We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, May 14. 2015
Discovered a disease? WHO has new rules for avoiding offensive names
No Matter the Ailment, More Federal Spending Is the Prescription
The “Bias Incident Reporting” effort aims to “address the impact of demeaning and hurtful statements as well as acts of intolerance directed towards protected classes,” CU Boulder’s website states.
Erdely’s UVA story written with ‘actual malice,’ dean says in defamation suit
Carly Fiorina talks
Former Kerry staffer praises ex-boss, says ‘treated unjustly’ by Israeli public.
China’s missiles can reach nearly all of U.S.: Pentagon report
The Putin Principle: How It Came to Rule Russia
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Fiorina: Color me surprised to find myself liking her.
Just speaking for myself, I just long for steady, even handed, practical, competence without all the sneakiness, dissembling, histrionics. I am especially weary of those who have a deep need to sold, correct, and insult while simultaneously whining.
I'm in, if Carly is in sync with Boris Johnson who said the following regarding the EU election awhile back. "
To a greater or lesser extent, the story of this Euro-election has been the rise of the minor parties……..united by a VISCERAL dislike of the EU bureaucracy: its arrogance, its remoteness, its expense, its endless condescension and its manic and messianic belief in its right to legislate for all 500 million people in the EU.”
Hey, do you remember when American small and regional businesses underwrote and drove the need for local infrastructure? Oh, Wait……
I am not against maintaining America’s infrastructure; but I am against the pretense that maintenance is the equivalent of investment and that it will inevitably generate long term growth and jobs, as it did when first built and created. I even suspect that a lot of existing infrastructure exceeds the need when so many businesses have moved away.
In short, I don't have that much of a problem with infrastructure projects if they serve a real need and will boost efficiency and American competitiveness, and if they are not just to create make work feather-bedding jobs, and if they won't be obsolete before they are done, and if they don't just benefit the few. (Run on sentence, for emphasis.) As an example: Under Roosevelt there was an effort to replant the great plains to contain the Dustbowl and preserve our most valuable asset of all, top soil. That and the effort to retrain farmers in soil conservation benefited us all even down to today.
Obama Attacks Fox News: “We’re Going To Have To Change How the Media Reports”…
It's time for our favorite game show: Did You Even Try to Research This?
Never will I recognize anyone in this country as belonging to such. Ever.
NJSoldier: Never will I recognize anyone in this country as belonging to such. Ever.
So you don't think there's a fundamental difference between firing someone because they do a lousy job and firing someone because they are black?
Uhm, Zach, Does being black equal "protected class"?
If so, why?
Charley Hua Chu: Does being black equal "protected class"?
Race is a protected class, as is religion. So it is illegal for a public business to fire someone because they are white or Catholic, but not illegal to fire them because they do a lousy job. There are historical reasons for treating race and religion as protected classes having to do with long term social and economic discrimination, and due to the inherent instability caused by such discrimination.
So you don't think there's a fundamental difference between hiring someone because they are black and hiring him because you think he'll do a good job?
This also applies to college admission.
I've seen more examples of my case than yours.
mudbug: This also applies to college admission.
Affirmative action is an attempt to have a workforce or student body reflect the ethnic diversity of the community.
Correct. It does not address the capability of the person in question, only the color of his skin or some other unimportant characteristic.
You have to pretend that there is no such thing as historical discrimination to think that excluded groups have the same opportunities as majority groups.
You lost me. Because blacks were discriminated against before but no longer, they need special treatment? This is absurd on it's face and even more absurd when you consider black voting patterns.
The history of discrimination against blacks is that it was at the political hand of the Democrat Party. They supported slavery, instituted Jim Crow laws and the doctrine of "separate but equal". The history of civil rights for blacks is that it was led by Republicans in the form of the end of slavery, integration of public schools, numerous civil rights legislation that were filibustered by Democrats and even the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Even now, the Democrats lie about their past record on civil rights, but blacks still vote for Democrats in huge numbers. So, exactly how is a history of discrimination pertinent to the present?
color of skin was important enough to justify 150 years of jim crow laws. like it or not, or, in the case of others, "accept" it or not, this is how constitutional law works in race bias issues.
how is demanding that 50% of employees are black an attempt to reflect the ethnic makeup of society in a society where 10% are white?
Or as was the case here a few years ago, blacks were hired exclusively in order to create a 100% black police force in a city where only 5% of residents were white.
They had to drop ALL hiring standards in order to get enough black candidates, including background checks for criminal records, including aptitude tests, physical fitness standards, etc. etc.
"Affirmative action" is discrimination against anyone not favoured by it, pure and simple.
It's the very reason why people are wary of blacks (and women) they meet professionally, you can never be sure if that person was hired because they're suitable for the job or because they fit the "diversity bill".
If a black or woman has the right credentials there's no reason they would not be hired in any company they'd want to work in.
it doesn't matter what you accept (which means want to believe) or not because it is a fact that you are dead wrong and have as little understanding of this concept as zachriel, which sets the floor as low as it gets.
assuming, and I hope not too optimistically, that you know what race relations were in the pre civil war era, those didn't end because the "war of northern aggression" or whatever fantasy phrase is in use this Thursday didn't end with the war.
I also assume, again, I'm hoping we are on board with this, that you "accept" the idea that excluding a man from jury duty, voting, public education, property rights, etc. just because he's black is wrong.
Maybe you "accept" this, or not, but it is a fact that the former confederate states did not "accept" blacks as equal under the law and enacted a series hundreds of jim crow laws denying men and women voting, education, residency, property, employment and other rights for no other reason than they were black.
you'd think that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14th Amendment equal protection clause, CRA of 1870 would be enough, but no, jim crow was more "acceptable".
bear with me, I'm trying to make this as simple as possible to understand. When the USSC treats blacks as a protected class or "suspect classification", it means that if you enact a law that excludes a man from a jury, or from college, or restricts his right to own property, or vote because he or she is black, then the government has to show it meets some compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to meet that need and is the least restrictive way of doing that. it forces a government to justify that denying a black man the right to sit on a jury is constitutional.
this has been developing for over 150 years, whether you "accept" it or not. and because you don't "accept" it, you surrender credibility and moral high ground to people like zach, who is also clueless, but at least superficially correct enough to appeal to anyone not suffering from a mental disorder's sense of decency.
progressives like zach have been at least as destructive of blacks in the last 50 years as 150 years of jim crow laws. the conservative inability to articulate civil rights issues or grasp the fundamental ideas is not going to make the battle against progressive bullshit any easier.
the rest of you: stop whining. learn how to defend and argue civil rights issues without looking like a klansman from the 19th century or a conservative bruised snowflake. because if you don't, won't or can't, asshats like zach will roll over you.
"protected classes" - "All animals are equal, some are more equal then others".
We allowed the designation of "protected class" believing it was necessary to protect equality. We should have known better. It should have been obvious the effort to create a protected class was the effort to create a class of people who were more equal then others. Today that is exactly what the LGBT groups are working overtime for; to become a "protected class" untouchable by many laws common sense and more equal then others. This has already gone so far that it cannot be reversed. I do have a solution/fix though. One that will not only work but will piss off those who spent the last 50 years seeking "free stuff" at the expense of others. Such a simple change: Make all white men a protected class. It actually makes sense. Today white men are the only minority you can legally discriminate against and are the target of everyone especially the left. Then when some racist black or sexist female rants against white men there would actually be criminal and civil repercussions. Wouldn't that be awesome?
GoneWithTheWind: Make all white men a protected class.
It is illegal for a public business to fire someone because they are white or male.
GoneWithTheWind: Today white men are the only minority you can legally discriminate against and are the target of everyone especially the left.
"It is illegal for a public business to fire someone because they are white or male."
Zach, Zach, Zach! You are intentionally obtuse. If you fire someone because they are white or fire a white male for any reason at all no one cares and the power of the federal government will NOT be used to protect you, period. If you fire a black person, a disabled person, an LGBT person there is zero proof required that such a person was fired because of their protected status and the full force of the federal government can be brought against you to force you to rehire the person and pay them damages. If you are in the protected class you can steal from your employer, not show up for work, fight and argue at work, act against the interest of your employer and worse and not fear being fired simply because you are in a protected class. "Protected class" status is a scam. It always was a scam, it was designed to be a scam and it must either be eliminated or so diluted that the playng field again becomes level. I am pleased that you disagree as that is the best affirmation of the correctness of my position I could possibly hope for on MF.
GoneWithTheWind: If you fire someone because they are white or fire a white male for any reason at all no one cares and the power of the federal government will NOT be used to protect you, period.
That is incorrect. A white male can file a complaint with the EEOC, and if found guilty, the employer can be forced to pay backpay and penalties.
Furthermore, if someone assaults you because you are white, they can be charged with the hate crime. Between 1995 and 2012, 16% of racial hate crime charges involved white victims.
Zach you are dead wrong on that. I assume as in everything you respond to you know you are wrong, but let's for a moment assume you truely believe it. I suggest you (assuming you are a white male) go to a lawyer who takes these kinds of cases and tell him you were just fired for no good reason and you think it was because you are white or even better a white male. Wait an appropriate amount of time until the lawyer stops laughing and rolling around on the floor and he willtell you that you have no legal recourse what so ever. Then if you really want to understand the level of racial discrimination we have put into federal law. Get a black man or even better a black woman to go to the same lawyer with the same weak and unprovable claim and watch the difference. Simply because there is no proof required if you are in the protected class. The burden of proof in such a case is on the employer. AND even more importantly not only must the employer prove they fired you for legitimate reasons if you are in a protected class but they must have dotted all "i's" and crossed all "t's" along the way AND even then they will probably lose the case and because they fought it they will be subject to big fines, lawyers fees and damages to the employee. Simply put you are 100% wrong.
the white person can file a complaint, but it will never go to court, it will be dismissed out of hand.
J.T. Wenting: the white person can file a complaint, but it will never go to court
In McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination against whites is prohibited by Title VII. The decision was written by Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court's first African-American justice.
As for hate-crimes, the FBI found in 2013 "Of the reported 3,407 single-bias hate crime offenses that were racially motivated, 66.4 were motivated by anti-black or African-American bias, and 21.4 percent stemmed from anti-white bias."
b moe: So there is no such thing as an unprotected class?
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected in many localities, nor is political belief. For that matter, you can be fired for most any arbitrary reason, such as not knowing that Led Zeppelin is the best rock band ever.
Countries who have restrictive firing regulations such as you apparently support generally have higher unemployment because those regulations contribute to the company being risk averse in hiring. If the cost of the mistake of firing someone is so high, they are less inclined to hire in the hire in the first place.
Besides, are you suggesting legislating intelligence or legislating away incompetence? A company that would fire a good employee who held the wrong opinion of Led Zeppelin is not likely to remain healthy for long. It will hurt morale among current employees and when word gets around, it will hurt recruiting efforts.
mudbug: Besides, are you suggesting legislating intelligence or legislating away incompetence?
We didn't advocate anything in our statement. B moe suggested there was no such thing as an unprotected class, when, in fact, most classes are unprotected. The classes that are generally protected by law have generally suffered under long oppression, and lack of protection would mean continued social instability. While in the libertarian fantasy world that some people seem to inhabit, in the real world, social instability due to entrenched discrimination can be bad for business.
I thought when you said
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected in many localities, nor is political belief. For that matter, you can be fired for most any arbitrary reason, such as not knowing that Led Zeppelin is the best rock band ever.you were implying that was an undesirable situation. Then we agree that it is desirable to have the freedom to be stupid and that being stupid would be destructive.
I don't know where you leftists see this threat of discrimination. It sounds like you think that if it weren't for laws against it, skilled or promising blacks would not be employed or given a room at a hotel or restaurant. I've worked many places and I've never seen it and if I had, I don't think I would work there. I don't think that is an uncommon position.
That's not to say that there aren't some holdouts for the glory days of Jim Crow, but there are anti-semites, too, and Jews aren't waiting for the last one to die before they make a success of their life.
mudbug: you were implying that was an undesirable situation.
Being arbitrary is rarely a good thing, but what may be arbitrary to one may be important to another. Only certain classes are protected, generally due to a history of discrimination.
mudbug: Then we agree that it is desirable to have the freedom to be stupid and that being stupid would be destructive.
mudbug: It sounds like you think that if it weren't for laws against it, skilled or promising blacks would not be employed or given a room at a hotel or restaurant.
Funny thing about that. Well, not so funny.
There's still plenty of racial discrimination today. For instance, if you have a black-sounding name, you are less likely to get a return call on a job resume.
"It is illegal for a public business to fire someone because they are white or male. "
No it's not. They are deemed "privileged," therefore effectively not protected by anti-discrimination laws. White males in today's society are passed over or laid off all the time in favor of groups who have "protected status." They will always be last hired, first fired. The legal trick is they are never "discriminated" against, it's that legally everyone else must be given preference over them so they get sent to the back of the line.
For example, this is one reason why women now dominate graduate and professional school admissions, and also are a majority at a lot of undergraduate institutions as well.
Jim: White males in today's society are passed over or laid off all the time in favor of groups who have "protected status." They will always be last hired, first fired.
Last hired, first fired, nearly always cuts against minorities who are more recent entrants to many professions.
"We allowed the designation of "protected class" believing it was necessary to protect equality. We should have known better. It should have been obvious the effort to create a protected class was the effort to create a class of people who were more equal then others."
blame the 14th amendment and the 150 year war against jim crow laws because until fairly recently, some animals were created more equally than others.
that is, unless (1) you think laws against black voting or prohibiting blacks from attending public colleges went away on their own or (2) you don't have an issue with jim crow.
reflexively trashing civil rights law is why zach, who is cunning and dishonest enough to manipulate both history and civil rights law, would embarrass you in any neutral forum.
I understand Zach completely. Not only his philosophy and his prevarications but also his statements here are clear. I am simply not sure what you are saying, you seem to be straddling the fence wanting to be correct no matter who you respond to. For example your statement "reflexively trashing civil rights law is why zach, who is cunning and dishonest enough to manipulate both history and civil rights law, would embarrass you in any neutral forum."
It seems to have assumed much that simply was not there. My opinion on the constitution and rights including but not limited to civil rights is either you believe in equality or you do not. You cannot create a legitimate/legal special class or protected class under our constitution. That isn't to say we haven't done it when in fact it seems to be the goal of congress and every special interest group to do exactly that. What I'm saying is it is contrary to the word and intent of the constitution and if our SCOTUS was not terribly politicized all of these extra-constitutional laws and regulations would be deemed unconstitutional. It simply does not matter what "wrong" may have happened 50 years ago or 150 years ago when it comes to the law of the land. You cannot undue a past wrong with a current wrong and especially if the current wrong is unconstitutional. This is of course a theoretical arguement since it is clear that this is exactly what we have done and continue to do. We abandoned the constitution little by little over the years and we find ourselves in a situation where perhaps 51% of the people will agree to not revert to constitutional law if it gores their ox or special privilage. And that is of course what you really meant when you said "...zach, who is cunning and dishonest enough to manipulate both history and civil rights law, would embarrass you in any neutral forum." That is I could be 100% right and Zach 100% wrong but the majority either through ignorance or entitlement would side with Zach's arguement. That is indeed quite possible and our elections tend to support that conclusion. This is how Obama got elected and reelected even though it was clear he is/was the worst president ever (saving Jimmy Carter from that fate) and it is how Hillary will get elected as well.
But it doesn't matter to me I prefer being right then being popular or annointed the "winner". And my opinion on this subject is correct. And yes I am aware of how arrogant I sound.
Obama Attacks Fox News: “We’re Going To Have To Change How the Media Reports”…
Of course we have to change it. God forbid that we actually call it what it is. Because then the "fix" would be obvious. No we must disguise the problem so that we can keep throwing money at it and keep the captured "poor" votng for Democrats.
I have a dream that we will one day live in an America where everyone will be judged by the content of their character and not be rewarded unconstitutionally by risdistribution of the money of the working class.
It's time for our favorite game show: Did You Even Try to Research This?
Zach, I think you missed the point (look of suprise!).
The point is NOT that Obama is correct and that Fox news does indeed report on poverty and it's causes. Duh!
The point is that Fox is right and Obama doesn't want the truth about poverty to interfere with the Democrat's use of poverty to build their power base. The Democrats would rather that poverty continued and even flourish because it is impossible to convert happy people to a Marxist political philosophy. You must have poor people (or at least people who think they are poor and resent those they think are rich) to convert them to a Marxist/socialist system of government. THAT is what poverty in this country is all about. The Democrats are trying to convince people whose housing and food is paid for by the working class that the working class is taking advantage of them and not paying their fair share of taxes. Our poor own two or more wide screen TVs, cars, air conditioning, take vacations, spend nights and weekends at the casino, and live better than the middle class of most of Europe. We can't speak the truth about our poor the Demoocrats must lie about it and understandably resent Fox news even lifting the covers just a little bit.
We have 2400 welfare or welfare related programs spread out over five cabinet level departments in the federal government. We spend about $1.2 trillion a year on these massive programs to "fix" poverty. Ironically when we talk about poverty and the poor NONE of this money is counted in the determination of an individual's level of poverty. A single mom with two kids may be receiving $50,000 in cash and services from the federaland state governments and only earning $10,000 a year in a part time job. Statistically her income will be calculated as $10,000 and we will ignore or hide the fact that she is actually better off financially then a middle class worker who must pay taxes on their income.
GoneWithTheWind: The point is that Fox is right and Obama doesn't want the truth about poverty to interfere with the Democrat's use of poverty to build their power base.
You were provided evidence of Fox News' willful blindness.
Oh please!! John Stewart isn't citable as proof of anything except perhaps how a glib totally biased person can convince so many people he is anything more then a comedian.
The point remains that Obama and the Democrats (john Stewart included) want to use poverty and the poor for their own personal whipping boy and foil to beat the right over the head with. They don't care about the poor except to give them free stuff and lip service every election cycle. What the left has done to the poor is in some ways worse than outright opression. The left must keep them down, keep them in their place so that they will remain a solid voting block for left wing ideology. The left are cowards and are afraid to have an honest conversation about poverty. All of the alphabet stations and the non-Fox cable outlets carry the water for the left wing view of poverty and it is quite honestly disgusting. If we would discuss it honestly and set policy based on facts we could allow most of the poor to lift themselves out of poverty and enjoy the freedom and personal satisfaction that comes with that.
GoneWithTheWind: John Stewart isn't citable as proof of anything
The claim that Fox News is willfully blind isn't true because Jon Stewart said so, but it's true because of the evidence, which Jon Stewart presented.
Zach, you are a fountain of irony.
Fox has stated that many "poor" people are poor because of personal choices such as; not finishing school, having children too young and without the benefit of marriage and abusing drugs and alcohol. All of this is provably true. All of the other media outlets refuse to even acknowledge these facts. And you call Fox news "willfully blind" on this issue.
GoneWithTheWind: you are a fountain of irony.
You obviously didn't watch the video. Fox News vilifies the poor, then pretends it doesn't. It's propaganda.
It's time for our favorite game show: Did You Even Try to Research This?
Zach you are a never ending fountain of irony; YOU calling what fox does "propaganda". LOL
The “Bias Incident Reporting” effort
here is a link to the CU online reporting page, if anyone needs to file.
If China can launch a satellite, its missles can reach anywhere on earth, let alone most places in the US.
Erdely’s UVA story written with ‘actual malice,’
nothing special here, "actual malice" is a term of art where the plaintiff is a public figure. it means that the publication was made with "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." it doesn't mean hatred or ill will.
China’s missiles can reach nearly all of U.S.: Pentagon report
sez the washington times, which didn't read the pentagon report, or intentionally mislead its easily mislead readership.
Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015 describes these missiles as part of China's policy of deterrence, explained at p.39:
"China’s nuclear weapons policy prioritizes maintaining a nuclear force able to survive an attack and respond with sufficient strength to inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy. A new generation of mobile missiles, with warheads consisting of MIRVs and penetration aids, are intended to ensure the viability of China’s strategic deterrent in the face of continued advances in U.S. and, to a lesser extent, Russian strategic ISR, precision strike, and missile defense capabilities."
yeah, I know, scare mongering is important but still...
Me thinks the first lady doth protest too much....I think her persecution complex just reared its ugly head.
Most human beings feel alienated. We occupy different bodies and have different lives, and other people are, well, other. It's part of the human condition to notice this. How we deal with this, and how we teach others to deal with it, is important. As we mature, we do some adjusting to fit in, but also learn the joys and benefits of independence. We seek out others who seem more like us, but learn to resist absorption and have individuality. Learning to blame others is generally a poor choice.
Perhaps the phrase "as we mature" is the key point.
re The Shameful Rush to Blame the Amtrak Crash on our ‘Infrastructure Crisis’
Well, here is the counter charge from a blogger on the right:
In a nutshell, Amtrak is a jobs program for minorities. The engineer is a gay rights activist. The blogger charges he was promoted to that position based on that and nothing else.
It is very hard for me to believe that Amtrak put an untrained man in the engineer's seat. It will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals.
Many years ago in an unnamed American city I have a friend who worked in a facility where they made nuclear weapons. Seven stories underground in a large city they built the radioactive components of nuclear bombs. He was #2 in this facility and was considered so capable and knowledgable that he was used by the federal government to advise on cleanups of nuclear disasters. He had some very interesting stories to tell. When his boss neared retirement my friend, who had been grooming himself for the position, expected to be considered for the job, after all he had a masters in nuclear engineering and years of experience. But his boss informed him that a black woman had been selected for the position. She was a recent graduate with a degree in biology. My friend protested to his boss, a man he had known and was friends with for over a decade. The boss was suprised and said, "don't you see, this is a twofer. We not only hired a woman but a black woman." Understandably my friend was not impressed with this equal opportunity coup. He saw the handwriting on the wall and found a job working for a college with a nuclear engineering program. I was stunned at the loss this high profile program received by this stupid decision. Not only did they have an new administrator with no experience and no training in the field but they lost the key employee. They did indeed have a twofer.
Not surprising at all if someone was put in there without proper training.
He was probably hired because he had the right credentials, and not skill based credentials.
Being of the right race, skin colour, religion, sexual orientation is often more important than knowing your thing.
And/or he did have an experienced person with him but that person was afraid to correct the new guy for fear of being branded racist/sexist/intolerant in any way at all.