You are correct...but then again, CA population growth exceeds that of OK by many levels. And has the connected resources need that comes with the growth.
Of course, OK has one thing going for it....it isn't TX, although it is close!
The drinking age for the US military is whatever the local legal age is to purchase alcohol....unless you are close to a border with a lower age (see Canada/Mexico), then the commander can lower the age on base/post/station to the lower legal limit. (example is/was Ft Bliss, El Paso, Tx....TX legal age is 21, Juarez, Mexico is 18...or less even. Drinking age on Ft Bliss is 18 for military members assigned to that installation).
The drinking age in England for US military members stationed there is 18.
Not neccesarily if the accused has something to hide will they request a third party to examine the evidence. Usually it is becuase they DISTRUST the accusing party that they request a neutral third party to do the inspection.
The accuser tells the 3rd party exactly what they are looking for.
The accused hands over the equipment.
The 3rd party confirms or not the existance of what the accuser was looking for.
Both parties are happy (more or less) that the "truth" one out.
I could have simply said RTFA, but that would not have addressed the idiocy of the person's post. I also noted that the flames were on at the beginning.....you could have not read past the warning if you were sensitive. If you had no clue what was meant by "flames on" then perhaps you should be more careful wandering around the internets tubes by yourself.
2nd...It is obviousl you know little, if anything, about copyright law. Copyright exists the MOMENT you create something. Therefore the students already had copyright. What they did that was unusual, was to REGISTER their copyright. This is what increases the STATUTORY damages they can claim.
3rd....The company is USING their works, without agreement from the copyright holder, for business use. Use MS Vista or RIAA/MPAA members' works for your business without paying them for that use....well, the lawyers are already searching the web for violators and suing (their mistakes are they do not positively identify the violator before pouncing).
4th....Perhaps you should learn to READ and apply that learning to actually using the skill to then research topics and educate yourself before you post and confirm to the world how much an idiot you are.
If you feel you are being denied EEO standards, then you have not researched it very well, and possibly are the problem.
If you wish to get a scholarship on the basis of being a "minority" student, apply at a Historically Black University such as Florida A&M or Morehouse. They are looking for diversity and seek more White students.
As far as EEO laws go.....they are written neutrally with regard to protected categories. I have investigated (and confirmed) discrimination against a White male in the past. It just that usually White males claim to be discriminated against when the truth is they are finally being treated equally.
First, the "military" is very broad as a term. The USAF tends to recruit more technical minded people, though frequently still young and wanting to attend college. The Army tends to use education as a recruiting tool, but actually recruits to the enlisted ranks more members who already have baccalaureate degrees (they offer E4 pay grade out of basic as an incentive).
That said: the Lower/lower-middle class who wish to attend college but need money for school are easily attracted to the military because of the benefits (pay check, medical coverage, tuition assistance while in/GI bill when you get out, etc). Lower class does not mean "does not have GED/High school diploma". There is a large percentage of the lower/working class that achieves that level of education but needs the money to continue. THAT is the target recruiting audience. Those who can afford school do not "need" the military, but are welcome if they feel a need to serve.
These days, it is not "Do you have a felony conviction on your record?" but more of a "What type of felony conviction do you have?" being asked. Frankly, the standards have been lowered dramatically. Hell, the maximum age for entry has been raised by the Army. People older than I can come in and begin their military career and I am eligible to retire from the military having completed 21 years (so far). THAT is scary in and of itself. The older you are, the more likely you will have medical issues....and military training and life can be rough on the body.
Reading the article from their website does not change my opinion of it one bit: biased and lies through misrepresentation.
1. The education requirement for enlistment. There are limited slots for those who do not have a minimum of a High School diploma, with the majority of those going to those with GEDs. The numbers used are from 2003. Becuase of the mandated requirements for enlistment sets minimum limits, these are not valid for use. Especially as a High School diploma is not exactly a high standard. N.B. I do not have a high school diploma. I was educated in Europe from the age of 7 on. I had to get my education evaluated for equivalency....I exceeded the High School level. Also, the ASVAB is used as another discriminator. Every member of the USAF scored high enough on the ASVAB to enter that they could have entered the Army if they wished. The reverse is not true.
2. Methodology: From the article:
Average Household Income of Recruits. Individual recruit income data are not available. In computing the average household income for recruits, each recruit was assigned the median household income for his or her ZCTA.
So we have "We have no clue how to address this, so we made shit up." method was used. Perhaps the reason the recruit enlisted is because their income was LESS than the median for his/her ZCTA. Assigning income when it is not known is BAD methodology, especially when you are trying to prove that recruits are not in the poorest levels of society. And poor is relative. My income while stationed in New Mexico was pretty good compared to the locals......the same income while in Monterey, CA placed me pretty low compared to the locals. Yet, because of my rank, compared to the NATIONAL median, I fare pretty well. According to the methodology used, if I had enlisted while in Monterey, I would have been assigned the value of the local Median, which is well above the National numbers. This can skew the numbers.
My brother was living in Los Angeles, and did not join the National Guard or Reserves as it would have driven down his income while he was at Basic Training and technical school. His income at the time was above the national Median income, yet barely above the poverty level for Los Angeles. Indeed, he was working 2 jobs to stay ahead. The methodology used would have given him a boost in his income level.
In juxtaposition to that, people like me were discounted. I was one of those that enlisted from a military ZTCA (I was overseas at the time). While my income was over the US national Median, as I was living in London, I was just about living comfortably- lived with my parents, few costs for food, paid for my necessities, and a little extra for the Pub- but not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
3. From your source.... Ethnic background: 88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian, 10.6% (275,000) were black, 1.0% belonged to other races
86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (including Hispanics) 12.5% (7,241) were black. 1.2% belonged to other races
170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2%) of whom died there.
86.8% of the men who were KIA were Caucasian 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races. 14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were black 34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the population.
This is again misleading....Of those who WENT to Vietnam (not population as a whole), MORE minorities than Caucasions were killed- when looked at the population sizes. For example, nearly 25% more Blacks were killed than Causcasions (when comparing population sizes of those who went to Vietnam). Therefore, to say Minorities were NOT killed in greater proportion to their population size (of those who went to VIETNAM) is incorrect. Again, this is based on the link you provided.
First, the article is an opinion piece. The Methodology used is also suspect. They use DoD overall numbers and then refer to "Soldiers". This is misleading. Not all members of the DoD are soldiers. They are specifically members of the US Army NOT members of the USMC, USN or USAF (They would be Marines, Sailors and Airmen).
Second, the numbers given for education is for the DoD as a whole. This means they include the USAF and USN (typically have higher education level requirements) and then use that to extrapolate to the "Soldiers". To be accurate would require a breakdown by service, and NOT by DoD as a whole.
Also, both authors of the OPINION piece are researchers at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) whose website states:
Our Mission Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
This would imply a level of bias. And, based on my quick review of their article, I would suggest they are extremely biased and would even go so far to say they are careful to be misleading while sounding accurate by using cherry-picked facts (sound familiar?).
I also wish to add that I am a proud member of the USAF having served 21 years so far.
I do investigations, and freguently deal with military unit commanders. I was the one called to address issues that my counterpart (the ranking one of the two of us) failed to address in a timely manner, if at all.
His response was more of giving the answer he thought people wanted to hear, not always the answer they needed to hear. And it meant I had to frequently go into our database (which we both used....I at least do that much!), obtain the needed data, print it out, call the person who was asking what was going on....then finish the project to make our legally mandated deadlines. Sometimes, this meant doing a fair bit of research, but the web is useful, and knowing how to search meant I could get good answers today versus a non-answer a week later.
This also meant I kept paperwork until a few weeks after the project was complete to ensure I could answer questions if they came up becuase of legal challenges.
My personal experience has taught me the opposite. I have been derided for being the "slob" yet end up being the one that gets most of the work done as the other person loses more things/information than I, cannot organize their thoughts or documentation so that others can read it, etc. I end up being the go to guy, and yet I still get my projects out.
You post extreme examples from combat zones. If you have no opinion on Iraq, why not pick examples that include the troops in the US (perhaps Tailhook or the USAF Academy)? So, to not put words in your mouth....do you want the troops to remain in Iraq? In perpetuity?
And your example does not work....Perhaps yelling at someone that you will kill them vs pointing a firearm at them would work. Both are threats...one is more extreme than the other. Your example causes physical harm in both cases (and both would likely be treated as criminal).
The law HAS to draw a line somewhere. One level is criminal, the other civil. Even among the two levels, the law further refines distinctions. This is how we show a person is responsible for their actions. By comparing their actions to the "reasonable person" standard, and then look at any other factors (ie is it connected to employment in some way? This is required for sexual harassment under EEOC guidelines and the law). Simply reading Maxim magazine in the park does not equate to sexual harassment, but at work it is likely to if someone complains. But if you grab the genitals of anyone (if it was not welcomed!), no matter if it were in a job location, you will have committed sexual assault.
It is not a hinderance if you know WHY legal definitions are used. Sexual Harassment is a CIVIL law issue. This means there is not a CRIMINAL aspect to the behaviour. Indeed, based on the typical cat calls seen at any spring break location, many of our population aged 18-30 woudl be in jail if otherwise.
RAPE and SEXUAL ASSAULT are CRIMINAL law issue. This means you can go to jail. Granted, the bahaviour of an idiot who sexually harasses someone at their workplace (becuase the law requires an employment connection of some type), is more likely to proceed on the continuum to the criminal realm of sexual assault/rape than one who does not.
The difference is (as I already pointed out) the same as the difference between yelling obscenities at someone and actually striking them.
The military, if you don't know, has courses about Sexual Assault Prevention that are SEPERATE from the Sexual Harassment Prevention courses. I also think the links given had NOTHING to do with sexual harassment and everything to do with trying to blame the WHOLE military for the criminal behaviour of a few. The same way labelling all geeks who play violent computer games as being the same as the Columbine shooters. One may empathize with them, but the fact is, they took their actions beyond the acceptable limits whereas most geeks who like violent video/computer games do not go that far. In fact, I would "Do not rape." (no qualifiers like "Iraqi civlians" needed) is something that should not have to be said, as hopefully society has taught that lesson already. Apparently not. Shame we have to deal with the fact American society failed to do their job first.
And, if you hate the war in Iraq (or even the one in Afghanistan or both), go right ahead and hate it. Indeed, I encourage you to contact your elected representative and tell them you wish to see the military brought home ASAP.
Perhaps you need a legal lesson. Sexual Harassment/= Rape. Indeed, once physical contact of a sexual nature is made upon another person, you are crossing into the realm of sexual assault. This means you have crossed from a civil-law type issue to a criminal-law type issue.
This is also true of yelling obscenities at someone/= Battery (see Assault&Battery). Specifically, I could use every ethnic,racial, religious, gender, etc slur towards you and likely to be able to win any legal case if I were arrested. The moment I touch you in any manner, a legal line has been crossed and my defence in court become increasingly more difficult.
Based on your weblink, you are in Oz....and I was deployed with several members of your Armed Forces in the Arabian Gulf. Also got to see some of your entertainers (McClymont sisters were among the them..http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/localnews/st orydisplay.cfm?storyid=3683573&thesection=localnew s&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=) One of the best shows we had....glad they came to visit. Reminded me of my travels to the NT Top End (Darwin to be specific) back in the late 80s...good times....Could use a VB right now!). Your ADF folk were outstanding to work with too...
You must have had a bad instructor. As someone who teaches this subject (Sexual Harassment Prevention) among other related topics, I must say that if done properly, the students appreciate the course and learn something new each time.
And I perform this as part of my duties in the military....including while deployed!
Negative. OJ was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal trial. This is NOT the same as being found innocent. The police made several procedural errors in the investigation, casting enough doubt into the prosecution's case.
Note that he was found guilty in the civil trial when he was sued by the victims' parents. This is because the standard is lowered to "by a preponderance of the evidence". In other words, is it more likely than not to have occurred as accused.
The IRA was ostensibly made up of members who identified with being Catholic. Hence the "Christian" label being applied. (and as a former Londoner myself, I witnessed the aftermath of many an explosion and was nearby at a couple). The violence in Northern Ireland was frequently sectarian, with Protestants attacking Catholics (and vice versa). Indeed, reading about the IRA (a political wing may not refer to the religious position of the terrorist wing) following the wikipedia link in the article you linked to, we find this: The Provisionals, on the other hand, advocated a robust armed defence of Catholics in the north and an offensive campaign against Northern Ireland to end British rule there.
Seems pretty clear that RELIGION is a key factor in the formation and actions of the IRA, and therefore Sinn Fein. Unless you are declaring that Catholics (and specifically, Roman Catholics) are not Christians?
And I would say that the Christian Identity movement is about as close as one could come to as a religious terrorist movement in the US (www.splcenter.org), especially with some of their members attacking Jews and other minorities. Indeed, the term RAHOWA used by such groups is a short version of RAcial HOly WAr.
And the definition of murder is usually made by the winning side....if you kill the enemy in a war and win, you are a good patriot. Do the same and lose....you are a murderer.
Where does it say he was an agnostic? All the evidence suggests he was involved with groups that preach Christian Identity.
And why would an agnostic by upset at the government actions at Waco (a religious group) and Ruby Ridge (a White supremacist with connections to the Christian Identity movement)? There are many other events that are less charged with religion that he could have been mad at and justified his actions with.
Bottom line is that it is not all fundamentalist Muslims blowing up buildings....plenty of other lunatics out there who are fundamentalists of one stripe or another who are willing to blow up buildings.
If you want a list of "Christian" terrorists, just ask any Londoner who lived during the heyday of the IRA attacks in London.
As I am currently in the Middle East as part of the US military, I could say that I am way past the point to be considered an adult, and after 20 years in the military, I know when someone is lying about intelligence and is using it to make a political point.
Of course, you could count the 3K military killed because of a fundamentalist Christian violating his own rules about bearing false witness, or Ann Coulter's declaration we should kill all Muslim adults and forcibly convert their children.
Or if you disagree with the above, you could then say that fundamentalist Christians are pretty weak and have no real convictions. After all, they have not really had to stand up and fight for their rights in a while in the US....indeed, the only screaming they are doing is because they are trying to prevent others form getting equal rights.
And have you ever been on a plane? And, the attackers did not go after passengers but the cockpit. Once they controlled the cockpit, then the issue was moot.
You are presuming the hijackers on Sept 11, 2001 attacked passengers as the first goal. It was not; control of the aircraft was the primary objective.
Dude, are you obstinate just to be so? You complain about the "Christmas" tree being renamed a "holiday" tree, yet ignore the fact it was RENAMED to "Christmas" tree in the first place. It was NOT an original Christian concept (you don't see a lot of evergreen trees in Israel). Not all the songs you seem to think are Christmas carols really are. Some are simply songs about the season ("The Holly and the Ivy, when they are full grown...." is actually referring to Pagan practices). If you were consistent, you would want everything referred to as they originally were!
As far as "Majority rules in this country".....now you are REALLY showing your ignorance. The US is NOT majority rules, and the Constitution (a document I have spent the past 2 decades supporting and defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic) was created to ensure that was not true. The US is a democratic Republic. The supreme law of the land protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
There is NO war on Christmas. Please read that a second time. YOU are free to celebrate any way YOU see fit. Where has ANYONE prevented YOU from celebrating YOUR holiday? YOU complain about other faiths intruding on YOUR Holy day, but see no problem with FORCING others to celebrate or suffer yours. You, to put it simply, are a hypocrite. You (and other Christians of your ilk) have created this fictitious "War on Christmas" because the majority are no longer under your control. I guess if you want majority rules, it appears the majority has spoken. So I guess you should STFU and quit whining.
And offering an alternative to Christmas as Kwanzaa does, does not impact those who wish to celebrate Christmas. Unless your belief is weak, what is the issue? Or are you saying that Christianity is so weak in its basis that any deviation and failure to follow it by everyone will cause it to fail as a faith and eventually disappear? If that is true, then perhaps it needs to die and go away. Any religion that is so weak that it requires its members to force non-adherents to its tenets and dogma is too weak to deserve to survive. As my particular religious beliefs predate Christianity, I find the stronger faiths survive REGARDLESS of what others do. But apparently yours is pretty weak. I actually feel pity for you at this point.
And finally, last I checked, the person Christians supposedly worship actually admonished his followers for wishing to pray in public, etc. I guess making a mockery of your religion by turning it into a commercial enterprise is okay with you. I prefer to leave my faith a spiritual exercise and leave the commercialism out of it as much as possible.
You seem to have no worries about using another religion's icons and symbols and relabeling them. I guess if M$ used Linux and called it M$ Server 2006 you would have no problem? The FACTS show that the CHRISTMAS symbols you name are NOT Christian in origin. And many Christians are realizing that.
Why is a holiday party meaningless? You have a problem recognizing that there are MANY HOLY DAYS in the month of December and that MOST people have no problem with a single HOLIDAY party that encompasses them all. YOU may be upset that YOU as a follower of the current majority religion are not allowed to run roughshod over the minority faiths, but remember, yours may not remain the majority faith forever and then what will you do? Attend the Eid party with your Muslim coworkers because they are the majority? Or not attend because it is not your faith's time? Or will you want a more generic holiday party so EVERYONE can attend?
And why do you find a HOLIDAY party offensive to your religion? Even the Atheists I know are not offended by holiday parties despite the fact the origin of the word is Holy Day. And please note (as you appear to not know): Kwanzaa is NOT a religious holiday. It is a unique African-American cultural observance created in the 20th Century CE. As far as your concern about the renamed "Christmas" tree....calling it a "Christmas" tree is in and of itself a renaming of it. SO why are you worried about a more accurate name for it? A Holiday tree is perhaps the more accurate name for it. It is used by both Pagans and Christians and Secular groups. Here in the Middle East (where I am currently deployed as part of the US military), you see the trees in the Malls here....and they definitely are not representing the Christian concept of Christmas but the secular concept of the season. I saw the same thing in Korea and Japan while stationed in the Far East over the years.
For Jews in the US, Hanukkah has become prominent celebration because of the secular concept of Christmas as a retail boom. But in Judaism, Hanukkah is really a minor holiday (or Holy days as you would seem to prefer). And in these days of mixed religion marriages, many families celebrate the HOLIDAYS because they celebrate more than one religion's Holy Day. Me? If someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, I accept it as what it is usually meant for: a wish for a happy time this time of year. If I know the person is a Christian, I wish them a Merry Christmas. If I know they are Jewish, a Happy Hanukkah. A Hindu; a Happy Diwali. And so on. If I do not know their faith, I wish them a Happy Holiday. I figure I may as well try to be inclusive and not insulting if possible. My coworkers wished me a Happy Yule this year (in their attempts to be inclusive: and for which I am more than grateful for. I appreciate a person who goes out of their way to know me versus those who simply repeat a meaningless phrase because it is specific time of year.
Sectarianism, as you seem to want, is why the Shiites are fighting Sunnis in Iraq. Is why Catholics and Protestants have been fighting in Britain for centuries. Is why the Palestinian situation is a major political issue. And so on. I prefer to try and find a win-win situation if possible, and in this specific arena, "Holiday" trees, parties, and greetings is preferred over "Christmas" when the audience is mixed or unknown. And please note: Not all Christians celebrate "Christmas". Or even celebrate it in December even if they do celebrate it at all.
So to you, I hope you had a Merry Christmas (because I presume you are a Christian based on your posts, and not of the Orthodox Catholic persuasion, such as Greek, Eastern or Russian, as then you would still have a few weeks to go before your celebrations) and a Happy New Year, and may your God grant you wisdom so you may see that being inclusive will prevent more issues than sectarianism.
Slashdot Mirror
First question to ask...what location was this budget made for? Los Angeles, CA or Montgomery, AL? Big difference in cost of living between the two...
You are correct...but then again, CA population growth exceeds that of OK by many levels. And has the connected resources need that comes with the growth. Of course, OK has one thing going for it....it isn't TX, although it is close!
The drinking age for the US military is whatever the local legal age is to purchase alcohol....unless you are close to a border with a lower age (see Canada/Mexico), then the commander can lower the age on base/post/station to the lower legal limit. (example is/was Ft Bliss, El Paso, Tx....TX legal age is 21, Juarez, Mexico is 18...or less even. Drinking age on Ft Bliss is 18 for military members assigned to that installation).
The drinking age in England for US military members stationed there is 18.
You are obviously raising the future lawyers for SCO and/or MicroSoft.
Not neccesarily if the accused has something to hide will they request a third party to examine the evidence. Usually it is becuase they DISTRUST the accusing party that they request a neutral third party to do the inspection. The accuser tells the 3rd party exactly what they are looking for. The accused hands over the equipment. The 3rd party confirms or not the existance of what the accuser was looking for. Both parties are happy (more or less) that the "truth" one out.
I could have simply said RTFA, but that would not have addressed the idiocy of the person's post. I also noted that the flames were on at the beginning.....you could have not read past the warning if you were sensitive. If you had no clue what was meant by "flames on" then perhaps you should be more careful wandering around the internets tubes by yourself.
1st....flame on!
2nd...It is obviousl you know little, if anything, about copyright law. Copyright exists the MOMENT you create something. Therefore the students already had copyright. What they did that was unusual, was to REGISTER their copyright. This is what increases the STATUTORY damages they can claim.
3rd....The company is USING their works, without agreement from the copyright holder, for business use. Use MS Vista or RIAA/MPAA members' works for your business without paying them for that use....well, the lawyers are already searching the web for violators and suing (their mistakes are they do not positively identify the violator before pouncing).
4th....Perhaps you should learn to READ and apply that learning to actually using the skill to then research topics and educate yourself before you post and confirm to the world how much an idiot you are.
5th......flame off.
If you feel you are being denied EEO standards, then you have not researched it very well, and possibly are the problem. If you wish to get a scholarship on the basis of being a "minority" student, apply at a Historically Black University such as Florida A&M or Morehouse. They are looking for diversity and seek more White students. As far as EEO laws go.....they are written neutrally with regard to protected categories. I have investigated (and confirmed) discrimination against a White male in the past. It just that usually White males claim to be discriminated against when the truth is they are finally being treated equally.
First, the "military" is very broad as a term. The USAF tends to recruit more technical minded people, though frequently still young and wanting to attend college. The Army tends to use education as a recruiting tool, but actually recruits to the enlisted ranks more members who already have baccalaureate degrees (they offer E4 pay grade out of basic as an incentive).
That said: the Lower/lower-middle class who wish to attend college but need money for school are easily attracted to the military because of the benefits (pay check, medical coverage, tuition assistance while in/GI bill when you get out, etc). Lower class does not mean "does not have GED/High school diploma". There is a large percentage of the lower/working class that achieves that level of education but needs the money to continue. THAT is the target recruiting audience. Those who can afford school do not "need" the military, but are welcome if they feel a need to serve.
These days, it is not "Do you have a felony conviction on your record?" but more of a "What type of felony conviction do you have?" being asked. Frankly, the standards have been lowered dramatically. Hell, the maximum age for entry has been raised by the Army. People older than I can come in and begin their military career and I am eligible to retire from the military having completed 21 years (so far). THAT is scary in and of itself. The older you are, the more likely you will have medical issues....and military training and life can be rough on the body.
Reading the article from their website does not change my opinion of it one bit: biased and lies through misrepresentation.
1. The education requirement for enlistment. There are limited slots for those who do not have a minimum of a High School diploma, with the majority of those going to those with GEDs. The numbers used are from 2003. Becuase of the mandated requirements for enlistment sets minimum limits, these are not valid for use. Especially as a High School diploma is not exactly a high standard. N.B. I do not have a high school diploma. I was educated in Europe from the age of 7 on. I had to get my education evaluated for equivalency....I exceeded the High School level. Also, the ASVAB is used as another discriminator. Every member of the USAF scored high enough on the ASVAB to enter that they could have entered the Army if they wished. The reverse is not true.
2. Methodology: From the article:
Average Household Income of Recruits. Individual recruit income data are not available. In computing the average household income for recruits, each recruit was assigned the median household income for his or her ZCTA.
So we have "We have no clue how to address this, so we made shit up." method was used. Perhaps the reason the recruit enlisted is because their income was LESS than the median for his/her ZCTA. Assigning income when it is not known is BAD methodology, especially when you are trying to prove that recruits are not in the poorest levels of society. And poor is relative. My income while stationed in New Mexico was pretty good compared to the locals......the same income while in Monterey, CA placed me pretty low compared to the locals. Yet, because of my rank, compared to the NATIONAL median, I fare pretty well. According to the methodology used, if I had enlisted while in Monterey, I would have been assigned the value of the local Median, which is well above the National numbers. This can skew the numbers.
My brother was living in Los Angeles, and did not join the National Guard or Reserves as it would have driven down his income while he was at Basic Training and technical school. His income at the time was above the national Median income, yet barely above the poverty level for Los Angeles. Indeed, he was working 2 jobs to stay ahead. The methodology used would have given him a boost in his income level.
In juxtaposition to that, people like me were discounted. I was one of those that enlisted from a military ZTCA (I was overseas at the time). While my income was over the US national Median, as I was living in London, I was just about living comfortably- lived with my parents, few costs for food, paid for my necessities, and a little extra for the Pub- but not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
3. From your source....
Ethnic background:
88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian, 10.6%
(275,000) were black, 1.0% belonged to other races
86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (including Hispanics)
12.5% (7,241) were black.
1.2% belonged to other races
170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2%) of whom died there.
86.8% of the men who were KIA were Caucasian
12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were black
34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam when the percentage
of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the population.
This is again misleading....Of those who WENT to Vietnam (not population as a whole), MORE minorities than Caucasions were killed- when looked at the population sizes. For example, nearly 25% more Blacks were killed than Causcasions (when comparing population sizes of those who went to Vietnam). Therefore, to say Minorities were NOT killed in greater proportion to their population size (of those who went to VIETNAM) is incorrect. Again, this is based on the link you provided.
As for
First, the article is an opinion piece. The Methodology used is also suspect. They use DoD overall numbers and then refer to "Soldiers". This is misleading. Not all members of the DoD are soldiers. They are specifically members of the US Army NOT members of the USMC, USN or USAF (They would be Marines, Sailors and Airmen).
Second, the numbers given for education is for the DoD as a whole. This means they include the USAF and USN (typically have higher education level requirements) and then use that to extrapolate to the "Soldiers". To be accurate would require a breakdown by service, and NOT by DoD as a whole.
Also, both authors of the OPINION piece are researchers at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) whose website states:
Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
This would imply a level of bias. And, based on my quick review of their article, I would suggest they are extremely biased and would even go so far to say they are careful to be misleading while sounding accurate by using cherry-picked facts (sound familiar?).
I also wish to add that I am a proud member of the USAF having served 21 years so far.
I do investigations, and freguently deal with military unit commanders. I was the one called to address issues that my counterpart (the ranking one of the two of us) failed to address in a timely manner, if at all. His response was more of giving the answer he thought people wanted to hear, not always the answer they needed to hear. And it meant I had to frequently go into our database (which we both used....I at least do that much!), obtain the needed data, print it out, call the person who was asking what was going on....then finish the project to make our legally mandated deadlines. Sometimes, this meant doing a fair bit of research, but the web is useful, and knowing how to search meant I could get good answers today versus a non-answer a week later. This also meant I kept paperwork until a few weeks after the project was complete to ensure I could answer questions if they came up becuase of legal challenges.
My personal experience has taught me the opposite. I have been derided for being the "slob" yet end up being the one that gets most of the work done as the other person loses more things/information than I, cannot organize their thoughts or documentation so that others can read it, etc. I end up being the go to guy, and yet I still get my projects out.
You post extreme examples from combat zones. If you have no opinion on Iraq, why not pick examples that include the troops in the US (perhaps Tailhook or the USAF Academy)? So, to not put words in your mouth....do you want the troops to remain in Iraq? In perpetuity?
And your example does not work....Perhaps yelling at someone that you will kill them vs pointing a firearm at them would work. Both are threats...one is more extreme than the other. Your example causes physical harm in both cases (and both would likely be treated as criminal).
The law HAS to draw a line somewhere. One level is criminal, the other civil. Even among the two levels, the law further refines distinctions. This is how we show a person is responsible for their actions. By comparing their actions to the "reasonable person" standard, and then look at any other factors (ie is it connected to employment in some way? This is required for sexual harassment under EEOC guidelines and the law). Simply reading Maxim magazine in the park does not equate to sexual harassment, but at work it is likely to if someone complains. But if you grab the genitals of anyone (if it was not welcomed!), no matter if it were in a job location, you will have committed sexual assault.
It is not a hinderance if you know WHY legal definitions are used. Sexual Harassment is a CIVIL law issue. This means there is not a CRIMINAL aspect to the behaviour. Indeed, based on the typical cat calls seen at any spring break location, many of our population aged 18-30 woudl be in jail if otherwise. RAPE and SEXUAL ASSAULT are CRIMINAL law issue. This means you can go to jail. Granted, the bahaviour of an idiot who sexually harasses someone at their workplace (becuase the law requires an employment connection of some type), is more likely to proceed on the continuum to the criminal realm of sexual assault/rape than one who does not. The difference is (as I already pointed out) the same as the difference between yelling obscenities at someone and actually striking them. The military, if you don't know, has courses about Sexual Assault Prevention that are SEPERATE from the Sexual Harassment Prevention courses. I also think the links given had NOTHING to do with sexual harassment and everything to do with trying to blame the WHOLE military for the criminal behaviour of a few. The same way labelling all geeks who play violent computer games as being the same as the Columbine shooters. One may empathize with them, but the fact is, they took their actions beyond the acceptable limits whereas most geeks who like violent video/computer games do not go that far. In fact, I would "Do not rape." (no qualifiers like "Iraqi civlians" needed) is something that should not have to be said, as hopefully society has taught that lesson already. Apparently not. Shame we have to deal with the fact American society failed to do their job first. And, if you hate the war in Iraq (or even the one in Afghanistan or both), go right ahead and hate it. Indeed, I encourage you to contact your elected representative and tell them you wish to see the military brought home ASAP.
Perhaps you need a legal lesson. Sexual Harassment/= Rape. Indeed, once physical contact of a sexual nature is made upon another person, you are crossing into the realm of sexual assault. This means you have crossed from a civil-law type issue to a criminal-law type issue. This is also true of yelling obscenities at someone /= Battery (see Assault&Battery). Specifically, I could use every ethnic,racial, religious, gender, etc slur towards you and likely to be able to win any legal case if I were arrested. The moment I touch you in any manner, a legal line has been crossed and my defence in court become increasingly more difficult.
Based on your weblink, you are in Oz....and I was deployed with several members of your Armed Forces in the Arabian Gulf. Also got to see some of your entertainers (McClymont sisters were among the them..http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/localnews/st orydisplay.cfm?storyid=3683573&thesection=localnew s&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=) One of the best shows we had....glad they came to visit. Reminded me of my travels to the NT Top End (Darwin to be specific) back in the late 80s...good times....Could use a VB right now!). Your ADF folk were outstanding to work with too...
You must have had a bad instructor. As someone who teaches this subject (Sexual Harassment Prevention) among other related topics, I must say that if done properly, the students appreciate the course and learn something new each time. And I perform this as part of my duties in the military....including while deployed!
Negative. OJ was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal trial. This is NOT the same as being found innocent. The police made several procedural errors in the investigation, casting enough doubt into the prosecution's case.
Note that he was found guilty in the civil trial when he was sued by the victims' parents. This is because the standard is lowered to "by a preponderance of the evidence". In other words, is it more likely than not to have occurred as accused.
The IRA was ostensibly made up of members who identified with being Catholic. Hence the "Christian" label being applied. (and as a former Londoner myself, I witnessed the aftermath of many an explosion and was nearby at a couple). The violence in Northern Ireland was frequently sectarian, with Protestants attacking Catholics (and vice versa). Indeed, reading about the IRA (a political wing may not refer to the religious position of the terrorist wing) following the wikipedia link in the article you linked to, we find this:
The Provisionals, on the other hand, advocated a robust armed defence of Catholics in the north and an offensive campaign against Northern Ireland to end British rule there.
Seems pretty clear that RELIGION is a key factor in the formation and actions of the IRA, and therefore Sinn Fein. Unless you are declaring that Catholics (and specifically, Roman Catholics) are not Christians?
And I would say that the Christian Identity movement is about as close as one could come to as a religious terrorist movement in the US (www.splcenter.org), especially with some of their members attacking Jews and other minorities. Indeed, the term RAHOWA used by such groups is a short version of RAcial HOly WAr.
And the definition of murder is usually made by the winning side....if you kill the enemy in a war and win, you are a good patriot. Do the same and lose....you are a murderer.
Where does it say he was an agnostic? All the evidence suggests he was involved with groups that preach Christian Identity.
And why would an agnostic by upset at the government actions at Waco (a religious group) and Ruby Ridge (a White supremacist with connections to the Christian Identity movement)? There are many other events that are less charged with religion that he could have been mad at and justified his actions with.
Bottom line is that it is not all fundamentalist Muslims blowing up buildings....plenty of other lunatics out there who are fundamentalists of one stripe or another who are willing to blow up buildings.
If you want a list of "Christian" terrorists, just ask any Londoner who lived during the heyday of the IRA attacks in London.
As I am currently in the Middle East as part of the US military, I could say that I am way past the point to be considered an adult, and after 20 years in the military, I know when someone is lying about intelligence and is using it to make a political point.
OK City bombing.
Of course, you could count the 3K military killed because of a fundamentalist Christian violating his own rules about bearing false witness, or Ann Coulter's declaration we should kill all Muslim adults and forcibly convert their children.
Or if you disagree with the above, you could then say that fundamentalist Christians are pretty weak and have no real convictions. After all, they have not really had to stand up and fight for their rights in a while in the US....indeed, the only screaming they are doing is because they are trying to prevent others form getting equal rights.
And have you ever been on a plane? And, the attackers did not go after passengers but the cockpit. Once they controlled the cockpit, then the issue was moot. You are presuming the hijackers on Sept 11, 2001 attacked passengers as the first goal. It was not; control of the aircraft was the primary objective.
Dude, are you obstinate just to be so? You complain about the "Christmas" tree being renamed a "holiday" tree, yet ignore the fact it was RENAMED to "Christmas" tree in the first place. It was NOT an original Christian concept (you don't see a lot of evergreen trees in Israel). Not all the songs you seem to think are Christmas carols really are. Some are simply songs about the season ("The Holly and the Ivy, when they are full grown...." is actually referring to Pagan practices). If you were consistent, you would want everything referred to as they originally were!
As far as "Majority rules in this country".....now you are REALLY showing your ignorance. The US is NOT majority rules, and the Constitution (a document I have spent the past 2 decades supporting and defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic) was created to ensure that was not true. The US is a democratic Republic. The supreme law of the land protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
There is NO war on Christmas. Please read that a second time. YOU are free to celebrate any way YOU see fit. Where has ANYONE prevented YOU from celebrating YOUR holiday? YOU complain about other faiths intruding on YOUR Holy day, but see no problem with FORCING others to celebrate or suffer yours. You, to put it simply, are a hypocrite. You (and other Christians of your ilk) have created this fictitious "War on Christmas" because the majority are no longer under your control. I guess if you want majority rules, it appears the majority has spoken. So I guess you should STFU and quit whining.
And offering an alternative to Christmas as Kwanzaa does, does not impact those who wish to celebrate Christmas. Unless your belief is weak, what is the issue? Or are you saying that Christianity is so weak in its basis that any deviation and failure to follow it by everyone will cause it to fail as a faith and eventually disappear? If that is true, then perhaps it needs to die and go away. Any religion that is so weak that it requires its members to force non-adherents to its tenets and dogma is too weak to deserve to survive. As my particular religious beliefs predate Christianity, I find the stronger faiths survive REGARDLESS of what others do. But apparently yours is pretty weak. I actually feel pity for you at this point.
And finally, last I checked, the person Christians supposedly worship actually admonished his followers for wishing to pray in public, etc. I guess making a mockery of your religion by turning it into a commercial enterprise is okay with you. I prefer to leave my faith a spiritual exercise and leave the commercialism out of it as much as possible.
You seem to have no worries about using another religion's icons and symbols and relabeling them. I guess if M$ used Linux and called it M$ Server 2006 you would have no problem? The FACTS show that the CHRISTMAS symbols you name are NOT Christian in origin. And many Christians are realizing that. Why is a holiday party meaningless? You have a problem recognizing that there are MANY HOLY DAYS in the month of December and that MOST people have no problem with a single HOLIDAY party that encompasses them all. YOU may be upset that YOU as a follower of the current majority religion are not allowed to run roughshod over the minority faiths, but remember, yours may not remain the majority faith forever and then what will you do? Attend the Eid party with your Muslim coworkers because they are the majority? Or not attend because it is not your faith's time? Or will you want a more generic holiday party so EVERYONE can attend? And why do you find a HOLIDAY party offensive to your religion? Even the Atheists I know are not offended by holiday parties despite the fact the origin of the word is Holy Day. And please note (as you appear to not know): Kwanzaa is NOT a religious holiday. It is a unique African-American cultural observance created in the 20th Century CE. As far as your concern about the renamed "Christmas" tree....calling it a "Christmas" tree is in and of itself a renaming of it. SO why are you worried about a more accurate name for it? A Holiday tree is perhaps the more accurate name for it. It is used by both Pagans and Christians and Secular groups. Here in the Middle East (where I am currently deployed as part of the US military), you see the trees in the Malls here....and they definitely are not representing the Christian concept of Christmas but the secular concept of the season. I saw the same thing in Korea and Japan while stationed in the Far East over the years. For Jews in the US, Hanukkah has become prominent celebration because of the secular concept of Christmas as a retail boom. But in Judaism, Hanukkah is really a minor holiday (or Holy days as you would seem to prefer). And in these days of mixed religion marriages, many families celebrate the HOLIDAYS because they celebrate more than one religion's Holy Day. Me? If someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, I accept it as what it is usually meant for: a wish for a happy time this time of year. If I know the person is a Christian, I wish them a Merry Christmas. If I know they are Jewish, a Happy Hanukkah. A Hindu; a Happy Diwali. And so on. If I do not know their faith, I wish them a Happy Holiday. I figure I may as well try to be inclusive and not insulting if possible. My coworkers wished me a Happy Yule this year (in their attempts to be inclusive: and for which I am more than grateful for. I appreciate a person who goes out of their way to know me versus those who simply repeat a meaningless phrase because it is specific time of year. Sectarianism, as you seem to want, is why the Shiites are fighting Sunnis in Iraq. Is why Catholics and Protestants have been fighting in Britain for centuries. Is why the Palestinian situation is a major political issue. And so on. I prefer to try and find a win-win situation if possible, and in this specific arena, "Holiday" trees, parties, and greetings is preferred over "Christmas" when the audience is mixed or unknown. And please note: Not all Christians celebrate "Christmas". Or even celebrate it in December even if they do celebrate it at all. So to you, I hope you had a Merry Christmas (because I presume you are a Christian based on your posts, and not of the Orthodox Catholic persuasion, such as Greek, Eastern or Russian, as then you would still have a few weeks to go before your celebrations) and a Happy New Year, and may your God grant you wisdom so you may see that being inclusive will prevent more issues than sectarianism.