, according to Kintanon: current discrimination against African Americans doesn't exist, but look out for discrimination against white males - it's on the rise!
Interesting point - only it does't fly. How many Black owners are their in the NBA? How many in the NFL? Don't you find it a little odd that the only places where you find what might be considered a critical mass of minorities making any money is in the entertainment industry?
I also don't think I was talking about a small subset. Numerically maybe, put politically, culturally, what color are the folks on the top of the heap - the folks who make the decisions, and decide policy, and pass laws.
And by the way, I'm not here to determine whether African Americans are oppressed and/or discriminated against - that's already been proven. The question is, what's all this business about white christian males? If you can show me a pattern of discrimination, or even anything larger than an handful of anecdotes, your argument might be a little easier to swallow.
I am aware that the Franco/Hitler thing was my example, originally, I just didn't understand what you were trying to turn it into.
Yes, govt mandated quotas are illegal. Goals and timetable are not, and that's what universities use. I guess goals and timetables are OK if you're running a business, but they aren't for struturing a student body?
Oh, and where are white males being oppressed? Have you checked the Fortune 500 lately? Have you looked at the membership of the House or the Senate? How about the faces of the federal judiciary? I don't discount the reality that there are REMOTE instances of white males being discriminated against. But if you look at the larger picture, you're using an isolated anecdote to rebut an demographic reality.
I don't know what you were trying to say regarding Franco and Hitler, but I'll leave that one alone.
But I had a sense that we were going down the road of affirmative action. The general ignorance of affirmative action (is endemic. You should probably know that of the 1000's of job discrimination cases that EEOC looks at every year, only a few hundred are cases of what you might call "reverse discrimination." Most recently (I believe data from last year - don't have the source in front of me) only about 12 of those were found to be valid.
Furthermore, the occurence of white male christians getting beat out of a job based on mreit has nothing to do with their color. Affirmative action has little to do with past discrimination - only current. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on that in a number of cases. This is similar to the misinformation floating about that affirmative action is about quotas and racial preferences. For starters, quotas are illegal (and have been for 20-some years). And as for racial preferences - that's an entirely different conversation.
p.s. the occurences of folks not getting jobs because they are not white male christians is WAY higher than the reverse. Your continuing reference to white male christians is misleading as well - often folks don't get a job because they're simply not qualified; or they are dismissed in a debate (censored?) because what they have to say is irrelavant.
I think you're true colors (no pun intended) are showing. Are you actually trying to obsolve christianity from the evil of slavery merely because every one else was doing it? That's like saying what Franco was doing was OK 'cause there was this guy named Hitler too...
I am well aware that there was slavery ()and in some instances there still is) on the continent of Africa. If you check your history books, you will find out that AT THAT TIME, African slavery was fundamentally different than that practiced by the Europeans. And don't forget the Pope played an instrumental role in dividing up the continent among the European nations - you basically had to get his permission to participate in the trade.
As for Dr. King, I already addressed that.
Furthermore I agree with you (huh?!) that "Anyone who invokes christianity as a reason to hate someone needs to re-read their Bible." The point I was trying to make with you (and didn't do a good job) is that by raising the issue of these poor white christian males, you bring up 300 years of oppression. I understand that you may not have intended to. If you did not intend to, your original post would have been about verbal criticism often being characterized as an attempt to censor. But you didn't. You brought up the spectre of the "poor white guy" who can't get a break - because he's white (!?).
White Christian Males have been ruling the debate for a few hundred years. It only been through the actions of folks like MLK, Jr. and Gandhi that other voices are now being heard. Now all of a sudden, these nonwhite, nonmale, nonchristian voices are being heard. Yeah, it adds to the debate. Yeah, it adds to the friction. And yeah, we probably end up with a better result.
So someone else gets a chance at bat now - quit your whining. I really tired of hearing how bad off white guys have it...
My reference to MLK Jr., was making the reference to his Black-ness - in addition to his being a christian - as opposed to being a white christian male. I am well aware of who he was, what he stood for, and how he lived his life (I used to work for the organization he helped to found). My point was that there are folks that may or may not be christian who lead what might be interpreted as christian lives. In addition, there are those who identify themselves as christian who do not, are not, and will never be.
Wow. I expected this kind of reaction when Katz was talking about the lack of diversity in the technology fields - but at what point did his essay start talking about white males? Isn't Singer predominently Jewish name anyway? This response is going to include responses to some of Kintanon's other posts, since he seems to be on a role.
First of all, you never did lose your right to speal out, you just did (as has been pointed out). I'm not sure where you picked up the lambasting of white male christians in Katz piece, but I'll leave that one alone for now, since you've obviously taken this on a different tangent. Silly me, I thought Katz piece was about speech, NOT about race and racism. But since you brought the subject up...
Let's see, for a few hundred years white male christians (as they referred to themselves) have done a number on women and people of color world-wide. This does not obsolve other race/ethnicities from whatever they might have done - we're not talking about them, we're talking about folks that look like you (at this point, I'm, assuming that you are white christian male). For centuries white male christians did their best to make sure that theories of racial inferiority made it into scientific literature so as to bolster their claims of superiority. The entire slave trade was based on those theories which have since been effectively disproved - but their legacy lives on.
I'll agree that often when white males speak out against a subject they are often interpreted as trying to censor the subject. Old habits die hard. Often they are. After a few hundred years of censorship and lies, sometimes it's hard to believe that the speaker is genuinely concerned, or just racist. I would argue that often you are seeing impulse reactions to what is perceived to be racism (or sexism) whether it is or not.
Futhermore, you can't have your cake and eat it too. One poster the KKK is a bunch of white male christians, your response to which was "they are not REAL christians." That may be, but your reliance on "White Male Christian" as a point of departure only indicates that you share some of their world views. Whether you do or not is not the point (right now), the point is that when you use the rhetoric of a group of racists, it's not hard to make the leap that you share some of their views.
Above you make the point that "no one wants to take responsibility anymore." I couldn't agree more. Just make sure you take responsibility for what you are saying, and the implications you are making. You insistence on making this an issue of free speech for white male christians racializes the issue. I might go so far as to say that you are arguing for free speech for white male christians ONLY, since your post implies that no one else has any claim on the truth. You want to distance yourself from any evil that has been done in the name of christianity, but you insist on calling yourself a christian without making any kind of distiction.
What makes a good christian? Gandhi seemed like a good christian - oh, my mistake, he was Hindi. Martin Luther King Jr., seemed like a good christian - oh, my mistake, he was African American. No, the bombing in Oklahoma City was not a Christian act, but McVeigh was a follower of folks who invoke christianity to legitimize their hatred of others. Sheesh, what about the Inquisition?
I, like another poster, am pissed off that I got drawn into this. I'm usually pretty good at avoiding getting involved in discussions of race (I was very good with the last Katz essay on the subject), but here we are. I could go off on a tangent about the racist code words that Kintanon is using in his posts, but I'm not going to go there. I could accuse him of being a racist, but I'm not going to go there either since it doesn't contribute to the discussion. I will say, however, that his post COULD be interpreted as racist in nature and intent.
Slashdot Mirror
Jim Harper, who is idetified as the founder of Privacilla is a former staffer for the House Judiciary Committee. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same group who tried to push through the Communications Decency Act (the one that would charge you $250K if you said "fuck you" to someone, or talked about AIDS, etc.). And this is also the same group that approved the release of Monica Lewinsky's entire testimony on the web - which if CDA had passed would have meant they were all liable under that Act? And let's not even talk about the privacy implications of that move...
Given the selection of organizations supporting privicilla (where DID he ge that name?), it's clear Harper is more concerned with building a bureaucratic structure to financially support him - moreso than acheive anything substantive. He is the principal at http://www.policycounsel.com/ which is another store-front lobbying consulting firm, of which another 20 or 30 will pop up here in DC over the next few months as staffers to elected officials and political appointees find themselves without a job after November (I live and work in DC and have seen this more than a few times).
Given the conservative nature of the organizations supporting Privacilla (which according to the website do not include Cato) it seems curious - these are the same folks who would support censorship on the web, support Microsoft's closed-source business model, and don't really care which way the privacy thing goes, as long as their making money. I find it ironic that he wants to follow some "open-source" model for his project - given that the organizations that support him don't support open source....?
I think it's telling that he only has about 15 colleges signed up, and is "hoping" to add up to 25 - soon. There are something like 5000 4-year colleges and universities in this country. And the ones that you really need to worry about price are the competive ones - and they aren't going to sign up for some service so that their admissions committee can feel like they're at a cow auction. The only colleges that even could consider this service are the ones that only consider GPA, test score and how much money your parents make. And those you can get into anyway.
He also doesn't tell you who the colleges are, so you have no idea where you might be going. I think I'd be hard pressed to move to Alaska if that's the best offer...
"Also, it has NOT been proven that African Americans ARE discriminated against, only that they HAVE BEEN"
f ccp/egregis.htm
Wow. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you really need an education that bad, let me know, I'll send you some research. In the interim, check out the latest reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center http://www.splcenter.org/ and see how much discrimination doesn't exist. And let's remember that most of those hate groups that SPLC tracks are made up of individuals who identify themselves as white christians.
OK. maybe using hate groups isn't fair. How about some other information. How about the "egregious cases" from US Dept. of Labor's OFCCP - detailing some of the more heinous examples of systematic discrimination that have been documented in the last two years (if that's that current enough for you). See http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/media/reports/o
There has also been recent work done in the states of Washington and Georgia documenting ONGOING discrimination based on race and gender. I can't find a copy of the reports right now, but since I've met the guy doing them, I do know they exist.
But this does show your true intentions. You want to ignore the fac that racism against people of color exists, but you want to invent systemic racism against white males. A prefered of spin doctors - refuse to accept what reality is, and invent your own.
So, here it is, according to Kintanon: current discrimination against African Americans doesn't exist, but look out for discrimination against white males - it's on the rise!
Interesting point - only it does't fly. How many Black owners are their in the NBA? How many in the NFL? Don't you find it a little odd that the only places where you find what might be considered a critical mass of minorities making any money is in the entertainment industry?
I also don't think I was talking about a small subset. Numerically maybe, put politically, culturally, what color are the folks on the top of the heap - the folks who make the decisions, and decide policy, and pass laws.
And by the way, I'm not here to determine whether African Americans are oppressed and/or discriminated against - that's already been proven. The question is, what's all this business about white christian males? If you can show me a pattern of discrimination, or even anything larger than an handful of anecdotes, your argument might be a little easier to swallow.
I am aware that the Franco/Hitler thing was my example, originally, I just didn't understand what you were trying to turn it into.
Yes, govt mandated quotas are illegal. Goals and timetable are not, and that's what universities use. I guess goals and timetables are OK if you're running a business, but they aren't for struturing a student body?
Oh, and where are white males being oppressed? Have you checked the Fortune 500 lately? Have you looked at the membership of the House or the Senate? How about the faces of the federal judiciary? I don't discount the reality that there are REMOTE instances of white males being discriminated against. But if you look at the larger picture, you're using an isolated anecdote to rebut an demographic reality.
I don't know what you were trying to say regarding Franco and Hitler, but I'll leave that one alone.
But I had a sense that we were going down the road of affirmative action. The general ignorance of affirmative action (is endemic. You should probably know that of the 1000's of job discrimination cases that EEOC looks at every year, only a few hundred are cases of what you might call "reverse discrimination." Most recently (I believe data from last year - don't have the source in front of me) only about 12 of those were found to be valid.
Furthermore, the occurence of white male christians getting beat out of a job based on mreit has nothing to do with their color. Affirmative action has little to do with past discrimination - only current. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on that in a number of cases. This is similar to the misinformation floating about that affirmative action is about quotas and racial preferences. For starters, quotas are illegal (and have been for 20-some years). And as for racial preferences - that's an entirely different conversation.
p.s. the occurences of folks not getting jobs because they are not white male christians is WAY higher than the reverse. Your continuing reference to white male christians is misleading as well - often folks don't get a job because they're simply not qualified; or they are dismissed in a debate (censored?) because what they have to say is irrelavant.
But I digress
I think you're true colors (no pun intended) are showing. Are you actually trying to obsolve christianity from the evil of slavery merely because every one else was doing it? That's like saying what Franco was doing was OK 'cause there was this guy named Hitler too...
I am well aware that there was slavery ()and in some instances there still is) on the continent of Africa. If you check your history books, you will find out that AT THAT TIME, African slavery was fundamentally different than that practiced by the Europeans. And don't forget the Pope played an instrumental role in dividing up the continent among the European nations - you basically had to get his permission to participate in the trade.
As for Dr. King, I already addressed that.
Furthermore I agree with you (huh?!) that "Anyone who invokes christianity as a reason to hate someone needs to re-read their Bible." The point I was trying to make with you (and didn't do a good job) is that by raising the issue of these poor white christian males, you bring up 300 years of oppression. I understand that you may not have intended to. If you did not intend to, your original post would have been about verbal criticism often being characterized as an attempt to censor. But you didn't. You brought up the spectre of the "poor white guy" who can't get a break - because he's white (!?).
White Christian Males have been ruling the debate for a few hundred years. It only been through the actions of folks like MLK, Jr. and Gandhi that other voices are now being heard. Now all of a sudden, these nonwhite, nonmale, nonchristian voices are being heard. Yeah, it adds to the debate. Yeah, it adds to the friction. And yeah, we probably end up with a better result.
So someone else gets a chance at bat now - quit your whining. I really tired of hearing how bad off white guys have it...
My reference to MLK Jr., was making the reference to his Black-ness - in addition to his being a christian - as opposed to being a white christian male. I am well aware of who he was, what he stood for, and how he lived his life (I used to work for the organization he helped to found). My point was that there are folks that may or may not be christian who lead what might be interpreted as christian lives. In addition, there are those who identify themselves as christian who do not, are not, and will never be.
Wow. I expected this kind of reaction when Katz was talking about the lack of diversity in the technology fields - but at what point did his essay start talking about white males? Isn't Singer predominently Jewish name anyway? This response is going to include responses to some of Kintanon's other posts, since he seems to be on a role.
First of all, you never did lose your right to speal out, you just did (as has been pointed out). I'm not sure where you picked up the lambasting of white male christians in Katz piece, but I'll leave that one alone for now, since you've obviously taken this on a different tangent. Silly me, I thought Katz piece was about speech, NOT about race and racism. But since you brought the subject up...
Let's see, for a few hundred years white male christians (as they referred to themselves) have done a number on women and people of color world-wide. This does not obsolve other race/ethnicities from whatever they might have done - we're not talking about them, we're talking about folks that look like you (at this point, I'm, assuming that you are white christian male). For centuries white male christians did their best to make sure that theories of racial inferiority made it into scientific literature so as to bolster their claims of superiority. The entire slave trade was based on those theories which have since been effectively disproved - but their legacy lives on.
I'll agree that often when white males speak out against a subject they are often interpreted as trying to censor the subject. Old habits die hard. Often they are. After a few hundred years of censorship and lies, sometimes it's hard to believe that the speaker is genuinely concerned, or just racist. I would argue that often you are seeing impulse reactions to what is perceived to be racism (or sexism) whether it is or not.
Futhermore, you can't have your cake and eat it too. One poster the KKK is a bunch of white male christians, your response to which was "they are not REAL christians." That may be, but your reliance on "White Male Christian" as a point of departure only indicates that you share some of their world views. Whether you do or not is not the point (right now), the point is that when you use the rhetoric of a group of racists, it's not hard to make the leap that you share some of their views.
Above you make the point that "no one wants to take responsibility anymore." I couldn't agree more. Just make sure you take responsibility for what you are saying, and the implications you are making. You insistence on making this an issue of free speech for white male christians racializes the issue. I might go so far as to say that you are arguing for free speech for white male christians ONLY, since your post implies that no one else has any claim on the truth. You want to distance yourself from any evil that has been done in the name of christianity, but you insist on calling yourself a christian without making any kind of distiction.
What makes a good christian? Gandhi seemed like a good christian - oh, my mistake, he was Hindi. Martin Luther King Jr., seemed like a good christian - oh, my mistake, he was African American. No, the bombing in Oklahoma City was not a Christian act, but McVeigh was a follower of folks who invoke christianity to legitimize their hatred of others. Sheesh, what about the Inquisition?
I, like another poster, am pissed off that I got drawn into this. I'm usually pretty good at avoiding getting involved in discussions of race (I was very good with the last Katz essay on the subject), but here we are. I could go off on a tangent about the racist code words that Kintanon is using in his posts, but I'm not going to go there. I could accuse him of being a racist, but I'm not going to go there either since it doesn't contribute to the discussion. I will say, however, that his post COULD be interpreted as racist in nature and intent.
I just put on my asbetos draw's do bring it on...