The Obama, Edwards, and McCain sites had some social networking/community building features which put them ahead of the others...That's what I mean by different audiences that will respond to different things. I saw the "my.obama" thing. I snickered. Then again, I'm not the target audience.:-)
I'm partial to Romney's for a couple of reasons. First, of the Rs (that have announced), he is my top choice. (Observer bias) Second, I personally know someone who worked on it. (Observer bias) Third, Much as you said a "good professional site". Clean, crisp layout. Clean, crisp photos. Clean, crisp "stories". Fourth, I disagree that it is near the bottom in in encouraging participation. You have the "Team Mitt" on the right. With the "Join" and "Contribute" links right under them. Fifth, I like that white is the dominant background color, and the use made of white space throughout.
McCain - I give him second among the declared Rs. And yeah, about the black. I don't want to feel like *I'm* in a POW camp navigating the site. The site is too busy. My eye doesn't know where/how it's supposed to scan. And the fact that he would be a "hold my nose" candidate at best. (Observer bias)
Giuliani - WTF was he thinking. I didn't even SEE the nav bar across the top, and it starts out looking like a listserv sign up rather than a campaign site.
The Dems. Hell, I dislike all of them and wouldn't vote for any of them anyway. I would say that Obama is the most articulate & well spoken of the Dem field. However, I have been reliably informed that saying such a thing about a black candidate makes you racist. Though saying he is "clean" doesn't. Too bad, 'cuz Obama is a hell of a public speaker.
But as far as their sites. Mrs Clinton's is pleasing to the eye. Except for the images all over the place of... Hillary. Other than the pictures of Hillary, and all the text talking about Hillary, the only other real issue is the "One Week, One Million" with the "thermometer". It reminds me too much of United Way & Combined Fund drives. I find it tacky, especially on the main page.
Edwards (and Giuliani). W. T. F. ? Splash pages for your "home page" are bad enough. "Fill out this form" for your main page blows. Other than that, you nailed it with "disorganized mess". Actually, it's worse than that. A little clicking and mouse-overing convinced me that there actually is structure underneath. It's like they just went out of their way to crapify it.
Obama, what can I say? The site rubs me the wrong way aesthetically. I can't really put my finger on it with the time I'm willing to invest. It seems very similar to Hillary's objectively. Except for the pleasing to the (my) eye part. I don't like the "my.Obama" link buttons. (aesthetically. Not sure why.)
Of the Dems, Hillary gets first. Obama gets second (like McCain, he gets second on account of 3rd sucks).
I think the "seeming to encourage supporter action/participation." is a lot more subjective than you do. I find Romney's to score 1st in that category. It's important to keep in mind that these candidates (at least on the R/D split in general) websites are going to attract different eyes. Which are motivated by and respond to different things.
The warforged are golems who are A) Intelligent and B) available as a player character race. With some good campaign world backstory. They were built as war machines and ended up with free will. As you would expect, some "built in" AC, don't heal naturally. Must be repaired, etc.
I also quit playing back in the AD&D days, and have just recently started in a 3.5 campaign. The ruleset and gameplay are much improved, in all aspects, IMO. Much more flexable. And a lot of the "rules just to have rules" have been removed (racial limits to class levels, etc). The world of Eberron is particularly well done, especially in setting/backstory. I haven't played DDO, so can't comment on that. --- To the question that might be buried somewhere in TFA, *I* invented the warforged. When I was playing origional (blue book, boxed set) D&D. In '78. I remember encountering a golem and thinking "It would be cool if I could play one of THOSE!!!".
So, there you have it. Please send my royalty checks to..... --- Seriously, there is gonna be a lot of arguing, especially of the "prior art" type, about this. However, it is really a question of "obviousness". I would be surprised if there were more than 20% of D&D campaigns where at least one person didn't think of the exact same thing.
I'm not taking anything away from WOTC (the D20 system in general, and the new D&D rules rock), or the creators of Eberron (one of the best campaign settings I have seen, period.).
And many claim to be Christians and go to church to worship a person who advocated pacifism and told people that when you are attacked you should turn the other cheek.
Maybe you should actually read the words of the individual in question...
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
That's from the last supper,btw (KJV). Maybe he wasn't such an absolute pacifist as you presume. Just a thought.
P.S. See the AC commentary on the turn the other cheek quote.
1. The USAF has exactly zero Apaches. And very few helicopters, period. Those are almost exclusively the province of the other services. The zoomies didn't consdider helicopters (or close air support in general) to be cool. 2. The A-10 is specifically a low level (close air support) platform (that's what the "A" means - (ground) attack).
I return you to your arguement, already in progress.:-)
And let's not forget the distinction between official networks and MWR internet cafes. The initial article didn't make the distinction, but seemed to be directed at "official network" policies.
Where I was stationed, the official network's content filters changed over time (at about the time the COSCOM running the base changed) the internet cafes would get you to everything but pr0n for the entire year. Though I understand that different locations have different vendors for the internet cafes - all the way from unit-run to contracted by 3rd parties.
omplaining that they don't get to pick their own weapons, their own missions, and their own gear?
I've gotta admit, that would have made my taxpayer funded excursion over there much more pleasant.:-)
Oh, and If you go to one of the MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) internet cafes, you can get anything but porn. Actually, you can get porn too, if you put a little effort into it. Not that I would know anything about that. But that's what I heard.
I claim that black people suffer from racial discrimination, and that compensatory steps need to be taken.
You claimed (or strongly implied) that white people didn't suffer from (reverse) discrimination. I chose to point out that you were wrong.
You (curiously) refuse to make any statement about racism; given that you are interested in talking about affirmative action, I find that strange.
Given that I posted merely to address your claim (or implication) listed above, there was no need to talk about race or racism in general. Sorta makes the discussion loose focus. I find it strange that you think one would need to talk about the state of race or racism in general in order to take the position that discriminating for ("affirmative action" as it has been used in this thread - though NOT it's origional meaning) or against someone is bad. It's one of those "principle" things....
Given that you are making sweeping statements about whether or not we should have affirmative action, I find it rather presumptuous.
Yes, you find it presumptuous that I think that we should not discriminate for or against a person on the basis of thier race. Got it. 'Cuz it's not discrimination if it leads to your preferred outcome. I find it presumptuous for you to advocate outcome-based discrimination (your "compensitory solution").
If there was no racism, I strongly agree with you that affirmative action would be wrong.
Discrimination for or against a person based on thier race is ALWAYS wrong. That was the whole point of the legitimate civil rights movement.
Racism exists in America,...
You continue to to make this claim. Despite the fact that I have not argued against (or for;->) it. My point is that discrimination for or against a person based on thier race is ALWAYS wrong. My purpose in posting was to point out that white people do get discriminated against in the name of "affirmative action", and despite you disbelief that such a thing had ever been reliably been reported, there are in fact news stories, court cases, and claims lodged with the EEOC demonstrating same.
Sorry, I'm not going to get into a "racism exists in America" discussion. Especially not the "thousands of subtle effects" type. It would lack focus, and be without a point. I'll stick to the more limited "discrimination based on (any) race is bad, mkay?" position.:-P
My race is totally irrelevant to whether it is bad to discriminate based on (any) race. Likewise the experiences of my friends.
As for me suggesting that you're racist, I didn't; I don't actually believe you are racist, just naieve.
Again, with the assigning positions to me which I have never taken. I wonder why you feel the need to do so...
For the record, I never claimed that you suggested I was racist. You assigned a set of positions to me: "You see only the bad consequences of a culture attentive to racism in society. You don't see the gains we've made." I pointed out that I had never taken those, or any other positions in regards to racism in society in general.
The first conflating of my name with the epithet of "racist" occured in your post to which this is a reply. Again, I wonder why you felt the need to do so...
As for being naive, given that I have made no statements about racism or race relations in America, it is interesting that you draw that conclusion. Unless, of course, by "naive" you mean that I don't "realize" that discrimination is good if it leads to the desired "compensitory result."
You may have been one of the people posting as "Anonymous Coward", however, in which case I suggest not taking offense.
I may have been, but was not. I post under my own ID, or I don't bother. thankyouverymuch. Interesting that you chose to throw out another non-relevant red herring. The "people like you caused the french riots" one was at least amusing.
never said that. As I've repeated over and over, I support affirmative action in many cases and do not consider it a form of discrimination.
Yes, I know you said that you don't consider giving people prefernces based on thier race is not a form of discrimination. The fact remains that it is. The fact that you support discrimination that leads to what you consider to be a "compensitory solution", while claiming it is not discrimination is, as I said, your issue.
I believe many companies have problems with racism, and that they try to compensate for it.
And I believe many companies live in fear of being CALLED racist and so go to extremes to make sure they have the "right" percentages.
You see only the bad consequences of a culture attentive to racism in society. You don't see the gains we've made. May I suggest you look to the recent riots in Paris for an example of how countries who take the views you do -- that affirmative action is, and can only be, "reverse racism" -- survive?
You don't know what I see, or don't see. I have made no statements as to the state of race relations or racism in society (let alone the subset that is the IT industry). You don't know whether I see the gains the US has (or hasn't;->) made. Because I have never comment on same. May I suggest that you look to what I actually type, instead of attributing positions to me? thankyouverymuch. It is interesting, and telling, that you feel the need to do so, however.
And I think it is really a strech to try to claim that the riots in Paris (and the rest of the country) were due to the fact that the country of france took the view that affirmative action is, and can only be, "reverse racism". If you wanted to claim that the riots were due to anti immigrant prejudice (that spans generations) , or just plain old racisim, you might have a case. But the claim you make is just silly. Were the riots due to concerns over reverse racism, it probably would be those who felt they were harmed by same who would have rioted.
OH, and I didn't say that "affirmative action" is, and can only be, "reverse racism". In fact, you might have noticed my use of quotes around the term. "Affirmative action" in the form of outreach, educational assistance, training, etc (i.e. what it supposedly was when it was introduced, back when it wasn't going to be a quota system...). I have no issue with. What I have an issue with is hiring people based on the color of thier skin (or thier gender) instead of hiring the best person for the job. Or giving a person a merit-based position (such as admission to a university) based on skin color (or gender) rather than merit. Again, the fact that you don't think such is racism, reverse or otherwise, is your issue.
I didn't suggest that about you!
Well, that's good to know. Of course, it makes me wonder what that free-floating "Contrary to popular belief, black people can be awarded jobs on their merits." in your prior post was meant to attach to...
But I maintain, and the data bear me out,
You started off, maintaining, and copy-and-paste bears me out: "Now would be a good time to provide newspaper accounts of such things. Yes, I'm sure if this happened, many would be unreported. But surely there is one good man or woman out there who will speak up with a specific example?" That is what I origionally replied to. And it is still my point that such happens.
Oh, and for the record, I STILL haven't made any statement(s) about racism or race relations in the US. I just propose the radical idea that people should be judged by the content of thier character (and thier qualifications), and not the color of thier skin. Regardless of the color of thier skin. The fact that you interpret this to mean anything more than, or different from, that is, again, your own issue.
True. When you hire the less qualified candidate based on thier race, it is plain, old-fashioned discrimination. There is nothing reverse about it, in and of itself -but see below. The fact that you defend it elsewhere, and claim that it isn't discrimination at all if it's in favor of a minority is an issue all your own.
The first case I cited, was definitely an example of what we have reaped from our "affirmative action" (i.e "two wrongs make a right") policies and legislation. WHY are they, as you guess, trying to compensate? Is it, just perhaps, because the current state of our laws regarding "affirmative action" makes them feel they need to bend over backwards (hence the "reverse") and to go out of thier way to ensure that an "appropriate" level of each minority?
And, just for the record, I never stated that black people couldn't get jobs on thier merits. Nor anything close to it. thankyouverymuch.
Btw, thanks for admitting that there are at least one or two examples out there, which was my point.;->
Then there is the case of University of California Regents v Bakke[2]. Where it was held that the UC system had discriminated against a white applicant by admitting lesser-qualified minority applicants. Yeah, that's academic reverse discrimination as opposed to employment. And it was back in the 70's so it's completely irrelevant... Except that the exact same issue came before SCOTUS again in 1996. Unless you think PBS is an angry blogger. There have been a host of similar decisions handed down over the last few years, btw.
In a more general way, this site [3] points out in #12, that "less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases." Working on the assumption (because I'm too lazy to mine for the actual numbers:-P) that the number is between 1% and 2% (If it were under 1%, I would have expected the site to say so), it appears that there are between 910 and 1819 [less than 2%, after all;->] reverse discrimination claims working thier way through the EEOC at the moment.
I don't really have a dog in the fight, and to the best of my knowledge have never been passed over for a job based on either my race or my gender. Nor do I know anyone IRL who has claimed to have been so discriminated against. But you asked for proof of "even one" example. While implying that such was a high burden. Btw, google is your friend.
A now await the flames and downmods./me dons asbestos suit.
[1] I'm personally curious where #1 fits into all this, but that's another issue. [2] I don't think that Findlaw counts as an angry blogger-especially as it is just the literal SCOTUS decision. [3] Which appears to be dismissive of the idea of reverse discrimination, btw.
So, if Tennessee taxes software as property... How do they determine the market value of Open Source software?
If a business had the choice of buying MS Office AND then paying taxes for the fact that they own it OR installing OpenOffice or AbiWord and paying x% of it's purchase price, that might drive a few more enterprises to at least consider the option, where it can make easy changes.
It refers to the government assuming responsibility for someone's safety - usually by actively removing thier ability to protect themself. i.e. someone in government custody (i.e. in jail, under arrest, etc), witness protection, etc.
*I* think that should include people who have been granted restraining orders, what with the direction for law enforcement to enforce said orders.... But the SCOTUS never asked me. The bastards.
Since you explicitly decline to give us any evidence that supports your claims, I see no reason to believe any such evidence exists:
Or you could pay attention to SCOTUS decisions. Review of said decisions here. Said latest decision (using google's pdf to html) here.
The OP was exactly correct, the police have NO duty to protect any specific individual, absent a "special relationship" - which a restraining order is explicitly held not to do.
Here are some links to some studies, though if you missed the GONZALES case, decided a whole 4 months and 2 days ago (it even made the news AND/., IIRC), I doubt you are really all that interested. Which probably explains why you "still haven't seen anyone citing actual studies":
I've actually used a gift card that I noticed a year after I'd gotten it. When I get a gift card, it either goes in my junk drawer (where my checkbook is) or in my wallet. Then I forget about it until I want something specific. I treat it (improperly, it would seem, given this story) like cash.
Gift cards to someplace like, say Pier 1 can easily age a year or more. I only used it because I noticed it had an experation date.
Feh. Use cash. it doesn't expire. And it doesn't require people to buy stuff that they may not need just to avoid loosing it.
Slashdot Mirror
"excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy..."
Looks like they can determine that some things require secrecy.....
Sigh,
Constitutional authority to declare certain facts "classified":
Legislative Body:
Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph (and sentence) 3.
From this flows the power to pass laws that require certain facts to be classified.
Took all of 15 seconds on Google.
Whether one thinks the power is, or has been, used properly by this -or prior- governments is a different discussion.
There's hope for you yet. :-)
Though the war vote was one of the few things she got right.
Thank you. Now I need to launch a preemptive war and pour sulfuric acid in my eyes.
I think McCain is going for the goth/emo vote or something. :-)
Btw, ALL pictures of Hillary are awful. Including, as they must, images of Hillary.
The Obama, Edwards, and McCain sites had some social networking/community building features which put them ahead of the others ...That's what I mean by different audiences that will respond to different things. I saw the "my.obama" thing. I snickered. Then again, I'm not the target audience. :-)
I'm partial to Romney's for a couple of reasons.
First, of the Rs (that have announced), he is my top choice. (Observer bias)
Second, I personally know someone who worked on it. (Observer bias)
Third, Much as you said a "good professional site". Clean, crisp layout. Clean, crisp photos. Clean, crisp "stories".
Fourth, I disagree that it is near the bottom in in encouraging participation. You have the "Team Mitt" on the right. With the "Join" and "Contribute" links right under them.
Fifth, I like that white is the dominant background color, and the use made of white space throughout.
McCain - I give him second among the declared Rs. And yeah, about the black. I don't want to feel like *I'm* in a POW camp navigating the site. The site is too busy. My eye doesn't know where/how it's supposed to scan. And the fact that he would be a "hold my nose" candidate at best. (Observer bias)
Giuliani - WTF was he thinking. I didn't even SEE the nav bar across the top, and it starts out looking like a listserv sign up rather than a campaign site.
The Dems. Hell, I dislike all of them and wouldn't vote for any of them anyway. I would say that Obama is the most articulate & well spoken of the Dem field. However, I have been reliably informed that saying such a thing about a black candidate makes you racist. Though saying he is "clean" doesn't. Too bad, 'cuz Obama is a hell of a public speaker.
But as far as their sites. Mrs Clinton's is pleasing to the eye. Except for the images all over the place of... Hillary. Other than the pictures of Hillary, and all the text talking about Hillary, the only other real issue is the "One Week, One Million" with the "thermometer". It reminds me too much of United Way & Combined Fund drives. I find it tacky, especially on the main page.
Edwards (and Giuliani). W. T. F. ? Splash pages for your "home page" are bad enough. "Fill out this form" for your main page blows. Other than that, you nailed it with "disorganized mess". Actually, it's worse than that. A little clicking and mouse-overing convinced me that there actually is structure underneath. It's like they just went out of their way to crapify it.
Obama, what can I say? The site rubs me the wrong way aesthetically. I can't really put my finger on it with the time I'm willing to invest. It seems very similar to Hillary's objectively. Except for the pleasing to the (my) eye part. I don't like the "my.Obama" link buttons. (aesthetically. Not sure why.)
Of the Dems, Hillary gets first. Obama gets second (like McCain, he gets second on account of 3rd sucks).
I think the "seeming to encourage supporter action/participation." is a lot more subjective than you do. I find Romney's to score 1st in that category. It's important to keep in mind that these candidates (at least on the R/D split in general) websites are going to attract different eyes. Which are motivated by and respond to different things.
The warforged are golems who are A) Intelligent and B) available as a player character race. With some good campaign world backstory. They were built as war machines and ended up with free will. As you would expect, some "built in" AC, don't heal naturally. Must be repaired, etc.
I also quit playing back in the AD&D days, and have just recently started in a 3.5 campaign. The ruleset and gameplay are much improved, in all aspects, IMO. Much more flexable. And a lot of the "rules just to have rules" have been removed (racial limits to class levels, etc). The world of Eberron is particularly well done, especially in setting/backstory. I haven't played DDO, so can't comment on that.
---
To the question that might be buried somewhere in TFA, *I* invented the warforged. When I was playing origional (blue book, boxed set) D&D. In '78. I remember encountering a golem and thinking "It would be cool if I could play one of THOSE!!!".
So, there you have it. Please send my royalty checks to.....
---
Seriously, there is gonna be a lot of arguing, especially of the "prior art" type, about this. However, it is really a question of "obviousness". I would be surprised if there were more than 20% of D&D campaigns where at least one person didn't think of the exact same thing.
I'm not taking anything away from WOTC (the D20 system in general, and the new D&D rules rock), or the creators of Eberron (one of the best campaign settings I have seen, period.).
And many claim to be Christians and go to church to worship a person who advocated pacifism and told people that when you are attacked you should turn the other cheek.
Maybe you should actually read the words of the individual in question...
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
That's from the last supper,btw (KJV). Maybe he wasn't such an absolute pacifist as you presume. Just a thought.
P.S. See the AC commentary on the turn the other cheek quote.
Were that the case, they would not need to fear the shorter time to DVD.
After all, people will pick the experience they like better.
Oh. Nevermind.
I heroically abstain from making any comment on the Army Air Corps, or the wisdom of pretending that it is its own serivce. ;->
Yeah. I'd call 350 ft altitude "low level". Just over a football field of height. YMMV, of course.
1. The USAF has exactly zero Apaches. And very few helicopters, period. Those are almost exclusively the province of the other services. The zoomies didn't consdider helicopters (or close air support in general) to be cool.
:-)
2. The A-10 is specifically a low level (close air support) platform (that's what the "A" means - (ground) attack).
I return you to your arguement, already in progress.
And let's not forget the distinction between official networks and MWR internet cafes. The initial article didn't make the distinction, but seemed to be directed at "official network" policies.
Where I was stationed, the official network's content filters changed over time (at about the time the COSCOM running the base changed) the internet cafes would get you to everything but pr0n for the entire year. Though I understand that different locations have different vendors for the internet cafes - all the way from unit-run to contracted by 3rd parties.
omplaining that they don't get to pick their own weapons, their own missions, and their own gear?
:-)
I've gotta admit, that would have made my taxpayer funded excursion over there much more pleasant.
Oh, and If you go to one of the MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) internet cafes, you can get anything but porn. Actually, you can get porn too, if you put a little effort into it. Not that I would know anything about that. But that's what I heard.
I claim that black people suffer from racial discrimination, and that compensatory steps need to be taken.
;->) it. My point is that discrimination for or against a person based on thier race is ALWAYS wrong. My purpose in posting was to point out that white people do get discriminated against in the name of "affirmative action", and despite you disbelief that such a thing had ever been reliably been reported, there are in fact news stories, court cases, and claims lodged with the EEOC demonstrating same.
:-P
You claimed (or strongly implied) that white people didn't suffer from (reverse) discrimination. I chose to point out that you were wrong.
You (curiously) refuse to make any statement about racism; given that you are interested in talking about affirmative action, I find that strange.
Given that I posted merely to address your claim (or implication) listed above, there was no need to talk about race or racism in general. Sorta makes the discussion loose focus. I find it strange that you think one would need to talk about the state of race or racism in general in order to take the position that discriminating for ("affirmative action" as it has been used in this thread - though NOT it's origional meaning) or against someone is bad. It's one of those "principle" things....
Given that you are making sweeping statements about whether or not we should have affirmative action, I find it rather presumptuous.
Yes, you find it presumptuous that I think that we should not discriminate for or against a person on the basis of thier race. Got it. 'Cuz it's not discrimination if it leads to your preferred outcome. I find it presumptuous for you to advocate outcome-based discrimination (your "compensitory solution").
If there was no racism, I strongly agree with you that affirmative action would be wrong.
Discrimination for or against a person based on thier race is ALWAYS wrong. That was the whole point of the legitimate civil rights movement.
Racism exists in America,...
You continue to to make this claim. Despite the fact that I have not argued against (or for
Sorry, I'm not going to get into a "racism exists in America" discussion. Especially not the "thousands of subtle effects" type. It would lack focus, and be without a point. I'll stick to the more limited "discrimination based on (any) race is bad, mkay?" position.
My race is totally irrelevant to whether it is bad to discriminate based on (any) race. Likewise the experiences of my friends.
As for me suggesting that you're racist, I didn't; I don't actually believe you are racist, just naieve.
Again, with the assigning positions to me which I have never taken. I wonder why you feel the need to do so...
For the record, I never claimed that you suggested I was racist. You assigned a set of positions to me: "You see only the bad consequences of a culture attentive to racism in society. You don't see the gains we've made." I pointed out that I had never taken those, or any other positions in regards to racism in society in general.
The first conflating of my name with the epithet of "racist" occured in your post to which this is a reply. Again, I wonder why you felt the need to do so...
As for being naive, given that I have made no statements about racism or race relations in America, it is interesting that you draw that conclusion. Unless, of course, by "naive" you mean that I don't "realize" that discrimination is good if it leads to the desired "compensitory result."
You may have been one of the people posting as "Anonymous Coward", however, in which case I suggest not taking offense.
I may have been, but was not. I post under my own ID, or I don't bother. thankyouverymuch. Interesting that you chose to throw out another non-relevant red herring. The "people like you caused the french riots" one was at least amusing.
BTW, HAD I also posted
never said that. As I've repeated over and over, I support affirmative action in many cases and do not consider it a form of discrimination.
;->) made. Because I have never comment on same. May I suggest that you look to what I actually type, instead of attributing positions to me? thankyouverymuch. It is interesting, and telling, that you feel the need to do so, however.
Yes, I know you said that you don't consider giving people prefernces based on thier race is not a form of discrimination. The fact remains that it is. The fact that you support discrimination that leads to what you consider to be a "compensitory solution", while claiming it is not discrimination is, as I said, your issue.
I believe many companies have problems with racism, and that they try to compensate for it.
And I believe many companies live in fear of being CALLED racist and so go to extremes to make sure they have the "right" percentages.
You see only the bad consequences of a culture attentive to racism in society. You don't see the gains we've made. May I suggest you look to the recent riots in Paris for an example of how countries who take the views you do -- that affirmative action is, and can only be, "reverse racism" -- survive?
You don't know what I see, or don't see. I have made no statements as to the state of race relations or racism in society (let alone the subset that is the IT industry). You don't know whether I see the gains the US has (or hasn't
And I think it is really a strech to try to claim that the riots in Paris (and the rest of the country) were due to the fact that the country of france took the view that affirmative action is, and can only be, "reverse racism". If you wanted to claim that the riots were due to anti immigrant prejudice (that spans generations) , or just plain old racisim, you might have a case. But the claim you make is just silly. Were the riots due to concerns over reverse racism, it probably would be those who felt they were harmed by same who would have rioted.
OH, and I didn't say that "affirmative action" is, and can only be, "reverse racism". In fact, you might have noticed my use of quotes around the term. "Affirmative action" in the form of outreach, educational assistance, training, etc (i.e. what it supposedly was when it was introduced, back when it wasn't going to be a quota system...). I have no issue with. What I have an issue with is hiring people based on the color of thier skin (or thier gender) instead of hiring the best person for the job. Or giving a person a merit-based position (such as admission to a university) based on skin color (or gender) rather than merit. Again, the fact that you don't think such is racism, reverse or otherwise, is your issue.
I didn't suggest that about you!
Well, that's good to know. Of course, it makes me wonder what that free-floating "Contrary to popular belief, black people can be awarded jobs on their merits." in your prior post was meant to attach to...
But I maintain, and the data bear me out,
You started off, maintaining, and copy-and-paste bears me out: "Now would be a good time to provide newspaper accounts of such things. Yes, I'm sure if this happened, many would be unreported. But surely there is one good man or woman out there who will speak up with a specific example?" That is what I origionally replied to. And it is still my point that such happens.
Oh, and for the record, I STILL haven't made any statement(s) about racism or race relations in the US. I just propose the radical idea that people should be judged by the content of thier character (and thier qualifications), and not the color of thier skin. Regardless of the color of thier skin. The fact that you interpret this to mean anything more than, or different from, that is, again, your own issue.
True. When you hire the less qualified candidate based on thier race, it is plain, old-fashioned discrimination. There is nothing reverse about it, in and of itself -but see below. The fact that you defend it elsewhere, and claim that it isn't discrimination at all if it's in favor of a minority is an issue all your own.
;->
The first case I cited, was definitely an example of what we have reaped from our "affirmative action" (i.e "two wrongs make a right") policies and legislation. WHY are they, as you guess, trying to compensate? Is it, just perhaps, because the current state of our laws regarding "affirmative action" makes them feel they need to bend over backwards (hence the "reverse") and to go out of thier way to ensure that an "appropriate" level of each minority?
And, just for the record, I never stated that black people couldn't get jobs on thier merits. Nor anything close to it. thankyouverymuch.
Btw, thanks for admitting that there are at least one or two examples out there, which was my point.
Ok. Here's one. I don't know too much about insidehighered.com, but I doubt it's a front for the aryan brotherhood.
/., so RTFA is right out. ;->), white female candidate was one of the finalists for a job. Employer's EOO ADDED a male african-american candidate to the finalist pool. White female came in second from the top[1], while african-american came in second from the bottom. University gave the job to the african-american "candidate". Here's a link [pdf, you've been warned] to the decision by the seventh circuit to allow the case to proceed. So does she sound like she qualifies as "one good man or woman"?
:-P) that the number is between 1% and 2% (If it were under 1%, I would have expected the site to say so), it appears that there are between 910 and 1819 [less than 2%, after all ;->] reverse discrimination claims working thier way through the EEOC at the moment.
/me dons asbestos suit.
In summary (because this is
Then there is the case of University of California Regents v Bakke[2]. Where it was held that the UC system had discriminated against a white applicant by admitting lesser-qualified minority applicants. Yeah, that's academic reverse discrimination as opposed to employment. And it was back in the 70's so it's completely irrelevant... Except that the exact same issue came before SCOTUS again in 1996. Unless you think PBS is an angry blogger. There have been a host of similar decisions handed down over the last few years, btw.
In a more general way, this site [3] points out in #12, that "less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases." Working on the assumption (because I'm too lazy to mine for the actual numbers
I don't really have a dog in the fight, and to the best of my knowledge have never been passed over for a job based on either my race or my gender. Nor do I know anyone IRL who has claimed to have been so discriminated against. But you asked for proof of "even one" example. While implying that such was a high burden. Btw, google is your friend.
A now await the flames and downmods.
[1] I'm personally curious where #1 fits into all this, but that's another issue.
[2] I don't think that Findlaw counts as an angry blogger-especially as it is just the literal SCOTUS decision.
[3] Which appears to be dismissive of the idea of reverse discrimination, btw.
So, if Tennessee taxes software as property... How do they determine the market value of Open Source
software?
If a business had the choice of buying MS Office AND then paying taxes for the fact that they own it OR installing OpenOffice or AbiWord and paying x% of it's purchase price, that might drive a few more enterprises to at least consider the option, where it can make easy changes.
some may claim its survival of the fittest or evolution at work.
Really, I thought it was about intelligent design.
IANAL, etc.
It refers to the government assuming responsibility for someone's safety - usually by actively removing thier ability to protect themself. i.e. someone in government custody (i.e. in jail, under arrest, etc), witness protection, etc.
*I* think that should include people who have been granted restraining orders, what with the direction for law enforcement to enforce said orders.... But the SCOTUS never asked me. The bastards.
Since you explicitly decline to give us any evidence that supports your claims, I see no reason to believe any such evidence exists:
/., IIRC), I doubt you are really all that interested. Which probably explains why you "still haven't seen anyone citing actual studies":
Or you could pay attention to SCOTUS decisions.
Review of said decisions here.
Said latest decision (using google's pdf to html) here.
The OP was exactly correct, the police have NO duty to protect any specific individual, absent a "special relationship" - which a restraining order is explicitly held not to do.
Here are some links to some studies, though if you missed the GONZALES case, decided a whole 4 months and 2 days ago (it even made the news AND
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/165476.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/florccw.html
etc, etc, etc.
Now if he'd just uploaded LOTR:ROTK instead of Legally Blonde....
Gift cards to someplace like, say Pier 1 can easily age a year or more. I only used it because I noticed it had an experation date.
Feh. Use cash. it doesn't expire. And it doesn't require people to buy stuff that they may not need just to avoid loosing it.