Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

What is McCain's latest "senior moment", what does Obama need to do to win in November or whatever else is on your mind.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

New Open Thread here
This one is now closed for comments.

4188 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 3401 – 3600 of 4188 Newer› Newest»

Beryl said...: Aunt Jean,
You are living under the erroneous assumption that if you have not personally seen something, it doesn't exist. That is faulty logic. I've never seen your heart but I believe you have one.

I don't doubt that you or another white person has been denied some privilege and was told that it was because of affirmative action. Blaming affirmative action is an old, yet effective, excuse that is often used by companies and educational institutions to reject the unqualified or undesirable. It causes the rejected person to turn their anger towards black people and/or "the system" instead of the company or institution.

Frankly, I'm sorry to hear that you or any of your loved ones have experienced that kind of pain.

Again, concentrating on whose unfair treatment is worse than another's is futile. It adds to existing divisions and misunderstanding. It is far more productive to recognize that inequities exist and resolve to do no harm.

You really should consider what happens outside of the USA. As Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama both said -- we are citizens of the world. What happens around the globe affects the USA and the reverse.; July 25, 2008 2:39 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; July 25, 2008 2:54 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl but shouldn't Americans take care of Americans first. That is the whole problem is we don't actions are based on what happens in some other country and it shouldn't. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help them because they are humans too. Just that we should base our needs on what is needed here not what the whole world needs or does.It's terrible how some countries treat their people because of their race but it seems to me that this country is trying to go overboard because of it. That is also wrong because all it causes is resentment.There are a lot of good people out there and I don't base that on what race they are..Jean; July 25, 2008 2:56 AM
apissedant said...: Aunt Jean,
All I'm saying is : If you have 2 students [1 aa and 1 white] their grades are about the same and their house income was about the same. It should be based then on first come first served

You're living in a dream world. The whole reason they're not look at equally is because they're not from houses with the same income. Again, whites control over 99% of the wealth in this nation, of the 400 richest people, only 2 are black. We're not talking about discrimination and unfair treatment, we're talking about leveling the playing field. That is the main purpose of affirmative action.

If you spend 200 years outlawing education, destroying their families, raping their women, and stealing their money... will their hardships disappear in a day, a week, or even a generation? NO!
If you then spend the next 100 years legally discriminating against them, lynching them, refusing to hire them, and refusing to educate them, will the hardships immediately disappear when you stop that? NO!
We are only two generations removed from legal discrimination. Jesse Helmes just died, and he made a career out of discrimination, and trying to make more discrimination legal. Every news organization in the country covered Katrina, and every black person stealing was a criminal, and every white person stealing was a scavenger trying to survive.
Anderson Cooper covered the two hospitals, and the poor black hospital had people dying on the rooftop, while no one got evacuated. The wealthy, more white hospital literally in view of the other, was already almost completely evacuated.

How can discrimination that is so recent, that completely destroyed families, possibly have already been made up for? It is a ridiculous argument.

Again, the idea is to level the playing field. They did not go to the same school, they were not offered the same education, and their parents don't make the same amount of money. This results in them having fewer opportunities and performing worse in school. Colleges take this into consideration, because these kids are still bright, and have plenty of potential, they just haven't had the opportunity to capitalize on it yet.

I am honestly tired of white people constantly complaining about being discriminated against. Yes, it happens, but we have no idea what it is like. In my last job, there were two black people, one making 11 dollars an hour, the other making 9. I got paid 16 to do the exact same job. We can go back and forth all night with anecdotal evidence that proves nothing. Discrimination exists in both directions, but the fact is, the white man controls the cash and the jobs, so the white man's discrimination results in holding the black man down. Black discrimination rarely does this, with the exception of, if you want to call it discrimination, affirmative action, which I have already described the very important purpose of.

If we have it so bad, and we are so discriminated against, then why are we still doing so well? Do you realize that Asians are more discriminated against due to affirmative action than whites are? Asians are also typically poorer than white counterparts, so the socioeconomic factor is actually against them. The fact is that they end up outperforming us on tests, and because the current affirmative action ploy is about "diversity", Asians are more often rejected because their group is already proportionally represented. Check the average SAT entrance score of females and males, blacks, Asians, hispanics, and whites. As a white male, I have more right to complain than you do on that, because females are given exception as well, despite the fact that they make up 54% of college students already. I still don't complain, because I realize the very important purpose of it when it comes to race. I honestly disagree with it on the female end though.; July 25, 2008 3:10 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl and apissedant

I hope you too don't think that I blame a race as to what I have been thru because I don't. I would hope that I'm a better person than that.I just think this world would be a better place without any discrimination.

So on that note I will take my leave have a goodnight. Jean; July 25, 2008 3:11 AM
apissedant said...: Aunt Jean,
This is going to sound mean, and I'm sorry, but the fact is, it only causes resentment in the ignorant and racist people. I am a white middle class guy from the suburbs of Detroit. I had two college educated parents who are still married to this day, two older sisters who both attended college, and I attended a school with a relatively high college entrance percentage. I had quite a few advantages, although not as many as some.

I realize most minorities did not get those same advantages. I realize that just 7 miles from where I lived, the school district continually graduated people who could not even read. The dropout rate was ridiculous, and many students seemed ushered directly from high school to prison. Few kids made it to college, and most of them were only able to go due to athletic scholarships. How can anyone claim that they and I are equal and had equal opportunities? How can you make that claim with a straight face?

Detroit is the most segregated area in the entire nation. It is not a very racist area, instead the segregation is completely on an economic basis. It just turns out that almost all the black people are poor, and almost all the white people are doing ok (or were before the last decade and the loss of the auto industry). The city property taxes pay for the city schools, so since their city is ghetto, their property isn't worth crap, and their schools are broke. They did countless reports on Detroit kids whose playgrounds were nothing more than a paved lot, filled with used condoms, needles, and other dangerous items. Our property values were much higher, so we had better schools.
We weren't equal, we didn't have equal chances, and anyone that says we did has their head up their hind end. I will not begrudge someone who was able to rise out of that situation. That requires a level of strength and intelligence that I don't know if I have, and hopefully I will never have to find out.; July 25, 2008 3:21 AM
apissedant said...: Stop complaining about discrimination and examine why it exists. Some of it may be completely appropriate, and that which isn't, we should try to remove. Blacks being given 2% higher interest rates has no purpose, and should be removed. There are other forms of discrimination in BOTH directions that has no purpose and should be removed. All forms of affirmative action most definitely have a very real and very important purpose, and therefore I will never agree to disband that system, especially when everyone who talks about removing it never tries to get rid of the legacy discrimination. That, to me, proves that you have all been duped by Republican propaganda. The fact that your idea is to prevent some poor black kid from inner city Harlem that worked his tail off from getting into Harvard, but you have no problem with a drug using lazy George W. Bush getting in their despite not meeting the standards is disturbing. Of those two, who is more qualified? I would hire the black kid any day of the week. He had the odds stacked against him and still fought his way through. George W. had everything in his favor, and still barely squeaked by. I wouldn't hire him to weed my lawn.; July 25, 2008 3:26 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Apissedant I totally disagree with you and like I said you have not been in this world as long as me and I have seen the other side. You say the wealth is helt by whites.There all still a heck of a lot of poor whites. You say that it's been going on for 200 years well it hasn't been going on that long here in the USA. Yes there are whites that do that but there are AA's that do that also. Wake up and see the whole picture. I was working for the school system for 6 years and out of 234 people that worked at my job site. There was only about 15 that would work full time because it would mess up their welfare checks. If that isn't lazy and not wanting to do better for themself I don't know what is.

But I'm really starting to get pissed because all I can here from you is poor AA's. There are plenty of WHITE people that couldn't get help just because they were WHITE. So no you say it should be based on something that happened years and years ago. You can't and I repeat can't go back or make up for something that happens so many years ago. You have to pick of the picks and do what is best for everyone not just one race because of what they went thru. Not ever white person owned slaves or were mean to the slave that they had. Have you forgotten it was AA's that sold AA's from different tribes to Whites to sell into slavery. I guess that was white men's fault too. Oh by the way yes I can complain because I have that right and you or no one else has that right to try anf take it away from me.

You say that you want to AA people to quit being discriminated against well that is the easy part quit discriminating against everyone. But it's people like you that want to try and make up for past faults that makes that impossible. But until it does there will always be discrimination.You think whites made their money by sitting on their butts. But you sit there and want to discriminate against white women talk about kettle calling the kettle black.

You have no idea what I have been thru but you sit an have the nerve to judge me. If that isn't being hypercritical I don't know what is. Jean; July 25, 2008 3:42 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; July 25, 2008 3:48 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Apissedant

Once again I'm not saying don't help them help should be based on need nothing else. That's all I'm saying. Will more AA's be helped probable so and that's ok. I don't care what race they are it should only be based on need.Jean; July 25, 2008 3:52 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Apissedant

I agree with you I would never hire a george bush I would hire the AA from Harlem. I don't believe in discrimination. But on the other hand just as long as there is affirmative action there will always be discrimination. Or at least a lot more than it would be without it. I am going to say goodnight for sure now.Jean; July 25, 2008 4:09 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean,

If you don't recognize the discrimination the the WASP males are directing to ANYONE who is not WASP male, you have intentionally put blinders on.

AAs, Asians, Muslims, Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, G/L/B/Ts, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hispanics, and it goes on and on and on.

Do you think that a lot of the 'anti-immigrant' rhetoric from the GOP is actually 'anti-immigrant' feeling? If so, then why aren't the illegal immigrant Irish being threatened with deportation? They aren't being threatened.

Why is it only the southern border (the border with Hispanic Mexico) being 'protected' with a wall, and not the Canadian border? Canada is much more WASP than Mexico, that's the major reason.

Take the blinders off, recognize the discrimination that goes on every day throughout the US, and then we can work to end the discrimination. Keep the blinders on, though, and you just perpetuate the discrimination of everyone, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other reason people come up with for discriminating against others.

Mike; July 25, 2008 6:42 AM
apissedant said...: Aunt Jean,
I quite clearly recall my typing that in the perfect world, that aid would be based on socioeconomic status and not on race or gender.

I also quite clearly recall stating that this affirmative action is not some sort of payment for what blacks went through during slavery or during segregation, but instead about the position that those policies of the place have placed current blacks. Yes, there are whites in similar situations, but it is by in large minorities in the position. Yes, socioeconomic aid would be better, but no program has been proposed that would transform affirmative action into this. The proposal is just to dismantle affirmative action, and leave nothing in the place, which just perpetuates the problem and makes things worse.

To say that discrimination won't end until affirmative action ends is really quite silly. The discrimination came long before the affirmative action, and was being perpetuated vocally by our Congress at the same time affirmative action was created. Affirmative action didn't create discrimination, fear and ignorance created discrimination. Affirmative action was created to attempt to balance out the discrimination, and give the victims a fighting chance of success. Women have been large recipients of it as well, so why you have decided that white females are the sole victims I don't understand.

Again, if you really want to eliminate discrimination, start with legacies, because there is absolutely no plausible excuse for that.; July 25, 2008 9:52 AM
Beryl said...: Aunt Jean,

I really didn't want to engage in the "who suffers more" discussion but you continued to harp on the evils of affirmative action and how helpful it has been to black people. Actually, black people have not benefited as much as you've been lead to believe. In fact, apis was right when he stated,

"Affirmative action was created to attempt to balance out the discrimination, and give the victims a fighting chance of success. Women have been large recipients of it as well..."

In fact, "white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action programs"

http://aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct30.php

Most of us with experience in corporate America (20+ years for me) know this to be true. White women have broken all of the glass ceilings where people of color have not.

This country is not bending over backwards to help black people at the expense of white women. Don't believe the hype and anecdotal references designed to divide us at this time.; July 25, 2008 10:48 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike in Maryland

about Canadians verses mexicans have you ever thought of how it is. I know here in houston area that if you go to a home building site you might see 1 AA labor and the guy that runs it will be white the rest are mexicans. How much do you think they are paid very little. It use to be mostly whites that built homes. So yes whites resents that, because they are cheap labor. With Canadians being white they are not sure they are americans and will not put up with it.

Where did I say women were the sole victums of it. I'm not stupid I know they aren't.If there is so much discrimination against AA's why is there so many AA's in politics.As far as affrimative action it creates discrimination. Everyone that doesn't see that is the one that has blinders on.

You say that I am silly for believing discrimination would end if affrimative action was did away with.To begin with I never said that it would get rid of discrimination. What I said was that it would help a lot. I do think it would. These companies that discrimination against anyone should be fined not just because they won't hire an AA but any race, gender, or because they smoke or any other stupid reason other than they don't have the skills to do the job.

The whole problem is people like you and others want to go back years and years and try and correct a wrong [yes I believe it was not only wrong but terrible] that was done to AA's.Or at least that is the way most people see it. Well I hate telling you this but forcing people to try and correct that doesn't work either and that is exactly what affrimative action does.

I guess some people don't see discrimation like you and other people have seen it. There is so many different races in my family because of adoptions. That because they are my nieces and nephews and the love is there for them that I see it differently. Now I'm not saying by no means that my family is perfect heck no but they wouldn't be mean to someone just because of their race or gender. But they do hate laziness. I have a nephew that is useless as all get out worse than that he is sorry. Do I still love him yes I just wouldn't do anything for him.

All I'm saying is this I don't believe discrimination is as bad as you believe it is.I also believe some of it "NOT ALL" of it is the result of affrimative action. Maybe not in your area of the USA but in the area of where I live or have lived yes.

Again, if you really want to eliminate discrimination, start with legacies, because there is absolutely no plausible excuse for that: I want to make sure that I am understanding you. What are you saying exactly? Jean; July 25, 2008 11:00 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl
In fact, "white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action programs"

This is such BS! I would like to know where because I sure haven't seen it. Maybe in your part of the country but not mind.Jean; July 25, 2008 11:03 AM
Beryl said...: Aunt Jean,
Just because you have not seen something personally doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is a fact that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action in the United States of America.

Do your own research and don't rely on anecdotal references. I supplied a link only to provide you an example of what you'll find. Contact Fortune 50 companies and academic institutions and they will tell you the same thing.; July 25, 2008 11:32 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl

I'm sorry but I still think it's BS. Women are where they are because of hard work not because of affrimative action. Maybe alittle but very little. As far as more white women benefiting from it than AA's that is laughable. So with that note yes I would vote to GET RID of it but I would also not want it to be gotten rid of it if there wasn't something there to protect everyone from discrimination. You might believe what you say but I don't, because I've seen differently and experienced personally differently.

Well I've got to go to work I'm running late because I have a few other things to do before I go so take care.

Beryl what I say is nothing personal it's just what I have seen and experienced so please don't take what I say personal. Jean; July 25, 2008 11:43 AM
Beryl said...: Aunt Jean said,

"Women are where they are because of hard work not because of affrimative action."

I believe that most women have to work harder and accomplish more to get the same recognition (pay, promotions, and opportunities) as white males. Moreover, this is also the case for blacks and other minorities.

That doesn't change the fact that affirmative action has benefited primarily white women. It is what it is. What you've seen or experienced personally does not alter that fact.

Broadening personal experiences and increasing discourse with those with diverse experiences can help in this regard.

My friends in Boulder, CO annually opens their home to foreign students attending CU. They do this to broaden the perspectives of their son and daughter to the cultures of those from other countries -- Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, etc. Since this is a black family (one of the few in Boulder), they've help to broaden the perspectives of their guests.

Her son graduated from Howard U and now working on his MBA and her daughter attends the prestigious School of the Arts in Denver. If you speak to her children, you'd be amazed at what they know about the world and they've never left the US!

I'm not saying that you should open your home to black college students so you can see discrimination first hand. However, that is an easy way you can gain that knowledge if you want it.

Personally, I have had personal experience (family members and close relationships) with almost every ethnic group -- here in the United States of America. I've lived among Asians but established more relationships in the last 5 years -- before and after spending time in Hong Kong and Beijing. This experiences caused me to not doubt those who complain about discrimination. However, I've learned that comparing plights is pointless and divisive.; July 25, 2008 1:18 PM
apissedant said...: Stop,
Unless you show me proof that you didn't sleep with your mother, I will assume it so with ???

There is a reason courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and assume innocent until proven guilty. It is much easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative. Unless you can account for every minute of your entire life with proof and alibis, it is entirely possible you slept with your mother. However, had you actually slept with your mother... I would only need to prove your location and your actions at one specific time. If you continue making absurd and ridiculous claims, then I guess I will make my own equally ridiculous claims. Neither of us will have proof, but oh well.

As to middle school, ummm... the highly competitive middle schools all require pulling strings, because there is no real academic record to judge on. Maybe you should look into how private schools work.

If you go to Thomas Nelson Community College, a really crappy community college, you will have guaranteed admission into William and Mary assuming your GPA is ok. William and Mary is one of the oldest and most respected institutions in this country, consistently ranking in the top 10 of public institutions. Transferring is easy. My school is not ranked very well, but someone with a lower GPA than me just got accepted into the 10th best Chemistry graduate school in the country. She didn't apply to any of the top 9, so I have no idea if she could have done better. Transferring is easy.; July 25, 2008 1:24 PM
apissedant said...: Aunt Jean,
Why are there so many AAs in politics!?!?!?! HUH!?!?!?! They make up about 20% of this nation, and they make up 0% of our Presidents and VPs in history! There have been a grand total of 4 black governors! There have been a grand total of 123 black Congressmen in history! There is currently 1 black Senator, making up 1% to represent 20%. There have been 2 black SC justices, and there is currently 1. That is 11% representing 20%. There are 42 black Congressman currently serving, making less than 10% of Congress to represent 20% of America.

Why are there so many white males? They are the only group that are overrepresented in government. As for the white women thing, you specifically asked why I wanted to discriminate against white women. You singled that subgroup out, not me.

As to being hypocritical, I was not being hypocritical because I never asked you not to judge myself or anyone else. I don't ask people not to judge, because I am constantly judging and that would be hypocritical. I asked you to stop complaining and fully examine the facts. You should read the link I posted earlier about perpetual poverty.

I need food, I'll be back.; July 25, 2008 1:36 PM
Joshua said...: It is shameful that someone stole the note Obama left in the Western Wall in Israel. It is a shame that a newspaper would publish an earnest prayer of Obama. Many leaders have visited that wall and left notes. Never before has such a note been published. Here’s Obama’s:

Lord,
Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins and help me guard against pride and despair.
Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just.
And make me an instrument of your will.

God, please protect him.; July 25, 2008 1:55 PM
apissedant said...: Mike, that is shameful. That the Jewish paper would publish it, and tarnish their own religious sanctuary is disheartening... that a young student would steal it is sad.; July 25, 2008 2:02 PM
apissedant said...: Oh, and sorry for all for responding to the troll. In my defense, I am attempting to quit smoking, and removing the vice apparently diminishes my inhibitions and encourages me to do things I would not do while thinking more rationally. I shall reattempt to not engage those not worthy of my time or energy.; July 25, 2008 2:09 PM
jean said...: ap,
There have been 29 Women Governors.
There have been 76 Women in the House and 16 in Congress.
In those #'s 22 Black women in the House and 1 Black Woman in Congress.
If I recall the female population in the US is 55%.
3 of those governors took over for their HUSBANDS.
Statistically women are at much greater odds and a larger majority.
I am very tired of being disqualified when the #'s are the #'s.
I hate when I have to take the kids to the doctors and they are really sick.
I know these kids and I know when they are really sick.
I have on several occations had to call my husband,White 6'5" 250lbs,
to go to the doctors office to get something done because I was a woman and just too sensitive and I was over reacting.
To say he was pissed off because they would not listen to me would be to put it mildly.
I was right and they did apologize but do you have any idea how embarrassing it is to have to do that.
This type of attitude is prevalent but now there has to be two incomes to survive and the treatment is not the same for the different sexes.
Have you ever been taken out by your bosses who are trying to indirectly find out if you are going to have anymore kids when you know you are on the shortlist for a promotion.
It sucks.
jean; July 25, 2008 2:18 PM
Joshua said...: Obama has been in the hot center of worldwide spotlight. And with jetlag and all, his trip has been flawless. I didn’t want him to go on the trip, but now that it is over, I am glad that he went. I have to admit that I didn’t want him to go because I was afraid that he might make a gaffe. I have observed this man very closely for over two years: beginning from when he appeared on NPR’s “Wait, wait, don’t tell me” one Saturday before he even went on his book tour. Obama has always handled himself superbly in every situation. Yet I keep being afraid that he might slip up. He never has. I have to let my guard down now. He is that which he appears to be. Genuine.

I will stop fearing.

The question is: is America ready for good leadership? This is the same country that voted for Bush, twice. One after he had already started an illegal war of aggression.; July 25, 2008 2:19 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
We agreed on this, women are underrepresented as well. As I mentioned, the only portion of society that has been properly represented, and actually overrepresented, is white males.

Remember that females are most definitely recipients of affirmative action. I recall a conversation with the before mentioned female who was accepted to UNC grad school and one of our professors. When asked what her odds of acceptance were, the professor responded, "Well you've got good grades, you did well on the GRE, you have research experience, oh, and you're a woman, so you should be fine."

Women have lower requirements to be accepted at most institutions and in most companies because of this affirmative action. I am not arguing against this for the most part, as there is most definitely still discrimination against females, and white males still control the nation. Ending racial affirmative action will also cause the end of sexual affirmative action, do you want to end that?

Another friend did research while he was applying to UNC two years ago. What he found alarmed him, and he is most definitely a libertarian that does not agree with affirmative action. He found that Asian males had the highest requirement to be accepted, followed by white males. Females, despite making up more than 50% of the students at the University already, were averaging 20 points lower on the SAT to their male counterparts.

Also, females only make up 51% of the US, and this is due to the fact that they live an average of 5 years longer. Blacks by this percentage would actually be underrepresented, as they on average life expectancy is 5 years less than their white counterparts.

Males actually make up the majority of births.; July 25, 2008 2:37 PM
Joshua said...: I would love to see every republican running for election this November loses. I also want Nancy Pelosi defeated. I also want Harry Reid to lose the next time he runs for re-election. I want democrats to win enough seats in the senate that they don’t need Mr. Jew Jewberman from Connecticut anymore.; July 25, 2008 2:38 PM
Karen Anne said...: ap,

When I went to M.I.T. there was a quota system in effect limiting women to 7% of the freshman class. You can bet we had better qualifications than the guys.

I am not a fan of affirmative action, but what goes around, comes around.; July 25, 2008 2:39 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
One part of your post that I missed that I disagree with is the birth item. From a company's perspective, you choosing to have more children means you will be taking time off work. This decreases your productivity and therefore hurts their bottom line. The company's primary goal is to make money, because we are capitalists, and therefore your productivity level is most definitely a factor in whether or not you get a promotion. If you respond that you won't be having more children, then you should have the exact same odds as your male counterpart. If you plan to take time of for birthing children, well it seems to me that is rightly a factor in the company's decision of where to place you. Women that either can't or choose not to procreate in order to focus on their career should be rewarded for their commitment to the job. To give a woman without this same commitment an equal footing would seem to me an unfair example of discrimination.

Don't get me wrong, my wife's old company hired her back knowing full well she was pregnant and that she will soon be taking 3 months paid off of work. The Dutch are more receptive to this because they have a shrinking population and believe promoting procreation is a very important goal in order to maintain their nation's strength and economic success. I am more than happy to accept this if it is offered, but I don't think a company or a government has a responsibility to do this in most situations. We still have very strong population growth, and therefore this policy is not necessary in our society, which is one of many reasons why we have chosen to immigrate to her nation instead of mine. I won't turn down a helping hand if it is offered to me, but that doesn't mean I expect that helping hand.; July 25, 2008 2:45 PM
apissedant said...: karen,
I'm arguing FOR affirmative action. ;)

I think it is necessary to level the playing field. I would personally prefer a different method of implementation, but unless someone proposes a better system that will replace the current system, than I will continue to support the current system.

I full realize women have been, and in many cases still are discriminated against.; July 25, 2008 2:48 PM
jean said...: ap,
Percentages are fine and I do not agree on several points.
Due to the #s there are more women discriminated against.
There IS a glass ceiling that has not been broken and has been barely chipped.
The female human being is the largest populance that is discriminated against in the world.
Black males voted 50 years before women.
jean; July 25, 2008 2:57 PM
jean said...: ap,
You are so WRONG.
For someone to be productive and WANT to be at there job they must feel secure in certain things.
Microsoft is a perfect example.
As a boss I personally, not professionaly because you can't, always wanted someone with kids because they HAD to work hard to advance and support the most precious things in their life.
Productivity was always higher and the ones on salary almost always put in extra time.
Studies have been done to prove this.
The basis for work for many is to support their family and to make opportunities for them.
When a company supports the decision of a woman to have children and treats her fairly it makes more people support the company. The act of human reproduction usually happens to a large portion of the population.
When someone feels supported, wanted and appreciated they work hard.
jean; July 25, 2008 3:06 PM
jean said...: ap,
Ok, I have forgotten how to spell.
I am a bit passionate about this, just a little bit;)
For people with good jobs(lets just say a job) and a education
having children we are at a negative population growth.
This is not good.
Immigration is supplementing most of our growth and stats show low education etc.
You are having an angel and you are leaving the country.
Things need to change.
jean; July 25, 2008 3:40 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
Again, I admitted that women are discriminated against, and defended the affirmative action program that attempts to assuage this historical travesty. As to blacks voting first... have you ever heard of literacy tests for voting? Blacks were discouraged from voting well into the sixties. Many blacks were wrongfully removed from voting rolls by Republicans in the last two Presidential elections. This is well documented. There is a documentary about the Florida debacle that exposed a racist policy of removing people from rolls who had similar names to people who had felony records. This was specifically targeting blacks, because blacks vote over 90% with the Democrats.

As to productivity and pregnancy leave, there is no doubt that people on pregnancy leave are less productive than their counterparts. The idea that those with children are more productive would be disputed by the low reproductive numbers by successful career women such as Hillary Clinton.
The idea that the need to take care of family would encourage higher productivity, even if accepted, applies to men as well, and men do not take 3 months of pregnancy leave, therefore they would still be more productive than their female counterparts and would therefore be a better choice for an employer.

Several months ago I posted a link to a study with doctors. The study was conducted by a group that was representing both male and female doctors in response to findings that female doctors made far less than their male counterparts. The study found that female doctors saw less patients, worked fewer hours, took more time off work for things like pregnancy leave and other parenting requirements, and on average worked in less demanding practices that allowed them to work regular hours and be home more often with their children. Here is another report on the same trend.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576516/Women-doctors-%27less-productive-than-males%27.html

The purpose of a business is to make money. If a business finds that a woman that either chooses against having children, or a man that spends less time caring for their children makes them more money, then they have every right to hire and promote those that make them the most money.
If they discriminate against all females, this is wrong, but if they merely promote and hire those that are most committed to the job, then that is completely acceptable.

Again, this is a totally different discussion. I understand and accept the way affirmative action is currently applied. I am merely giving a counterargument of how affirmative action benefits women, including white women, and how that could more easily be deemed as inappropriate and unfair than affirmative action based on race. For this reason, white women attempting to argue that affirmative action being dismantled should fully understand how it is currently being applied, and whether or not they are willing to give up those benefits.; July 25, 2008 3:43 PM
jean said...: ap,
I really like you.
But the over all picture needs to be looked at.
I feel you are not so we agree to disagree.
While women may not be productive for a 3 month period of time or longer the longevity of the job
im many ways counterbalance.
Like I said I really like you but I am getting a flash of Republican.
With the negative growth with educated individuals what the heck is going to happen to the future.
We as a society have a responsiblity.
To have a child and basically be reprimanded for it will make population growth deteriorate.
At this point and time women can only have children.
Promotion or kid.
What a choice.
Let me guess, it is a sacrifice we have to make.
jean; July 25, 2008 3:56 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
We agree 100% on this.
I swear, I am not homophobic, racist, or sexist. However, I do believe in airing all rational arguments for any argument, because understanding and knowledge is the first step to finding the best solution. I do not pretend to have a solution to the problem of a negative growth rate among the most intelligent and educated in our society.

My point is not on this subject, this subject is used to make my point. There is some protection on this issue for women in our current society. This, again, falls under the umbrella of affirmative action, so if you would like to keep, or even advance this cause, then dismantling affirmative action would be counterproductive.

I do have problems with the idea of a woman unquestionably putting in less time and putting less focus on the company, and still getting the promotion. I at the same time, have a problem with the idea of a negative population growth of the most intelligent and highest educated in our society. What the fix to this is, I have no idea, so I support the current system as better than anything I can dream up.

I can also speak personally from your perspective on this debate. My aunt and uncle are both very well educated, and they chose to have two children. She took time off from her career in order to have and raise these children, and in the end, earned merely 1/3 of my uncle's salary at retirement.

My sister in contrast, is 30 and has still not had children. She is very smart and well educated, having a doctorate in veterinary medicine. She recently bought her own veterinary clinic, and is consumed with running it. She is quickly nearing the end of the window in which women can safely reproduce. Yes, women can reproduce until around 50, but the risks become very high after the age of 35. I find this unfortunate, because she is a kind and loving person, and would make an excellent mother. No affirmative action program could possibly help her, because it is her own business. What is the solution? I honestly have no idea.

Again, the main point is, that if you support affirmative action for females, then you must, begrudgingly if necessary, support affirmative action by race. The fact is that the options proposed are completely dismantling it, or keeping it as is. No other option has been presented by any of our leaders, so in the end you must take it or leave it.; July 25, 2008 3:57 PM
Joshua said...: Obama is impressive. But this one is beyond campare. Never before has a candidate been given the platform of a joint press conference with a head of state. Never. Not till today. I began scratching my head for why Sarkozy would give Obama such a platform. Bang! It hit me across the face: OBAMA IS MORE POPULAR IN FRANCE THAN SARKOZY! Sarkozy did it for local French politics. He was saying to French people: look, I know Obama and he is on stage with me.

Wow!; July 25, 2008 3:59 PM
apissedant said...: Here is a link to a law firm that specializes in exactly what you are talking about. The law that makes them successful is the exact same law that allows racial affirmative action. The reason they call you into a private meeting to discuss your plans is because they are legally not allowed to do it, so they can't have witnesses.

http://employmentlawyernewyork.com/pregnancy-discrimination-and-harassment.html; July 25, 2008 4:03 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
I'm not supposed to respond to you, but I found your link amusing, and again, I'm quitting smoking, so my inhibitions are severely lowered. Anything to distract me from the evil nicotine addiction.

From that post, it would seem intelligent for Bush to come out and endorse Obama. It might increase McCain's chance of being elected too.; July 25, 2008 4:06 PM
jean said...: OK,
Light side but rather Dark.
Women basically hold the future of growth.
The HAVES (top1%) have children.
The up and coming don't because they want advancement.
We now know why the Republicans are trying to overturn Roe vs Wade.
To force women to have children.

Told you it was Dark.
jean; July 25, 2008 4:08 PM
Beryl said...: Apis wrote:
"Blacks were discouraged from voting well into the sixties."

That is putting it mildly! Blacks were jailed and even LYNCHED when attempting to vote.; July 25, 2008 4:15 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike -

Thanks for posting something about the current election :)

I also think it is awful that the Israeli newspaper published Obama's prayer.

The world isn't what it used to be. People don't know where to draw the line anymore and many seem to have no shame or a handle on what is right or wrong.

I will feel better once Senator Obama is back in the USA.

President Obama '09; July 25, 2008 4:16 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: McCain looks so desperate WHINING all week about not being the center of attention!

McCain Camp Worries It Will Be Overshadowed Until Democratic Convention

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/mccain-camp-worries-it-wi_n_115030.html

.; July 25, 2008 4:18 PM
jean said...: ap,
I know.
Husband had his corporate attorney meet with me, boy was husband mad.
12 years ago it was real hard to sue and no, I would not have worked in the industry again.
I was done having kids but I would not tell them because it was none of their business.
Lived by my principles but it did hit the paycheck.
jean; July 25, 2008 4:21 PM
apissedant said...: beryl,
Very true. I put it mildly because I didn't need to put it harshly to make my point. ;)

jean,
I disagree on Roe vs. Wade. I don't even think Republicans are really trying to overturn it. With 7 of 9 current justices being Republican appointees AFTER Roe vs. Wade, it is rather obvious to me that Roe vs. Wade is just an election ploy to get voters out and keep the Democrats in check. Just imagine if the religious right didn't have abortion and gay rights to fear, how could they possibly get the religious right to vote for them? Also, birth control is 99% effective, and most of the well educated and intelligent people take it properly. This leads me to believe that most abortions are probably by people who are not so much up and coming, as stagnating at the bottom. I have no figures on this, don't get me wrong, it is just something I would suspect.; July 25, 2008 4:25 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike -

I just know that McCain is kicking himself in the butt for making such a big fuss about Obama going overseas.

Also,
When McCain went McCain didn't want the press going with him - then now he complains that the press didn't go with him overseas.

I am looking forward to next week when Obama starts kicking McCain's butt over all the outrageous things McCain has said about Obama while he was gone.

McCain has really showed his true colors this week. He is a negative jealous old man that doesn't even know world geography or the correct facts about the Iraq and Afghan wars.

The American people should be outraged that McCain said that Obama wants to lose the Iraq war!!!

I think we are going to see a HUGE landslide win for Obama in November.; July 25, 2008 4:26 PM
jean said...: Beryl,
Women were beaten, jailed and the favorite thing, put in mental asylums.
They were abandoned, etc.
Were they killed? You know some were.
They were ostracized and condemned.
The ammendment was put before congress for 40 YEARS and was never voted upon.
It was ignored.
I am not ignoring the AA issue.
I feel the female issue is.
People act like everything is A OK.
There is still a LONG way to go.
jean; July 25, 2008 4:32 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
After reading my ENTIRE argument, do you understand more where I'm coming from, and realize that it is not nearly as anti-female as it may at first appear?

My argument is more to maintain the status quo instead of stepping back. The female and pregnancy thing I fully understand, and am rather torn on. I can fully see both arguments, and both have some serious validity.

In many ways, it is part of a larger struggle in my mind: Free market and companies acting in their own self-interest. This basic principle of a capitalist society speaks very loudly against affirmative action. Affirmative action through college has nothing to do with this, and is more, again, a program to level the playing field. Affirmative action in the business world I find more objectionable, but I still understand, and in some ways support the intent of it. It is a difficult situation, which still leaves me arguing for maintaining the status quo.

Oh, and on this issue, let me tell you that even the liberal Europeans are not fully in your camp. My wife will get 80% of her base pay while she is on pregnancy leave, which will amount to about 50% of her actual pay. The fact is no one has found an appropriate solution. How to manage procreation and parenting is the one downside to the two parent working family. Both parents are entitled to and desire to prosper in the workforce, yet invariably one of the two must put their career on hold in order to properly raise their children.; July 25, 2008 4:37 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: New polls...

National
Gallup Tracking
Obama 47, McCain 41
Obama +6.0

National
Rasmussen Tracking
Obama 49, McCain 44
Obama +5.0

Just the beginning of the OBAMA BOUNCE!; July 25, 2008 4:44 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: McCain just might lose his home state Arizona!!!

Zogby

State: Arizona

Updated: 7/23/2008

Summary:
Obama - 42%
McCain - 39%
Barr - 7%
Nader - 2%
Someone else - 5%
Undecided - 5%; July 25, 2008 4:47 PM
jean said...: Ap,
Perhaps the point of "Invariably"
someone has to put their career on hold is in my opinion BULL CRAP.
Having kids and taking a few months off should not do that.
What about sabbaticals. I would think that having a child is a learning experience.
I would think that it would also give a purpose to exceed.
jean; July 25, 2008 4:49 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike -

Your wish might come true (at least in the Senate)...

Dems Close In On Holy Grail: 60-Vote Majority

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/democrats-uphill-battle-f_n_114954.html

.; July 25, 2008 4:50 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Anyone that has missed the newest Jon Stewart clips regarding Race '08 - they are online...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

.; July 25, 2008 4:53 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
There is more to raising a child than just giving birth, the idea of having 2-3 sabbaticals in the course of 5-10 years is probably considered excessive in most workforces, and the idea that the experience is a positive learning experience that can benefit a company regardless of the job being done is arguable at best.

Who takes off when the child is sick? If both parents are working 50 hours a week, who raises the children? (Every study I have ever seen puts the average American work week at 46-50 hours, and The Why Files says 38% work in excess of 50 hours a week.) The issue to me comes down to priorities. To me, my child will be the number one priority, and that means either my wife or myself will be forced to place the child before our work. Odds are it will be my wife, because I am higher educated and have higher paying work opportunities. She also has an old fashioned tendency and a maternal instinct in her that pushes her towards this same conclusion. This is not my prompting by any means, in fact I actually fought against it in many ways. I have also always averaged over 50 hours a week at work, which would most definitely have to end if I wanted to be the caregiver.
This does not always have to be the woman, but it typically is. I definitely believe the well being of the child should come first, which means love and time. This means no working late to finish a project, or going in on weekends to finish a project. That means calling in sick with the child has to stay home with the mumps. The income is important to pay the bills, but it can't substitute for actual parenting.

The rise in the two parent working family or the one parent working family has definitely coincided with a decline in the well being of the children. Intellectual, emotional, and physical well being have all suffered.
Actually, for the first year, the plan is that I will stay home with the child while my wife works, because until I start graduate school she will be the bred winner and we will need her income more, but after that my income will exceed hers, and the rolls will reverse. (Between VA and scholarships/TA position, I should get about 4000 a month, most of it untaxed); July 25, 2008 5:16 PM
tmess2 said...: One of my law school professors, Steven Carter, once wrote an article on the "Best Black" phenomenom.

Basically, this phenomenom is the fact that any minority who does well is assumed to have succeeded solely because of affirmative action. (Which of course ignores how many whites succeed because their parents were alumni or could afford to send them to the best high schools, etc.)

In attending the most competitive law school in the country, I had several minority classmates. (Contrary to belief, the selection process does not have any express policy related to the racial composition of the school but instead leaves it to each reviewer of the applicant files to determine how much weight to give to minorities. It does, however, give a tie-break to children of alumni.) I can't think of a single minority member of my class who was not qualified to be there. Yet members of the public (who do not know how the application process actually works) will assume that the minorities got there to fulfill a quota requirement and that they aren't qualified.; July 25, 2008 5:18 PM
Beryl said...: Jean,
I agree 100%. Women were badly treated. This is one of the reasons I cannot stomach John "Misogynist" McCain. His presidency will only encourage our to treat women badly.

I just hate the "my Holocaust was worse than your Holocaust" argument. It is divisive and pointless.

Fill in the blank and I'll agree.

_________ face (or faced) discrimination in the USA.

women
blacks
Native Americans
Latinos
Jews
Muslims
Japanese
Irish
gays
the handicapped

Did I miss anyone?

I think that is why I really like Obama. He resisted and still resists playing the "race" card. Let's acknowledge everyone's pain ***without comparison***.; July 25, 2008 5:19 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Italians and the elderly should be on your list also.

I have tried to resist posting in ya'll's race debate and have failed.

Now I will go back to reading articles regarding the election ;); July 25, 2008 5:26 PM
Karen Anne said...: ap, Your sister should be told that women's fertility really goes downhill starting in the mid-thirties. Those celeb females who are popping out babies in their forties are almost certainly using donated eggs. Just in case she does want children.; July 25, 2008 5:32 PM
apissedant said...: tmess2,
Agreed 100%

beryl,
Agreed 100%
Remember I am not engaging in "my suffering is worse than so and so..." because I am not arguing I was discriminated against at all. Although my great grandparents on one side were Irish, and on the other side were Italian, I argue that it was long enough ago that it has no measurable effect on my current situation now. The rest, with the exception of the Japanese, continues through to today. Although there is still some Asian discrimination, it is, in my opinion, not of the magnitude and severity of the others. The Irish, Italians, Jewish, and Asian communities were all somehow able to escape the cycle of poverty as well. I am not sure how that occurred, but if someone knows, please let me know. ;) I assume it was due to their strong family roots and emphasis on education and hard work, but that is just a biased assumption.; July 25, 2008 5:40 PM
apissedant said...: Karen, I know and so does she. She is a workaholic and very passionate about what she does. It call comes down to priorities, and her pets and patients are apparently at the top of her list.

The down syndrome thing I spoke of earlier is an even bigger deal to me than fertility. Female bodies overtime lose the ability to properly sever the two strands of DNA, and leads to two 21st chromosomes, which is the cause of down syndrome. Other complications also grow with age.

I'm sure if the man could carry the child, they would already have a bun in the oven. She is the bred winner in their relationship, and she can't take time off work for pregnancy, but he could do most of his work without problem, and they could more easily give him time off as well.; July 25, 2008 5:45 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,
Why do you choose to avoid debates? We all respect you and your opinions and would love your input. ;); July 25, 2008 5:46 PM
apissedant said...: When Republicans are bragging because they're not losing by more, you know you're in good shape. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Jean,
I also like and respect you by the way. I do not believe we all have to agree on all issues, as long as we can intelligently debate them, understand each others' perspectives, and agree that Obama is rightly going to be our next President. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :); July 25, 2008 5:50 PM
jean said...: ap,
That you will be able to do that is great. Most can't.
My kids are 19 months apart.
My daycare for them was the same as my mortgage payment. Remember I live in Southern CA. It was ALOT.
My husband and I worked alot.
Due to the time with my company I had 4 weeks vacation and 2 weeks for sick pay.
It all went for time or sickdays with the kids.
Have you ever heard of "The Village Concept"
Mine was friends and people I hired.
It worked. And it was a lot of work.
Believe it or not you will need more time in the teens and you definitly need the income.
You can work late because they are early risers 5am ready to rock but they do go to bed at 7:30pm because they rocked so hard;)
You will work till midnight after they go to bed and have a nice day.
It can be done and is done all the time.
Your wife is not old fashion, laws changed not so long ago but women have done this forever.
The physical bond is amazing.
In the beginning the old women took care of the children while the young woman foraged for food etc.
It is a lot of work but two working parents I feel is not bad for the kids.
If kids (and a lot of adults) had their dream you would be there every second.
They still want it.
That is not real life.
Women have a harder time(not to go off on another tangent)because they feel they have to do both.
Kid is home sick, you now know what your vacation is for;)

tmess2,
I totally agree.
I think it has come down to that they must now be looked at.
Before they were not.
For any minority that made that kind of cut, and worked their ass off, and to have someone say "Well you really didn't, you are just part of a quota."
That is called anger.
In the beginning of affirmative action perhaps it did happen.
I think it is a lot less now.
When the scores are 20 less points and you have no idea what they have done socially for their community I consider null and void.
jean

beryl,
Due to our reproductive organs woman have quite a way to go.
But woman can and men can't and
I do think a lot of men are quite jealous because talk about being told "NO" YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
I also firmly believe that the past tense of "were" is not applicable.
Women are not treated fairly and it will take a while.
That Obama is not playing the race card is great. We also know it is true that many will not vote for him because of the color of his skin.
Ok, I'm pissed off again.
My hands are also starting to cramp;)
Sorry for the disortation.
jean; July 25, 2008 6:04 PM
apissedant said...: Coming from a boy that blames AIDs on gays... funny to reference a pot in that situation, but I think I would be a kettle if we're talking cooking dishes.; July 25, 2008 6:05 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
Why are you pissed again? I agree with your latest evaluation completely by the way.; July 25, 2008 6:09 PM
Thanh Bui said...: stop,

Do you consider yourself a scholar? a Bill O'Reilly-like?; July 25, 2008 6:13 PM
jean said...: ap,
Because people still vote against someone because of the color of their skin,sex etc.
It is so archaic.
If Obama is elected, I get down when I think about this stuff and I need to think more positive, I think that will show that there is hope.
jean; July 25, 2008 6:18 PM
jean said...: ngu,
You are very astute;)
jean; July 25, 2008 6:19 PM
apissedant said...: I never get tired of this:

Bill O'Rielly; July 25, 2008 6:23 PM
Beryl said...: "That Obama is not playing the race card is great. We also know it is true that many will not vote for him because of the color of his skin.
Ok, I'm pissed off again."

I am too. It really depresses me because there is absolutely NO rational reason for Obama and McBush to be this close in the polls. It is probably a good thing though so we will all work harder and get out the vote. If he had a bigger lead, the college set may not come out. We need them.

Everyday McCain makes me madder and madder. He constant lies and his comments accusing Obama of treason was inexcusable. Imagine the DAMAGE he would do as POTUS. We think we are plagued by lies and wars now. Look out, folks, if McWar gets in. Psychologically, he is trying to reconcile Vietnam failures.

I did have a little respect (just a little) for Daddy Bush when I heard him say that he was jealous of Obama's international reception.; July 25, 2008 6:30 PM
jean said...: ap,
Made me laugh.
From now on Stop will be referred to as Bill, I know that sometimes it is necessary;) to address him.
jean; July 25, 2008 6:30 PM
Joshua said...: Here’s what I think about who has it worst:

I know that Obama is being judged by a much stiffer standard than any other candidate for POTUS. I know that his patriotism is being questioned. I know that a candidate’s patriotism is taken for granted by the mere fact of him seeking office. I know that Obama is being held accountable for things other people have done or said. I know that Obama, were he to have two white parents instead of just one, and have all the talents he has, would be a shoo in. I know that McCain was not born in the USA but no one is talking about Article 2 of the Constitution. I know that McCain is not being judged by what his minister said. I have never heard anyone say: I will not vote for McCain because of his color.

I know that women are always judged by a lower standard. I know for a fact that women are never held as responsible as a man. I know that if two people commit a crime and one is a man and the other is a woman, the woman will get off by saying that the man told her to commit the crime. I know that the woman will receive a lighter sentence for the same offense than her male partner would. I know that a woman can kill a man in his sleep and get away by saying that he abused her. I know that I man can never have that defense. I know that Elaina Bobbitt received no real punishment for dismembering her lover, but were the shoe on the other foot and a man cut off her genitals, he would be in prison today.

I know that boys undergo genital mutilation every day in America. But when the same procedure is done to girls, it is called barbarism.

I have never heard anyone say: “save men and children first.”

So long.; July 25, 2008 6:49 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
There has been plenty of discussion of Article 2 and the fact that McCain was not born in the United States. The wording says that they must be a naturally born citizen. He was in fact born a citizen, and the meaning the process of naturalization is gaining citizenship. Since he gained citizenship by birth, it has been interpreted that he is a naturally born citizen. I personally agree with this interpretation, as do all of our Senators, both Democrats and Republicans.; July 25, 2008 6:56 PM
apissedant said...: Oh, by the way, I have actually spoken to one USCIS agent as well, and she also agreed with that interpretation. Who knows about the rest of the workers at USCIS, I cannot speak for them.; July 25, 2008 6:58 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Corporations hire on the basis of who can create the greatest profit for the corporation.

However, they do it in a discriminatory manner.

Aunt Jean (especially) and others would argue that they discriminate against women because the women will have children, taking time off for the birth of the child, medical care, school, etc., and thus hurt the bottom line.

If corporations believed the conventional wisdom (and many do, especially small business owners), gays and lesbians don't have children, therefore the corporations wouldn't have to worry about them taking time off for those children. By the conventional wisdom, gays and lesbians would have the least detrimental affect on the bottom line because they wouldn't take time off for parenting.

Yet in 25 states, it is NOT illegal to NOT hire a person for the sole reason the person is gay or lesbian. And many companies do NOT hire people for that reason. Even Fortune 500 companies - Exxon-Mobil is a prime example. No matter the qualification of the applicant, if the company knows, or even suspects, the applicant is gay, in 25 states it is not illegal for them to not hire that person for that reason.

There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians. There is no federal law that requires the collection of information about hate crime directed against gays and lesbians.

As to representation in Congress, there have been no known Senators who were gay or lesbian. In the House, the known gays and lesbians have been:
Gerry Studds (D-MA) (deceased)
Barney Frank (D-MA) (currently serving)
Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) (lost reelection bid)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) (currently serving)
Robert E. Bauman (R-MD (outed by scandal during a reelection bid, and subsequently defeated)

Publicly known suspected gays:
Mark Foley (R-FL) (resigned because of scandal and didn't run for reelection)

That's a total of five or six.

By some people's estimates, gays and lesbians comprise about 5% of the population in the US. With two current members of Congress (four tenths of 1% in the House, ZERO percent in the Senate), that means gays and lesbians are VASTLY under-represented in Congress, doesn't it?

Gays and lesbians are not calling for equal representation in Congress. We are calling for equal rights, just as women, AAs, American Indians, Muslims, Wiccans, Asians, and all other non-WASPs. So don't use the ratio of AAs or women in Congress as a hallmark of whether one group or another is 'properly represented'. After all, I would rather have a hetero (male or female, black or white or yellow, Christian or Muslim or atheist, etc.) who is sympathetic to the plight of everyone who is discriminated against representing me in Congress than a gay-bashing, knuckle-dragging Republican who is in the closet (as illustrated by former Congressman Robert Bauman from Maryland's Eastern Shore).

What their political positions are is more important to me than their gender, religion, race or other factor. If I agree with their political positions, I am more than likely to support them. If their political positions are repugnant to me, I will NOT support them, and work for an opponent whose positions are more in line with mine.

Mike; July 25, 2008 7:17 PM
jean said...: Mike,
Don't get pissed off because a woman hired a better lawyer.
Do cases that set precedence make you mad.
Were most of those cases ruled by male judges?
I know you Know and I am sure you will never have any of those problems.
Boy, you KNOW a lot.
Go ahead and make the change.
It is so easy.
I fully support it.
jean; July 25, 2008 7:22 PM
apissedant said...: Funny McCain video, fast forward to 3:20 and there is an interesting quote.

http://whytuesday.org/2008/04/02/why-tuesday-on-current/; July 25, 2008 7:22 PM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
Very good post, and you brought up something I was going to mention and attribute to you. It is important to remember that most of those fortune 500 companies have self-subscribed to refusing to discriminate against homosexuals, and most allow same-sex partner benefits. I only have one gay friend who works for a major company, but his company does cover his partner's medical insurance just as it would a married couple.

That is no where near enough, but at least it is something.; July 25, 2008 7:28 PM
jean said...: Mike,
I personally feel that the ratio of Gay Men and Women is much higher.
Unfortunatly we live in a society that(I am not writing 15 pages)sucks and does not allow individual freedom in many respects. People are afraid to be who they are.
Something I find interesting is that economically Gay male partners hold more wealth than any other couple in our society.
With that naturally these individuals have more power.
There is some, maybe alot, of satisfaction when I think this and look at the other idiots with small closed minds.
It may be small of me but it is fun.
jean
jean; July 25, 2008 7:45 PM
jean said...: The post at 7:45 was for Mike in Maryland.
I promise to be more aware next time.
jean; July 25, 2008 8:14 PM
Thanh Bui said...: stop:
ngu: Did you cry again when BHO refused to visit the wounded men and women in US Hospital in Berlin?

No dispute that you are so clever. This is your typical style that is very similar to O'Reilly's one shot kills two birds. You took a shot at me then by the way you took a shoot at Obama.; July 25, 2008 8:16 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: ngu said...
stop:
ngu: Did you cry again when BHO refused to visit the wounded men and women in US Hospital in Berlin?

No dispute that you are so clever. This is your typical style that is very similar to O'Reilly's one shot kills two birds. You took a shot at me then by the way you took a shoot at Obama.

Yes, ngu, and the pentagon had nothing to do with it either, did they? Funny how the pentagon can give all kinds of assistance to McLame with weeks to spare, but give Senator Obama no help, or information he needs less than 24 hours before an event, making sure the information is too late to be of assistance.

I think you, ngu, are starting to see the troll we have here at DCW in the correct light. If you read back to the beginning of the Open Thread, you'll see that the resident troll has done nothing but denigrate Senator Obama all along, twisting facts and events to the extent they can't be recognized.

I think my original opinion of you might have been a bit harsh, although I will still jump all over you if you ask for simplistic answers to complex problems.

Mike; July 25, 2008 8:46 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Great story...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/25/93510/1800/555/556771

.; July 25, 2008 8:55 PM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
That was the closest I've ever heard you come to an apology.; July 25, 2008 9:04 PM
jean said...: Mike in MD,
I am impressed.
jean; July 25, 2008 9:06 PM
Thanh Bui said...: stop,

I am not proud of my English, but I promise I'll try harder. ok :)

I wish that if you are as forgiving as Mike in Md.; July 25, 2008 10:57 PM
apissedant said...: ngu,
Do not mind Stop. His English is not very good, and he is a native speaker. I also am willing to bet he can't fluently speak or write another language, especially as well as you write English. He is the stereotypical arrogant American that expects everyone to conform and to agree with him. Anyone who does not fit this mold is quickly insulted with below the belt attacks that have no merit in the real world. It is his way.; July 25, 2008 11:10 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Breaking News!!!

McCain On Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan: "I Think It's A Pretty Good Timetable"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/mccain-on-obamas-iraq-pla_n_115091.html

---
By November McCain will be VOTING for Obama!!!; July 26, 2008 12:05 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl I don't care how many links you come up with I have lived in several states and I still don't believe that white women has benefited the most from affirmation action I've never seen it and since I've lived in several states and being 55 yrs old I would have seen it if white women has gotten the most benefit. Now do you really expect the mag. or anyone else to say anything differently than white women has benefited the most from affirmative action. If you do sorry but you are living in a dream world. I'm not saying that just AA's benefit from it otherraces do also just not whites.

Apissedant

about AA's being in politics are you sure percent wise that it's not right [the % of white compared to % of AA's. What do you except that they should be even there are a lot more whites in this country than AA's. As far as there never been a AA president or VP Well so what there has never been a woman either.

Beryl one more thing the way you posted about AA's getting leached for voting where you there have you seen it. I'm sorry you can't believe everything you read. I'm not saying that it didn't happen but I also believe that it wasn't like that everywhere. Also you and Apissedant keep going back to many years ago. You can't undo what happened. I believe that affirmative action only helps minorities not whites and so it totaly sucks and needs to be pushed out and a better way needs to be put in it's place where no one is discriminated against not just a certain group! Jean; July 26, 2008 1:54 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Goodnight everyone I'm building a shed tomorrow and I've got to pick up the supplies tomorrow at will call. I will read the posts tomorrow night because I know that there is several that will disagree with what I said. I don't believe that they see my point at all even though I see their point I just don't believe that it is as bad as they think it is. Jean; July 26, 2008 2:06 AM
Beryl said...: Aunt Jean,
Are you for real or just "kidding" to get a rise out of people?

If you are really unlearned about affirmative action and can handle the truth, do your own research. You'll see for yourself that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action. Just take a few minutes and google if you don't have the time to do more. You should not rely on your limited experiences. I don't rely on MY limited experiences and I've been to several states and several countries.

Regarding the lynching - are you honestly saying that you don't believe black people were lynched because you've never seen a lynching? Did you ever see Plato, a Rain Forest, Greenland, or George Washington? How do you know they exist? You read about them -- right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm18.html
http://images.google.com/images?q=lynching

Come on Aunt Jean. Tell me that you are just kidding.; July 26, 2008 2:30 AM
Joshua said...: Cindy Sheehan is a courageous gold-star mother. Why is she not getting more press? She is courageously doing something about the do-nothing Congress. Unlike most Americans who plunk their fat butts down on the sofa and want someone else to solve their problems, this woman is doing something. Please send her some campaign contribution; July 26, 2008 2:35 AM
Independent Voter said...: WTF guys? I leave for a week and everyone goes ape shit on each other? LOL - JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!

Hello everyone.I have missed a lot on this board - and NO I'm not going to go back and read all of the ones I missed. Pride was a blast, Kathy Griffin was hilarious as expected..and I thought I hate George Bush and John McCain. WOW!

Anyway, the AA argument. Where to begin. Aunt Jean, if you don't believe that women were the primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, you really should go and take a Women's Studies class at the local community college. If it wasn't for Title VII of the Civil Rights Amendment, women would have even few opportunities than they have today. As a matter of fact, Representative Howard Smith (D-VA) was so opposed to the Civil Rights Amendment that he added "sex" to Title VII. He believed that due to this addition the measure would fail. His plan backfired.

Next issue regarding Affirmative Action is that they ONLY organizations that are bound to Affirmative Action policies are government agencies (including public schools), as well as organizations that do business with the government. ANY business that is required to carry a quota (outside of those mentioned above) is due to the courts imposing the requirement. Example, Provided Wal-Mart loses its class-action lawsuit they will have quotas imposed on them to promote women to higher-level positions. The same is true for other "minorities".

The myth is that all employers are subject to Affirmative Action policies. The fact is government agencies, government contractors, and court ordered organizations are the only ones who are subject to these policies. Of course, as usual many companies have adopted Affirmative Action policies, but more than likely (with the exception of the previously mentioned organizations) they are not bound to AA policies.

With that said, I'm headed to bed, but I promise p'd ant, I will check in tomorrow.; July 26, 2008 3:46 AM
jean said...: Indy,
You had no hall pass and you just went poof you were gone.
Hope you had a good time and some rest.
Oh Ya, things got a little heated;)
jean; July 26, 2008 10:37 AM
apissedant said...: Dave!!
We missed you! Very good post, I agree as usual. Also, because you so rudely left, and because I am attempting to quit smoking, I responded to stop about saying that Obama got into Columbia because of affirmative action??? as he put it. He said if I can't prove it isn't true than it is true. I responded by informing him that stop has sex with his mother???
Anyways, this awoke AJ on a heated anti-affirmative action tirade. I responded to this by speaking of how much white women have benefited from civil rights and affirmative action, and gave arguments why the female version of affirmative action could be looked at as more objectionable than the race version of affirmative action. Several misinterpreted my post as uneducated or anti-affirmative action... and the rest is history. You should have yourself a read, I found it rather entertaining. :); July 26, 2008 10:51 AM
Karen Anne said...: Leah, that DailyKos link, did you notice there was an elephant in the crowd :-); July 26, 2008 1:01 PM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
By the way, I only paraded out the representation of blacks in Congress because someone stated that if there was discrimination, why are there so many of them in politics? I found it ridiculous that 1 out of 100 Senators being black was, "so many". I just paraded out the rest to prove that I wasn't cherry picking facts, that there are not "so many" blacks in politics, they are actually underrepresented.
In the end, you're right, what matters is how the person votes, not what race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation they are, but again, I was disproving the claim of another, not calling for equal representation.; July 26, 2008 1:24 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Karen Anne -

Good catch! LOL :); July 26, 2008 3:30 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Excerpt from:

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/26/obama-looks-forward-sees-foreign-policy-path-strewn-with-mccain-mistakes/

The Obama’s inner circle, they believe McCain set himself back not only with the general public but also with top-flight Republicans who will have to try to clean up McCain’s national security debris.

Here is what team Obama means.

* On July 21st, McCain said on Good Morning America that the situation was tough in Afghanistan, particularly, he said, “given the struggle on the Iraq-Pakistan border.”

* On July 22 in an interview Katie Couric of CBS, McCain said the troop surge President Bush ordered in January 2007 and which didn’t reach maximum tactical deployment for months after led to the so-called Sunni awakening or uprising against Al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists. While the surge no doubt gave greater confidence to Sunnis over time, the awakening began in the fall of 2006 with the moves against AI Qaeda by a collection of high-profile tribal sheiks.

* On July 23, McCain said the surge wasn’t really about more troops, but counter-insurgency tactics. And yet the political credit McCain seeks for the turn-around in Iraq is based principally on his advocacy if the surge - meaning more troops to carry out counter-insurgency missions. To say the surge wasn’t really about more troops undercuts much of McCain has tried to tell the public about what has changed in Iraq and why.

* On July 24th, McCain called Iraq “the first major conflict since 9/11.” Tell that to Hamid Karzai, current President of Afghanistan and brought to power by the US-led defeat of the Taliban in the months immediately following 9/11.

* And Friday on CNN, McCain said 16 months for a troop withdrawal from Iraq is “a pretty good timetable.” His campaign said McCain meant it was good so long as conditions on the ground warranted troop withdrawals. But the damage was done. Just check the profusion of blog posts in the hours immediately after the CNN interview with McCain.

.; July 26, 2008 4:33 PM
suzihussein22 said...: For the poll watchers-

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/45489.html

Of course, the msm is making it out to be close. That's how they make money. We got a good laugh out of somebody's reaction to McCain. They show the news while you're waiting in line at the bank. She was reacting to what he was saying as well as how unhealthy he looked, ugh. :)

leah-It's so funny how now McCain says a troop withdrawal timetable of about 16 months wouldn't be so bad, depending on circumstances a little bit. If McCain keeps whining, can he cry us a handful? :) I can't wait for a debate.; July 26, 2008 5:10 PM
Beryl said...: I worked a neighborhood DNC phone-bank today and I was amazed to come across a woman had planned to vote for McCain. I didn't tell her what I thought:

IDIOT, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT MCCAIN HAS NO RESPECT FOR YOU OR ANY OTHER WOMAN? HE IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT OF A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION LET ALONE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!

Instead, I offered to provide more information and wished her a nice day.

It is disturbing that there are so many STUPID people in the USA who are allowed to vote.; July 26, 2008 5:13 PM
suzihussein22 said...: leah-I was also going to mention, if McCain has "shifted" to Obama's position on Iraq's withdrawal, isn't that plagiarism? ;); July 26, 2008 5:13 PM
Beryl said...: McCain is now complaining about Obama's trip abroad after telling him to go abroad. Now he is agreeing that a timetable is a good idea. The man must be senile. Before long, he will be chanting "Yes, we can!"

Daddy Bush was the only honest one in the RNC who admitted to being jealous of Obama's reception.

I'm looking forward to Meet the Press tomorrow.; July 26, 2008 5:36 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: What a week!

Obama had a great overseas trip - and looked VERY presidential.

McCain stayed here and complained, whined, said many disrespectful things, and was jealous - he is a GRUMPY OLD MAN! He has now backed Obama's troop withdrawal and you can bet in a month or two he will be saying it was HIS idea to begin with. LOL :)
The sad part is that some people will probably believe him since a lot of folks right now aren't paying close attention to what is going on.

Earlier today I read on another website some one said that they thought it was disgraceful that Obama went overseas and that they were giving McCain 'two-thumbs-up' for staying here in the states - WHAT an idiot - I guess they missed McCain's overseas trip and his trips to Canada, Mexico and Columbia.

It's still earlier so we can't forget that there will still be ups and downs for Senator Obama - but my guess is that there will be TONS more of downs for McCain.

I have been chuckling to myself all week when I think about McCain saying that HE wanted to take Obama overseas! I can't even picture how that would have looked - I guess McCain didn't realize that the whole world wants to see Obama and not McGrumpy.

Obama/Sebelius '08

p.s. Those new polls showing Obama's huge lead with the Latino vote are awesome - but I hope one day in the future we, as a nation, will stop dividing people up into groups. I am so sick of hearing about the White vote, Black vote, Hispanic vote, Young vote, Elderly vote, Blue collar vote, Women's vote, Asian vote, Jewish vote, etc.; July 26, 2008 6:00 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: AP,

I know the reason you cited the figures on AA numbers in Congress - to refute an absurd comment by another poster.

I was trying to point out that other groups of people are under-represented also, and to an even greater extent than AAs.

My main point, though, was that we should look at, and decide to vote for or against a candidate based on what positions they have, NOT on skin color, religion, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, or other factor.

To illustrate, if I had lived in the first Congressional district of Maryland, as a gay I would NEVER have voted for Robert Bauman, solely on his political positions, even if I knew he was gay or not. Just because a candidate meets one factor doesn't mean that a conscientious voter should ignore the rest of the candidate's platform and political philosophy.

Mike; July 26, 2008 6:09 PM
suzihussein22 said...: leah said...p.s. Those new polls showing Obama's huge lead with the Latino vote are awesome - but I hope one day in the future we, as a nation, will stop dividing people up into groups. I am so sick of hearing about the White vote, Black vote, Hispanic vote, Young vote, Elderly vote, Blue collar vote, Women's vote, Asian vote, Jewish vote, etc.

I agree 100%.; July 26, 2008 6:21 PM
Beryl said...: Mike in Maryland,
I agree 100%. It should be about the issues. It is silly vote based on things a candidate had no control over (attractiveness, race, gender, etc.). We should vote for a person because of their position on issues of interest, their CHARACTER, ability to lead, and proven effectiveness.; July 26, 2008 6:30 PM
jean said...: Ap,
Looking for your opinion.

Guy graduates from West Point.
1st round pick for Detroit Lions.
Army says yes but you have to be a recruiter off season. NFL Pro for a Army Recruiter, sounds like a good business decision.
Army is short on recruiting.

Army now says no, doesn't look good.
Now is going to be Asst.Coach at WestPoint and then trained as a officer before being deployed.

Army is still very short on recruiting.

Logic??????
jean; July 26, 2008 6:31 PM
jean said...: Ok,
New Polls today.
It does look like Obama is hitting a consistancy of improvement(ignoring foX) in the national polls.
What a nice Sat:)
jean; July 26, 2008 6:37 PM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
COMPLETELY agree. Single issue voting is one of the largest problems with our political system. There are many more, but that is definitely one of them.; July 26, 2008 7:10 PM
Beryl said...: I'm so sick of Democratic strategist Jennifer Palmieri (previously supporting Edwards and then Clinton).

She was on CNN with attractive Republican Strategist Kevin Madden (previously supporting Romney). She practically swooned over Madden and twice relinquished her remaining time to him.

I sent my letter to her:
------------------------
jpalmieri@americanprogress.org

Ms Palmieri,

I appreciate your efforts on CNN today. Please take this criticism in the spirit intended -- to help you in future appearances.

1. Do not attempt to engage in conversation with your Republican opponent. Your polite attempt to exchange ideas with Kevin Madden did nothing positive for Obama's campaign. That forum is not designed for friendly conversation. You are on the show to hit your points and hit them hard. You have minimum time to state your case so you must use it effectively. You should not care if your opponent has any time left to state HIS case. It is the moderator's job to ensure equal time. You might have noticed that your opponent did not share in your "friendly exchange". When it was his turn, he effectively made his points.

2 NEVER use the words "the problem with Obama". People will only listen to those 4 words and not your explanation. You should start with a positive message (e.g. "this week was effective for Obama in that...") . You can then end with how he eradicated any PERCEIVED negative, if you have the time. Again, you should note that your opponent never stated anything negative about McCain even when he had the opportunity to do so.

Good luck with future appearances.; July 26, 2008 7:20 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jean,

The military is all over the map on when to allow an athlete to join the pro ranks and when to require that they serve in the military first, then go pro.

Some examples:

Roger Staubach: Graduated from the Naval Academy in 1964 (prior to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, thus prior to the build-up of troops in Viet Nam). He was a 10th round draft pick by the Dallas Cowboys. The Navy required him to serve all five years of his enlistment. Since he was in the Navy, he volunteered to serve a one-year tour of duty in Vietnam where he served as a supply officer until 1967. The remainder of his enlistment, he spent the rest of his Naval career in the United States, playing football on various Naval service teams to prepare for his future career in the NFL.

David Robinson: Graduated from the Naval Academy in 1987, and was the first round draft pick of San Antonio. The Navy required that he serve in the Navy (at a time of n war), but because he had grown to 7' 0" by then, he was too tall to serve in many positions (subs, aircraft, most ships), and after two years let him resign his commission.

Now we have the Army, in a time of war and stress on military recruiting and troop levels, making this type of decision.

These types of decisions reinforce that old saying that the term 'military intelligence' is VERY oxymoronic.

Mike; July 26, 2008 7:21 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
Assuming he is VERY, VERY good at playing football, maybe let him buy is way out, but probably not that either. There is no win in this situation. 350k in our money was spent to educate this kid. Allowing him to get out because he is good at football would equate to letting George W. Bush serve in the air national guard instead of being drafted, or letting him out of the air national guard early to go to graduate school. That is political suicide in time of war now days.

Also, remember the low retention rates of the military, the high rate of desertion, high rate of suicides and attempted suicides, and just the overall low morale. Letting out the talent kid while all the regular kids are forced to stay in, will again, look very bad politically.

Also, how much would he really help recruit if he never actually served a day? If it is so great, why didn't he actually stay in?; July 26, 2008 7:49 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean,

Please take a look at this article on CNN:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/24/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/

And then come back and tell us that discrimination against AAs doesn't exist, or exists at a low level, in the US.

Mike; July 26, 2008 7:53 PM
apissedant said...: beryl,
I honestly don't think McCain would chant "Yes we can!" It would be more his style to start a chant, "No we can't!"

"Obama says that we can withdraw troops in 16 months from Iraq, and redeploy more in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and capture Osama Bin Laden. I say..."
Audience:"No we can't"!"

"Obama says that we can work together to get past our racial and sexual prejudice. I say..."
Audience:"No we can't!"

"Obama says that we're a strong, smart, and pride filled nation, and that we can restore the American dream to all citizens. I say..."
Audience:"No we can't!"; July 26, 2008 8:30 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Thank you VERY much for posting that link. That was a great article, and the last two paragraphs were so great, I am posting them below. They are too important and too true to not post.

At the same time, it is important to remember that the problems of discrimination cannot be eliminated through enforcement alone. Racial stereotypes, though often exaggerated distortions of reality, are fueled in part by real associations between race, crime, and incarceration. Tackling these social problems at their root—including inadequate schools, neighborhood instability, and a lack of employment opportunities—are likely to represent among the most far-reaching interventions.

Discrimination is not the only cause of contemporary racial discrimination, nor even the most important factor. But because it is usually so difficult to observe, it is easy to forget about altogether. It is important that we remain mindful of the realities of direct discrimination, so that those who are working hard to get ahead are given a fair break.; July 26, 2008 8:41 PM
Independent Voter said...: Jean, I had a hall pass! It just expired on Monday. LOL. But in my defense, I am still taking my online classes :) so......ok fine you caught me. Yes, I'm doing my online classes, but I have been partying too.

p'd ant - we already know that "stop" is full of fallacies. That one you mentioned...."argument from IGNORANCE" and you were right to call him on it.

Beryl, in response to your post about women being stupid for voting for McCain, something that I try to keep in mind, is that there are a lot of women who are anti-choice, are pro-war, pro-stay at home, anti-education (there's a whole slew of things, but.....), and don't give a rats ass about equal pay or access to birth control for women (of any socioeconomic status). That Fiorina for example, McCain's "primary" female spokesperson (although I would DEFINITELY classify HER as stupid) but those people are still out there.; July 26, 2008 8:49 PM
Independent Voter said...: By the way p'd ant. Something for future reference when it comes to addressing yam...er...I mean stop, the burden is on the person making the claim to PROVE their point. It is NOT your responsibility to prove them wrong - hence the reason for the prosecution or plaintiff in a case to PROVE the other side is guilty.

The main reason for this is because you cannot prove a negative, and in some cases you cannot even prove the positive. Take the phrase, God exists, as an example, or God does not exist. Each side always responds to the other, telling each other to prove it. It is impossible to do so. Everything is based on what that person believes. If they believe the Bible is "God's word" then there is no persuading that individual. If the person believes that the Bible was simply written by men, then there is not going to be any convincing argument (without using circular logic - another fallacy) to persuade that individual to believe. I hope that makes sense. (By the way, I am an Agnostic - simply meaning that we as humans CANNOT KNOW, beyond doubt that God exists or not.); July 26, 2008 8:56 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Beryl-

I think you should be hired as the 'Obama surrogate advisor' and then you could make all surrogates attend a workshop before talking to the media ;)

There have been times that I want to smack some of those surrogates for letting the opposing side and even the moderators for letting the wrong information go uncontested.

Yesterday on MSNBC they kept saying that Obama did not get a bounce from his overseas trip and that the 'new' Gallup tracking poll had Obama only up by 2 points and Obama's person did nothing to refute it... I wanted to scream! The Gallup tracking had Obama up by 6 and it was out several hours before the idiots at MSNBC were saying two points.; July 26, 2008 9:02 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Here's to the party of family values. The GOP may be getting ready for a verry good time at their convention-

http://www.startribune.com/local/25880574.html?location_refer=Most%20Emailed:Homepage:8; July 26, 2008 9:22 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I am sooo mad.
McCain said from the beginning that he wanted to run a respectful campaign but he has NOT. He has been very disrespectful to a fellow U.S. Senator and it is shameful.
McCain makes me want to vomit!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/26/mccain-to-obama-welcome-h_n_115143.html

.; July 26, 2008 9:27 PM
Beryl said...: Thanks, Leah.

That would be a good job.

Campaigns really do need to carefully select and train their surrogates. They people who are smart, quick on their feet, and appealing to the eye.

I've got to admit that Kevin Madden is a cutie. Heck, I've been checking him out for a few weeks. The man is smooth (slimy actually) and probably has no problems getting women. Who do you think Romney would select? He would want someone like HIM.

She lost her mind like a man does when flashed a little cleavage. I wanted to tell her that in my email but figured it would be too insulting and she'd lose the message.

Probably others complained too.; July 26, 2008 9:31 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,
Watch this video between 1:20 and 1:45.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEZlGOy85BE

It is John McCain answering a question about why voter turnout is so low and how to fix it. It goes along perfectly with what you're saying.; July 26, 2008 9:38 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Too bad Lieberman wasn't around to whisper in his ear this time-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/another-john-mccain-gaffe_b_114797.html; July 26, 2008 9:46 PM
apissedant said...: excerpt from a Washington Post article:

But a Democrat who supported another candidate during the nomination battle had a more skeptical assessment of all the imagery. He argued that the Obama team is mistaken in believing that meetings with foreign leaders will help overcome a relatively thin résumé in foreign affairs.

"It's not whether he has experience or is presidential; it's whether voters can relate to him, given his unusual background and his often seeming arrogance. Talking to Germans and having Sarkozy embrace you make this problem worse, not better. If I were the RNC [Republican National Committee], I'd use the German-language Obama flier in an ad to make him appear more foreign, more distant."

Yes, that is right, we are apparently not on speaking terms with Germans anymore. Apparently, speaking to a German is arrogant. All of you should keep this in mind.; July 26, 2008 11:00 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
excerpt from a Washington Post article:

"But a Democrat who supported another candidate"

Gee, I wonder WHICH candidate this supporter was backing, and whether that name was a household name back in February through May?

Could the initials be 'TM'?

Mike; July 26, 2008 11:13 PM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
I don't know why you dislike Terri so much. He seems like a reasonable, intelligent, nice guy, that was just trying to do what is best for America. You should be less judgmental. ;); July 26, 2008 11:31 PM
Beryl said...: It is pitiful seeing a "party-loyal Democrat" tear down the presumptive nominee like that.

Frankly, I didn't think it was "over". I fully expect surprise attacks in Denver. In all my years of voting, I've never seen this level of in-fighting like this. I wonder if it was this bad between JFK and LBJ.; July 27, 2008 12:06 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
Mike in Md,
. . . You should be less judgmental.

ME? JUDGMENTAL??

Why you blankety-blankety-blank-blank varmint! I'll get you for that blank-blank opinion!!

VBG

Mike; July 27, 2008 12:12 AM
jean said...: Sorry I just left after a question.

Had to go help in a tournament last minute to raise funds for the baseball team.

After 2 ejections of coaches,
I was left with 2 14 year old boys,
people screaming for the Sheriffs to escort the referees, sent the boys home for safety, findly found the tournament directer (Did I mention I was left in charge and did not know it?) I am now having cocktails, plural, and going to bed.
Yes I know it is a run on sentence and grammer and spelling is shit.

Glad your back Indy, you were caught;)
jean; July 27, 2008 12:22 AM
Independent Voter said...: LOL Jean, have a couple for me....oh nevermind, I'm having my third now.; July 27, 2008 12:32 AM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - I hear ya on the issue of our village idiot.

By the way, I don't like Terry MacAullife either. I think he has been ineffective for the Democrats since Bill left office (not that Dean is much better).

I do have the feeling however that sometime AFTER Obama's departure from the presidency in 2017, he will be nominated to reside over the UN. Would that not be awesome?; July 27, 2008 12:36 AM
Independent Voter said...: I hate to beat a "dead horse" here, but I'd like to go back to the women's rights issue.

It is clear that the woman's movement pretty much died back in the 70's and even more so in the 80's, but my question is, why have women not held our presidents feet to the fire when it comes to signing onto CEDAW?

Those nations who have signed on use the US' failure to do so say that it takes away the legitimacy of the agreement (which in my opinion it does). But the then other nations say see we are better than the US because we have agreed to it.

I'm not looking for anything like Republicans this or Democrats that, I'm just curious as to why women stopped pressuring the federal government.

Our presidents (Rep. and Dem. alike) have all pushed for "free trade" agreements but when it comes to human rights agreements, we fail in every way possible. It just makes one curious why a group has stopped pressuring the government. (It's more of a curiosity question.); July 27, 2008 12:53 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: From ThePageTime.com

Obama Camp Response to McCain Ad “Troops”

Obama campaign response to Senator McCain’s latest attack ad:

“John McCain is an honorable man who is running an increasingly dishonorable campaign. Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous. Senator Obama was honored to meet with our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan this week and has visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed numerous times. This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid, and it’s not worthy of Senator McCain or the ‘civil’ campaign he claimed he would run,” said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

FLASHBACK – Senator McCain in 2007: “How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of us-those who fight and risk all on our behalf-by playing politics with their service.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07]
.; July 27, 2008 1:19 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Be sure to read ALL of this so you'll know what's going to be going on in the media in the next few days...

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-response-to-mccain-ad-troops/

.; July 27, 2008 1:22 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Dave,

Part of the problem is that Congress gave the President 'fast track' approval for most trade bills. Thus you need one vote to pass it, and that one vote is the President who is the one pushing for the trade bill. Pretty easy to get that one vote.

When it comes to a treaty, the President must sign the treaty first. Then the President sends the treaty to Senate, where the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senators present (normally 67 have been needed since Alaska was admitted) for it to go into effect.

With the anti-civil rights wing of the Republican Party having more than 34 members in every Congress since the 80th, especially after 1980, and anti-civil rights Republican Presidents in all but 12 of the past 40 years, is it any wonder that no treaty dealing with civil rights was agreed to by the President?

If one party is for it, and one party is against it, it's hard to get the requisite number of votes, if a treaty is presented to the Senate in the first place. In fact, the last time one party had 67 or more votes was the Democratic Party with 68 members in the 80th Congress (1965-67). Johnson was President, and so it was fairly easy for him to get treaties passed. In the 1990s, when Clinton was President, he was faced with a Republican Congress, with very little probability of any treaty on civil rights getting the requisite 2/3 vote.

This is just one more reason, when deciding whether or not to vote for a candidate for President, the voter should consider the candidate's positions on issues.

Mike; July 27, 2008 1:48 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl, Apissedant

I take offence at your words. You two act like because you have a college that what you think and say is more important or right. All I've seen and I really don't care what you have seen is affirmative action DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Also unlike you I don't believe everything I read is the truth. I never [NOT ONCE] said that AA's don't get discriminated against. If you would read all my posts instead of always judging you might have read it. I gave you a couple of things that happened to me personal about if my skin color had been different the out come would have been in my favor now if you would like I can give you a couple of dozen other things that happened. But I guess you two think I'm either a liar, stupid [which I'm not] or as Beryl's favorite term is UNLEARNED!!! I don't say that women even white women hasn't benefited from affirmative action but never do I believe that WHITE WOMEN has benefited from it the most. Women are not stupid Apissedant do you think that they would just roll over and do nothing without affirmative action THAT IS PURE FOOLINESS on your part. Also I do think that discrimination is worst in some states than others. You are free to believe what you want to. I never once insulted you for your belief so please respect my belief even if you don't think I'm right becase frankly I will never believe that either one of you are right I've seen way to many times where it was the white that was discrimination against and couldn't do a da## thing about it but if I would have been any other race I would have had all the help I would have needed for FREE!!!!!!!

Mike IN Maryland

I trust is media about as far as I could throw them. Jean

Yes I am PISSED because you act and the words you use makes me think that you believe that way. Just because I don't think and believe the way you do that either I'm stupid, crazy UNLEARNED, or OUT AND out WRONG!; July 27, 2008 1:49 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I am getting pretty sick of reading on this thread all the comments regarding race, gender, affirmative action, discrimination, etc.

This is a blog regarding the 2008 election.

Can everyone please get back on topic and discuss the ISSUES, CANDIDATES, POLICIES, etc. ?

I used to enjoy coming to this thread but not much anymore... this morning I spent over 30 minutes skimming through comments that didn't have anything to do with this election or with either candidate.

It really would be nice if everyone would try to post comments relevant to what this website is about - The Democratic Convention and the Democratic nominee vs. the Republican nominee.

Anyway that is what I think.

Obama '08

p.s. I understand that people like to go off topic and have intense debates, but why not just get an extra email account at Hotmail.com or somewhere and post the email addy in your profile and take the off topic discussions private ;); July 27, 2008 2:03 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah excuse me but it is about politics. Besides if you don't like what we debate about don't read it. This debate even though not directly involving Obama but does in a way because it just goes to show you how woman are discriminated against. Oh by the way who's fault was that. The media's but mostly the people that believed everything that they said.
Even though it's important to keep up with what Obama and McCain is doing I also believe that it's important to get people to open their eyes and see the real world. Sometimes it's not pretty or what you really want to hear but that is what is called life.Jean; July 27, 2008 2:16 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean,

First - Did you go to the site that I linked?

Second - If you did (and based on what you wrote, I highly suspect that you did NOT), you failed to notice the Editor's Note.

The article was NOT a media report, but a study by Devah Pager, a university professor.

The Editor's note states:
Devah Pager is Associate Professor of Sociology and Faculty Associate of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University

A study by a university professor is NOT an article in a newspaper or on the web site of a cable new station.

Now, if you please, go to the link and read what was stated in the study.

Leah

The issue of civil rights and discrimination is a very important part of the political discourse in the US. I think that most of the people who post here know that civil rights are not equal in the US, and that large portions of the populace suffer discrimination.

The question then becomes which candidate's policies will take us away from the lack of civil rights for all, and help diminish the effects of discrimination (in whatever form) currently occurring in the US.

The problem is to make certain people first understand that discrimination of any kind is detrimental to the entire citizenry, no matter what form that discrimination takes, and against whomever it is directed. The problem is not that group A is discriminated against more or less than Groups B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, . . . . The problem is that discrimination exists, and that any form of discrimination against any one or more groups is too much discrimination, and thus everyone suffers.

Then the problem is to decide what policies are best to end discrimination. How do you punish the people who discriminate? How do you detect discrimination? Wishing it away won't work. Saying everyone is equal sounds nice, but how do you make sure everyone is treated equal under the law?

Affirmative Action does NOT mean quotas. And unless you are a 'protected class', the laws won't help a person. Take gays and lesbians. There is nothing in federal law to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians, and only 1/2 the states have laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. Therefore, it is legal for the federal government to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and in 1/2 the states, it is legal for the state government and businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

That means the problem of discrimination is at least partially a political question. That means the problem of discrimination needs to be, at least partially, solved by elected officials. And that means that it is part of the electoral process, and needs to be discussed in any discussion by and about the candidates.

And guess what? This site was set up, at least partially, as a site to discuss politics and the candidates.

Ergo, it is my belief that this discussion is germane to the site. As was suggested by someone else, if you don't want to discuss any or all aspects of discrimination, skip the messages discussing it.

Mike; July 27, 2008 3:06 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: McCain is a hypocrite...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/26/224636/307

.; July 27, 2008 3:06 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike-

Of course all topics can be considered political ... but I think my point that I was trying to make and failed was that many topics here lately have nothing to do with the election, the candidate's views on the issues, etc.

There has been so much bickering back and forth regarding race, gender, etc. in personal terms that I think others, other than myself, are just fed up with the thread and haven't even been posting anymore.

As I stated in my previous post - this is just what 'I' think.

I stand my my previous statement that I think the comments here should be more related to 'this' election and the 'candidates' and then it would be more interesting to the people that visit this thread.

If what I have said has pi$$ed anyone off, then I apologize.

Anyway ... goodnight.; July 27, 2008 3:22 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike In Maryland

Yes I went to the link and read it. Maybe where he did his study was different all I know is I have seen and had it differently. So in that case I still don't believe it as a whole.I still think that something like that is not the normal but I'm not saying that it hasn't happened but I do believe that it does in very few states. Jean
Jean; July 27, 2008 3:28 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: John Edwards has probably been dropped off of the 'short list' of VPs

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391426,00.html

.; July 27, 2008 3:28 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Goodnight everyone it's past time for me to hit the sack. Jean; July 27, 2008 3:35 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Barack Obama's Letter to the Dalai Lama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGxyjK

.; July 27, 2008 3:37 AM
Independent Voter said...: AJ, I don't think that anyone was saying that you are stupid. Stubborn? Perhaps....but aren't we all? VBG.

With that said, nobody is disputing the experiences that you or anyone else may have had. What is being disputed is the facts. And study after study after study, shows that women have benefited the most through Affirmative Action policies.

Nobody CAN dispute your experience, nor should they, but at the same time you cannot claim that women are discriminated against more than African-Americans without evidence to back up that claim. Especially when the evidence provided through these studies prove otherwise.

As I stated last night, and Mike stated a little while ago, Affirmative Action does NOT mean quotas, unless the organization in question has been ordered by the court to implement a quota because of their violating the Civil Rights Act (which under Title VII women are included as a protected class).

----

Now Mike, I understand about treaties and so forth, and we all know that Republicans are now the party against civil/human rights. But what I'm wondering is why haven't women put more pressure on the presidents to enter into CEDAW. And yes, I know it would have to be ratified by Congress, but when women make up 51% of the electorate, you would think that they would have more influence, hence they would place more pressure on the government.

Why not a million woman march in DC, demanding congress and the president to pass equal pay legislation? The grassroots women's movement worked 30+ years ago, it could work again. Is it possible that women's rights groups are "too" organized now, where they weren't back then? Do they need to go through another "consciousness-raising" era? I'm just trying to understand from their point of view.

Anyway, I'm tired, going to bed, talk to you all tomorrow. good night all.; July 27, 2008 3:39 AM
Karen Anne said...: Leah, I thought Edwards had nixed the VP spot anyway.

Elizabeth doesn't need this crap, but I am sure she has good friends who support her.

Also, like someone said, it is a little strange that the rags haven't any photos.

As to Dean, remember who started building the 50 state party structure that's been a base for Obama.; July 27, 2008 4:42 AM
apissedant said...: Leah,
I would agree that the argument has gone on longer, and has occasionally become more heated than it should have, but I must agree with Mike in Md that this is most definitely an important issue that most definitely has to do with this election. We all know there were some people that won't vote for Obama because he's black, and you have complained at length about groups like PUMA that claim Clinton lost because she was discriminated against. It has also been the Republican platform to get rid of affirmative action for a very long time, and the Democratic platform to continue cutting discrimination out of our nation. How isn't this relevant to the election?

AJ,
I never called you stupid, or implied I am more intelligent or knowledgeable on this issue because I go to school. I don't know how science and math courses would possibly help me on this issue. What I do know I know from extensive reading on my own, not from any classroom. I do take issue with the idea there is a vast conspiracy in the media to discriminate against women and promote blacks. That is the only way it is possible that every report and article I've ever read disagrees with your assertion.

Dave,
I would fight tooth and nail against an equal pay legislation. The studies showing a discretion in pay have all been unscientific garbage. I just pulled up the first 4 articles that appear when google searched. 2 are the same article, 3 of the 4 cite 77%, but give no information, and the 4th is the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO offers only the disparity by field, and offers nothing as far as equaling the situation.
How about compare single men and women working the same number of hours with the same number of years in the job? No, that may not work in their favor, so instead they only look at cover information without inspecting what is behind it at all.

There are two specific examples that I found particularly alarming:
Waiters and Waitresses
male $357
female $311
disparity:87.1%

Sales—Retail and Personal Services
men: $488
women: $326
disparity: 66.8%

Both of these jobs are largely standard pay or commission pay jobs. I think we probably all worked these jobs at one point in our lives, and we probably all got paid the same wages. Every waitress or waiter I know makes 2.13 an hour, and every salesperson not on commission I know started at 6-8 dollars an hour, depending on store, not on sex.

There was one more that was interesting:
Physicians
male: $1,626
female: $947
disparity: 58.2%
This one was specifically refuted by a group representing physicians. I posted links to it twice, and both found that women worked in different specialties, worked fewer hours, and saw less patients in a week.

If it was simply disparity, why is there such disparity in the disparity? It ranges from as little as 3.8%, to over 40% in pay disparity.

There is most definitely still discrimination, I have no doubt in my mind. Any "fix" that is offered must have a SPECIFIC, SUBSTANTIATED, and FULLY SUPPORTED problem that it hopes to correct. The pay disparity is too generic and offers no specifics, so I could not support it. If the studies done did more to correct for these issues, then I would be fully in favor of equaling the pay.

Here is the best link I found, offering both sides with the most unbiased look in my opinion:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020823.html

All State was proven to pay women less because they could, which is most definitely discrimination and I would completely agree with deciding against them. Other than that, no specifics were given, so no decision can be made. My former employer made the same argument All State made for paying black employees less. They had fewer opportunities and were used to lower wages, so he didn't have to offer them as high of wages. Their comparative value to the company was not even brought up in the conversation. I found that terrible.; July 27, 2008 8:44 AM
apissedant said...: Here's a New York Times article on the gender gap.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin; July 27, 2008 11:27 AM
apissedant said...: OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA '08
(and '12); July 27, 2008 11:28 AM
Beryl said...: Aunt Jean,
First, I am sorry that I offended you with my words. It was not intended. "Unlearned" is not equivalent to "stupid" in my mind. I carefully chose that word because it is accurate.

In this debate, you stated that the reason you didn't believe something was because you had not personally experienced or seen it. You probably believe Christopher Columbus reached the Americas in the 15th century. You did not witness this event but learned it somewhere (school, parents, books). Therefore, your personal experiences are anecdotal and do not prove or disprove debate points.

Second, I don't know how you concluded that I went to college since I don't remember disclosing that information. Some of the smartest people I know never went to college. In the Fortune 50 company where I am employed, many of my bosses (mostly white males), never graduated from college. However, most of the women leaders have AT LEAST ONE college degree. Although anecdotal, this underscores where you and I agree: women have to achieve more than men to be given the same opportunities.

Affirmative action helped us by providing a means for women to be CONSIDERED for positions which otherwise would have been filled by a white man. This is also true for other protected groups (blacks, Latinos, gays, handicapped, etc.). That stated, the fact remains that white women have been the PRIMARY beneficiaries of affirmative action. (Personally, I am sick of it for many reasons not mentioned in this debate but I do not plan to open up another can of worms.)

Third, I have repeatedly stated that I see no value in comparing the plight of those who have been discriminated against in this country. We are all better served by acknowledging that many groups have been treated unfairly.; July 27, 2008 1:27 PM
jean said...: Wow,
Faith is a good thing.
Stop is gone;)
Rules are Rules and they are on the Orginal Post.
jean
Thank you; July 27, 2008 2:43 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
It is always nice to hear good news. :); July 27, 2008 2:53 PM
Joshua said...: I posted last week that Obama was the de facto president. Well, read almost the exact words from The New York Times Op-Ed published today!; July 27, 2008 3:11 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd and - I just read the two most recent articles you posted regarding the gender gap.

The first, addresses mainly the careers that women tend to pursue. There is no doubt that women tend to choose jobs that are more "nurturing" in nature....nursing, teaching, etc. In my opinion, those are jobs that well underpaid. IF, and this is a big IF, these types of jobs paid higher there wouldn't be as much of a gender gap (this is where teacher's and nursing unions have been successful.) However many are paid through the 'government'. Examples, many hospitals like University hospitals receive government subsidies, therefore many of those hospitals pay their nurses less. Public schools are government run therefore tend to pay less.

What I find most disturbing in the second article you posted isn't that wages women receive in metropolitan cities increased, it is that wages men receive decreased. So wouldn't this be an excellent argument for, if written properly, equal pay legislation.; July 27, 2008 3:21 PM
Beryl said...: Nice article, Leah. Thanks for posting it. Obama did a fine job last week but it is a shame how negative some people reported on it.

McCain could have won the week if the Repubs approached it differently. First, Bush could have thanked Obama for representing the USA abroad in fine fashion. He could have mentioned the flag waving and how he strengthened the bonds between our allies. Second, McCain could suggest that he would reach across party lines to ask Obama to serve as Secretary of State or the like. He then would make the case that he would be the best leader who would depend on the judgment of a strong Cabinet.

Fortunately for us, the McCain camp is not too smart.; July 27, 2008 3:26 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Three things:
1) The article gave several very acceptable reasons why men earn less than women in those areas, and for that reason, it should continued and not be considered discrimination.

2)I would agree that teachers are underpaid, and not because of the hours, or the education or anything like that. The fact is that teachers are required to pass knowledge on to our children, and I want the best and brightest educating my child. Private schools actually pay teachers less on average by the way, at least from all reports and personal (anecdotal) stories I have heard.

Unfortunately, the teachers union shoots themselves in the foot on this issue, because they're constantly arguing for across the board higher wages, and refuse to allow merit pay. Merit pay is a wonderful way to attract the best and brightest and reward them for their service, while deterring the lazy and stupid from taking such an important job.

3)I completely disagree that nurses are underpaid. A nurse practice, which is typically a nurse with a masters, makes more on average than a Chemist, Biochemist, or Biologist with a doctorate. That is base pay also, so it isn't including the overtime pay or odd shift pay that nurses get in addition to their already higher base pay. The average pay of a Nurse with a Bachelors degree is about 60,000 a year. That is much higher than the average income of a college educated professional.

I agree that there is most definitely discrimination in this nation and in the workforce, and it is important to try to get rid of it as much as possible. What is counterproductive is assuming that any disparity must be discrimination. The study that Mike posted shows this perfectly, because it corrected for EVERYTHING except the applicant's race. There was still a disparity, and therefore there was racism. A scientific experiment should only have one variable, and these basic studies claiming discrimination have hundreds of variables, and don't correct for any of them.

Again, a proper, scientific study showing a disparity would, and does instantly get me up at arms and fighting. The article I posted with the insurance agency was atrocious, and I most definitely argued with my boss over pay disparity in my last job, which got me in a lot of trouble. (I was paid the highest of the technicians, so I was arguing for others, not myself. I had a problem with the fact that those training me, that had 4 years of loyal and productive service, were making 75% of what I was making while still in training.); July 27, 2008 4:43 PM
Karen Anne said...: I don;t know anything about Hagel, but he certainly sounds sensible here (bad grammar, but sensible):

http://thepage.time.com/senator-hagel-on-cbss-face-the-nation/; July 27, 2008 4:59 PM
Beryl said...: Thanks for posting this, Karen. I missed FtN today. I am a Hagel fan and totally agree with his comments on the show. McCain was irresponsible with his loose lips last week.

The Dems would never let Obama pick a former Repub in the No. 2 spot but I sincerely hope he is offered a Cabinet post.; July 27, 2008 5:37 PM
Karen Anne said...: Beryl,

Too bad about former Republicans, Chafee of RI would be great as VP. I can't believe Reed's name is being floated, he is a real do-nothing.; July 27, 2008 6:03 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Pretty good compilation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0F9sZeESus; July 27, 2008 6:20 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Did McCain 'flip' on affirmative action measure? And does he actually know what affirmative action is?

Article on CNN's Political Ticker (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/27/obama-mccain-flipped-on-affirmative-action) describes McLame's response to George Stephanopoulos asking McCain if he supports a referendum on the ballot in his home state "that would do away with affirmative action."

McLame's response: "Yes, I do. I do not believe in quotas. But I have not seen the details of some of these proposals. But I've always opposed quotas."

It would appear that the answer to the first question above is 'Yes' and the answer to the second question above is 'No', since affirmative action does NOT automatically mean quotas.

Mike; July 27, 2008 6:45 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Sunday evening...

Obama Sees Doctor for Sore Hip

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/27/obama-sees-doctor-for-sore-hip/

.; July 27, 2008 9:54 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: CNN is definitely showing bias towards McLame in the Political column.

In the 'Did McCain 'flip' on affirmative action measure?' article I referenced above, I wrote a comment at 6:21 pm, but it is still 'awaiting moderation'. Nine comments have been approved between 6:21 and now, but not the one I posted. Some are for Senator Obama, but written in such a manner that the Neo-Cons will get a chuckle (from their perverted viewpoint). Some are for McCain, and attack Senator Obama viciously.

My comment invoked the name 'Joseph Goebbels'. Maybe that's why they don't like the comment?

Text of what I posted:
Affirmative Action does NOT mean quotas.

I'll say it again: Affirmative Action does NOT mean quotas.

ANYONE who states that in all cases that Affirmative Action means quotas is not cognizant of the law, is using political talking points of the right-wing, and probably also thinks that blacks are not discriminated against in the US.

Just goes to prove the old Nazi Germany propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels' meme - the people will not believe the little lie, so make it a big lie, then repeat it often enough and the people will believe it.

What is affirmative action? Policies aimed at making sure historically socio-politically non-dominant groups are given fair access to education or employment. Quotas are NOT part of affirmative action unless court ordered, and then only when the court has concluded that the party doing the discriminating are not giving historically socio-politically non-dominant groups fair access to education or employment.

Quotas are only used when the law is being repeatedly broken by an employer or school district, so John McCain wants to help the law-breakers? He doesn't show much morality by doing that, does he?

And I thought most people think the President needs to show good moral character . McCain FAILS that test!

Mike; July 27, 2008 10:49 PM
Joshua said...: CSPAN just aired the three interviews Obama gave to the anchors of the major TV networks. I watched them completely. Here is my conclusion: Obama is too good to be president. We must beg him to take the job. We don’t deserve him, but we need him.; July 27, 2008 10:55 PM
Beryl said...: "CNN is definitely showing bias towards McLame in the Political column."

CNN has been bias towards McBush for some time now. Also, the RNC's "MSM in love with Obama" ad has paid off.; July 27, 2008 10:56 PM
apissedant said...: beryl and Mike,
I wish the media would just do their job and worry less about public perception. They spend so much time trying to prove they don't have a bias that they end up with a bias. It is absolutely ridiculous.

It is also not the first time that we had a lengthy discussion, and then the media ended up continuing or lengthy discussion. It is kind of amusing really, especially since we were told it wasn't worthy of discussion. ;); July 27, 2008 11:36 PM
apissedant said...: Apparently, the Senate already has a Dr. No, and it isn't Senator Obama. McCain should spend more time meeting his neighbors, or at least stop stealing lines from his colleagues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/27/AR2008072701441.html?hpid=topnews

The odd part for me is, that several Senators are quoted in the article, and of all of them, his argument is by far the most compelling. I don't know all the details, and I guarantee I would disagree with him on individual issues, but his overall goal is very noble. An easy defense of his side could easily be fought and won, with both liberal and conservative issues.; July 28, 2008 12:06 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: AP,

Take a look at his voting record, and the reasons he votes against bills, and you'll probably have second thoughts about saying "his argument is by far the most compelling".

Mike; July 28, 2008 2:24 AM
Joshua said...: I read the article about Senator Tom Coburn. He is my kind of senator. Instead of Harry Reid whining about Coburn, how about he borrows some of Coburn’s spine?

No to all that nonsense pork spending. I know that everyone finds a necessary program everywhere. But with the deficit spending we have, halt every spending. Halt every spending except military, interstate highways and airports. And in the military spending, not another penny to Iraq.; July 28, 2008 2:34 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Stop spending for public health?

Stop spending for MediCare/HedicAid?

Stop sending out Social Security checks?

Stop spending on maintenance of dams and levees, and let the floods occur when and where they occur when dams break and levees collapse?

Stop spending on school lunches?

Stop spending for maintenance of our National Parks and Forests, just letting them burn if they catch fire, along with any communities inside or outside the federal lands?

Stop spending on research to find cures for AIDS, cancer, Alzheimers, and other diseases?

Stop spending (what little there currently is) on all types of basic scientific research?

Stop spending (what little there currently is) on alternative energy sources to take us off depending on foreign oil?

Stop spending on the Weather Bureau, and then guess when and where it's going to rain, and if it does, where and when floods will occur?

And private business will do all of those things out of altruism, not for profit?

Sounds like we have a Grover Norquist lunatic here, who wants to shrink government down so it will fit into a bathtub, then drown the remnants.

Mike; July 28, 2008 3:33 AM
Joshua said...: That is where the tire meets the road. Stop spending on everything except:

1. Things we cannot do for ourselves as individuals such as: national security, interstate transportation, international relations.

2. Checks to social security recipients who have already paid into the system. No checks to freeloaders.

You are always first to throw out insults on posters, like referring to me as a lunatic. You are definitely an imbecile. A freeloading, useless, dependent waste of oxygen. You want government to cure your AIDS. How about you practice monogamous safe sex instead? You know: one man with one woman as God intended it.; July 28, 2008 3:54 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Hey lunatic fringe idiot who parrots the Grover Norquist thinking on government:

You stated that you are a doctor who practiced GYN. You also stated that you are no longer practising.

Several weeks ago, I asked if you voluntarily retired, or there was some other reason you were no longer practising. I haven't seen a response, so I'll postulate that you had your license to practise involuntarily taken from you.

Looks like you have an attitude that women should stay barefoot, pregnant, and in front of the stove when not in bed with the master of the house. Is that why they determined that you were unfit to practise?

FYI - Monogamous sex can be practised by gays and lesbians as well as heteros. Just because you have a perverted view of homosexuals doesn't mean your viewpoint is the only one, or even the correct one.

In fact, the definition of the word perverted, in pathology, is "changed to or being of an unnatural or abnormal kind: a perverted interest in death." Seems like since you, SON and the Yammerer always like to speak of AIDS when discussing homosexuals, you all probably fit the pathological definition of perverted, right down to the unnatural interest in death.

Mike; July 28, 2008 6:41 AM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
When I said his argument was most compelling, I meant in the article itself. I realize that when it gets down to the details of each bill, I would probably disagree with him. The problem is that the two Senators that disagreed with him, Reid and Nelson, basically argue he didn't take what amounts to bribes on bills. They couldn't get him to approve something he disagreed with by throwing in some pork that would make some other useless item, but with throw a few million bucks at the citizens of his state. That is a terrible argument. His argument in the article is far better. I'm rather disappointed that Reid and Nelson couldn't think up a better argument than that.; July 28, 2008 7:40 AM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
Obviously I am for every program you just mentioned. I am actually more against the defense spending more than all of that, which has TONS of duplicate and ridiculous spending in it. Also, the Republican argument would be 9/11. We had 4 different federal agencies independently researching terrorism, and none of them were talking. The problem is the fix was a terrible idea, where they created a fifth agency that oversaw them all, and one run by a political appointee instead of a skillful bureaucrat. They also gave huge payouts to nearly ever state for some of the dumbest and most useless "anti-terrorism" items I could ever think of. Especially the stupid air force capsules, and all the money given to butt-crack no where for that could never even dream of being attacked by terrorists.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

We spend roughly the same amount of money on defense as the rest of the world COMBINED. I definitely believe in operating a more efficient, streamlined government. Reid and Nelson didn't even dispute his statement that there were 3 other government agencies assigned to do the exact same thing. If these bills were useful, and filling a void, why did they decide against defending their bills in a way that voters might like?

Also, I completely agree with his statement, "When you take that oath, it doesn't say anything about your state," he said. "The parochialism needs to die." Nelson's counterargument that his constituents want yes votes and he needs to worry about what his constituents want is not a good argument at all. He is there for the US, and he is elected to do what the rest of us can't. He is there to make the correct choices, regardless of whether or not we like it. I don't want the voters of the other 434 Congressional districts or the other 49 states deciding how the federal dollars should be spent.

I get so peeved every single time there is a military base closing, and the state and district it is in go ballistic, even though the base is a waste. We have two base closings here in southeast Virginia, and I am one of the few southeast Virginians who agree with both of them. One is a relic of an old base, with another army base just 15 miles down the road. The old one does not have any function for the current military, though it worked well during the civil war. Waste of money, close it. The other base is for aircraft, and it needed to buy up a bunch of civilian houses in order to maintaining the flying schedule required. The civilians refused to sell their houses, and people absolutely hate the idea of imminent domain, so instead the military is deciding to close the base and move operations to Jacksonville, Florida.

Both of these closings made the military cheaper and more effective, so I agree with both of them. Both of them specifically hurt the economy of my local area, but I don't care. The fact is, if we did this in all Congressional districts, we'd save a small fortune and the cost would be minimal. The money saved could be funneled into a more productive purpose that actually benefited the nation, and not a few dozen individuals performing an unnecessary job.; July 28, 2008 8:09 AM
apissedant said...: I would remind all posters of the RULES. Attacking an entire subgroup of society is not allowed. Bigotry is not accepted. There is no excuse for this awful, ignorant, and immature behavior, and you are winning no fans or converts with that type of speech.; July 28, 2008 10:25 AM
jean said...: ap,
I have a feeling (hope) the clean up crew will be here shortly.
Which is greatly appreciated:)
jean; July 28, 2008 10:48 AM
apissedant said...: jean,
I hope so also. I feel the moderators have given everyone more than enough leeway, and now people are again going way beyond any acceptable level of offensive commentary.; July 28, 2008 11:09 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: rolling my eyes, hoping the clean up crew is here shortly; July 28, 2008 11:18 AM
jean said...: ap,
In reference to the guy who was drafted by the Detroit Lions.
I understand the $350,000 for education and the shortage the Army has.
I just feel that as a player for the NFL he would be a great spokes
person and could do great for recruiting for the Army.
When traded etc. he could go all over and do more than most.
It would be a marketing dream.
If the army got a computer wiz they would surely match his skills.
I think they are being very close minded which is probally why they have a shortage in the first place.
jean; July 28, 2008 11:26 AM
apissedant said...: jean,
How good at recruiting could I guy be if everyone knows he never served? If I drive up in a Toyota and try to sell you a Ford, won't that look bad for my product? If his product is the Army, and he weaseled his way out of the Army, how good does that really make the Army look?

The computer guy is not a fair comparison. The computer guy has military tactical skills in one area that are far more useful than his skills with a rifle. He will save more lives behind a computer screen than he could ever do with a rifle, so it makes sense to divert him over. Same with translators, and several other key positions.

This guy is none of that, he is an entertainer. The fact that we place entertainment so highly on the totem pole is not a very good thing in my opinion. He isn't saving lives, he isn't inventing anything, he isn't doing anything except entertaining a few million people for a few hours a week a few weeks a year. The military has no need for that, and our country overindulges and over rewards it, so we don't really need any more of that either.; July 28, 2008 12:23 PM
Joshua said...: I am all for an insult-free posting. I never insult anyone. I may post things that most of you don’t understand; or different from your worldview; but I never insult anyone. If, however, a poster feels that he can always attack and insult any poster who posts something at odds with his worldview, I will always hit him across the face; particularly when the poster lives in a glass house.

The rule is simple: if you don’t like a post, skip it and don’t comment. If you don’t want to be insulted, don’t be the first to insult.

Every sequence of insults on this site is always initiated by posters on the left. They always feel free to launch an ad hominem when a post is the slightest bit different from the usual whining seen from the left. I talk about personal responsibility and some loser thinks he can call me names.; July 28, 2008 12:40 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
You're full of it and no one is buying it. You have started plenty of insults. He likened you to Norquist, and your response was to say he has AIDs? How are those even in the same ballpark. You have continually blamed AIDs on gays, and that is not something that is "against the common worldviews" that is something that is "against reality." It is bigoted, it is factually unfounded, and it is classless. It was not instigated. This isn't your website so you don't get to make the rules. Those that created this website created their own set of rules, and they say you don't get to speak like that. They don't require us to skip your post, they require you to not post offensive items. Preach hate in another forum. This is a forum where people discuss and try to understand and educate each other. We don't agree on everything, in fact we disagree quite often, but we attempt to do it in a factual and constructive manner. You have made no such attempts. You are just gay bashing. That is not appropriate.; July 28, 2008 12:54 PM
apissedant said...: if you would like to institute that rule, please go make your own forum and have fun. Good luck attracting posters.; July 28, 2008 12:54 PM
jean said...: Ap,
Not everyone who joins goes into combat. Of course they must be prepared and informed at recruiting.
He busted his butt in school and football. Disqualifying that is prejudice. He was pragmatic, hard working and excelled. In BOTH
He was chosen out of MANY and excelled including West Point and the NFL.
This Marketing opportunity is business.
A group and team effort is mandatory in the military and I do believe he fits this profile.
With the new GI Bill properly promoted with his "FACE" this could be a great advantage with LOW COSTS.
This could work too great benefits.
Athletes are entertainers but there is a lot of work. This work is continuous which I feel you give no value.
I think I have found a prejudice of yours:)
jean; July 28, 2008 12:56 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
It is not prejudiced, because the purpose of the military is war. Not all that join go into combat, sure, in fact most don't. That is irrelevant, because all go in to SUPPORT combat. An aircraft carrier has more than 5,000 people aboard, but only about 100 actually engage in some form of "combat". There is no military purpose to, "football player". Everyone at all of academies is required to compete in sports as well as academics. For this, they get a free education, and afterwords they are required to serve in the forces to repay their educational costs. He never served. He never served a day. Recruiting is NEVER the first post ANYONE gets. You are not allowed to recruit until you've actually been at a real command. That doesn't mean combat. Two of my former coworkers are currently recruiting. One was an ELT, or Engineering Laboratory Technician in the nuclear plant, and the other was a MM, or Machinist Mate in the nuclear plant. Neither has been shot at, or have ever shot a gun for their military duty. They have never been in any sort of danger, but both did an ACTUAL MILITARY JOB. This is a prerequisite for recruiting. Recruiting is looked at as a reward and a really good assignment. The hours are better, the pay is better, and you get to live somewhere other than right next to a military base. That reward isn't given away for free. The people have to have good evaluations, have successfully completed operations at a command, and reenlisted in order to get that command.

The recruiting value is nil. All it tells those of us that join, is that if we were rich or talented, we could buy our way out of it. We aren't worth as much as those kids. Being able to sing, throw a football, or shoot a 3 point shot is more important than whatever we might do.

How does that help recruit?

When someone speaks up for military and why they join, who does it? It is always Wes Clark, John Kerry, Jim Webb, or John McCain. It is someone who actually served. Someone that went overseas and hated life for 4 years. This kid hasn't done that. He hasn't earned his way. You earn your way first. He made the commitment like everyone else, and now he has to fulfill his obligation.; July 28, 2008 1:23 PM
jean said...: Ap,
So recruiting is a cush job that you earn? I may be wrong in interpretation.
He would not support by getting more to join when they are hurting for people to join.
His Westpoint experience is null and void.
He would serve but to you it is not the way it should be because of previous mandates.
Growth, change, new image that is desparetly needed which is very hard to find.
I see your point, but I do think we are going to agree to disagree.
jean; July 28, 2008 2:03 PM
Beryl said...: McCain's ad claiming that Obama doesn't support the troops p*ssed me off. They have a "fight the smears" link but the web site is flaky and many people don't go there to check it out.

They need TELEVISION and RADIO ads to counter this crap. This is why the little people (like me) donated our hard earned $$ to the campaign. I called Obama HQ to request them to take an aggressive position on this attack and urge you all to do the same:

(866) 675-2008; July 28, 2008 2:18 PM
jean said...: beryl,
Being angry about the situation is putting it mildly.
Faith is very important right now.
Obama's marketing is perhaps one of the strongest and well run in any campaign for the presidency.
YOU KNOW this will be taken care of.
You know this is a high prioity but as my son says "Patience is a Virtue;)"
Remember Obama is using his OWN funds and if things are misconstrued it could look real bad.
I really feel Obama had a plan when the decision was made.
jean; July 28, 2008 2:30 PM
Joshua said...: For the benefit of those who don’t know the rules set by the board administrators, here it is:
And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters.

Don’t initiate a name-calling sequence. It is simply rude to attack a poster no matter what you think about his comments. If anyone chooses to attack me, get ready for blowback. If you cannot respond to an idea without attacking the poster, go back to kindergarten and learn some manners.; July 28, 2008 2:31 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: oh, no drama Obama, he has a plan. Right now, I think he is resting up, and he'll kick it into high gear in another month or so. Right now it's about putting out the fires as they come up.; July 28, 2008 2:34 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: but thanks for posting the campaign HQ phone number, beryl!; July 28, 2008 2:38 PM
Beryl said...: Jean,

You are right. Obama's actions were completely honorable. Andrea Mitchell, who was with Obama overseas, helped to dispel the false ad this AM on MSNBC. That was not nearly enough though.

I hate seeing a repeat of 2004 when Dem passivity fed into the Repugs. Hopefully McCain's lies backfire on him.; July 28, 2008 2:49 PM
jean said...: beryl,
Top story on CNN "$128 billion surplus morphed to giant deficit"
All about Bush blowing it etc.
Republicans are being crucified.
Obama needs a rest and the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot:)
They are being consistant.
I do not see Dem Passivity in the future.
jean; July 28, 2008 2:58 PM
jean said...: CNN Political Ticker.
Campaign Buttons with Obama and Larry Craig.
Made by accident, BULLCRAP.
jean; July 28, 2008 3:13 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Your first altercation with me began with you calling me a Communist and a liar. This was in response to a post I had made to stop/yam. I had not even spoken to you, so please explain to me how I prompted your assault by first assaulting you? You have a convenient memory.; July 28, 2008 3:34 PM
Karen Anne said...: The Page -

It is just one poll, folks, but the latest USA Today/Gallup survey suggests McCain jumped 10 points since last month.
McCain 49, Obama 45; July 28, 2008 3:51 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
His West Point experience means nothing if he never actually served. West Point is college, not military service. It does not count towards retirement or anything. It is free education. He has never served, and therefore knows none of the jobs or anything. Also, officers do not recruit enlisted, officers recruit other officers. How can he possibly attempt to tell kids about what jobs they'll be doing in the army if he never even saw any of those jobs? You cannot properly recruit without knowing what you're recruiting for. This is especially important when everyone KNOWS YOU DON'T KNOW. He would be high profile, and everyone would know he never actually served. His telling people to join would be no different than George W. Bush telling people to join, or his two daughters, who say they serve in other ways, because military service isn't for them. Service is service, you either serve or you don't serve. He signed up to serve, therefore now he must served. Many of us went through it, many of us wish we never had signed up, but we still went to work until they told us we didn't have to anymore.

Why would people be more likely to join because a famous athlete was the recruiter? When I signed up, they told me about all the Presidents and Senators that had served, and Jimmy Carter, who was a nuke officer. They never said, "George W. Bush was in air national guard, so you should join the Navy." That isn't even logical.

They sell Big Macs because Michael Jordan eats Big Macs. They sell Nike because... well nearly ever major athlete wears it.

What you propose is the equivalent of Barack Obama advertising the Whopper while biting into a Quarter Pounder. It doesn't make sense.

Yes, recruiting is a cushy job that you earn. Going home every day to your beautiful wife and children and not risking your life is a cushy job you have to earn. I cannot speak too much for the Army, but in the Navy, there is a very simple rule: Sea duty first. When you join the Navy, your first command will be sea duty. That means you'll be attached to a ship that ideally goes out to sea, though you might get lucky and get a ship that is being repaired for three years. While you're on sea duty, you spend 6 months out of every year in the middle of the ocean. On a carrier, you'll see an average of about 4 foreign ports in the course of 2 years. This typically lasts for 4 years, unless you reenlist. If you reenlist, you can get your sea duty cut down to 3 years and you can get shore duty. Shore duty placement is based on your evaluations and school history. For nukes, if you did very well in school, and you have excellent evaluations, you'll get stationed in South Carolina at NNPTC. This involves a hefty paycut, but the hours aren't bad. Recruiting is another one people try to get, because it doesn't have as strict grade requirements. It has an even higher requirement for good evaluations though. It also gives better pay by several hundred dollars a month. Many don't want this though, because they consider recruiting, "selling their soul."

The worst shore command for a nuke is prototype, and that's where most nukes end up. This has rotating shift work, long hours, and much more responsibility. It is like being on the ship, except now Naval Reactors people are constantly watching your every move.

The worst of the worst the reenlist don't get shore duty at all. They get truly screwed, and end up either staying on the same ship, or being transferred to another sea command. These guys hate life and almost never stay in for a third enlistment.

Now, knowing that that is the pecking order, how would all of those guys feel knowing that this guy got to skip to the front of the line? How would that possibly help retention?; July 28, 2008 4:00 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 3401 – 3600 of 4188 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

4188 comments:

Tags