Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2014, 08:18:15 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82950 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Print
Author Topic: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.  (Read 45103 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2010, 12:27:34 PM »

Indeed.

BTW, I am feeling very prescient with my post of August 18  cheesy
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2010, 05:26:11 AM »

February 25, 2009
Eric Holder's Tragic Prison

By Ed Kaitz
Some years ago at a major university out west I was hired to teach minority students courses in expository writing.  Most of my students were African-American.  They were part of a "bridge program" at the university that allowed "provisional" students (those whose entrance scores were sub par) to demonstrate within a year that they could handle the academic regimen at the school.

I realized that most of the students had been accepted through an affirmative action policy, but I was committed to helping them make the grade.  My strategy was simple: hitch their sense of self-respect and self-confidence to their performance in the class.  In other words, help them to understand that self-esteem is a product of achievement.

There was one major problem with my strategy.  Every one of my colleagues teaching in the same writing program was convinced that race, not achievement, was the basis for a minority student's self-esteem. This ideology pervaded the mentality of the entire staff -- black and white -- from the lowliest tutors to the director of the writing program.  Students were persuaded by their progressive instructors to explore only one topic in their writing: white oppression.  In fact, of the hundreds of essays and drafts that I read I cannot remember one essay that managed to stray from the central theme: minority = oppressed, white = oppressor.

There was one class period that I will never forget.  During a break in my lecture I asked several of the students what they intended to choose as a major.  Some of the students said "sociology" while others said "ethnic studies" or "communications."  When I asked if anyone wanted to choose "engineering" as a major a student in the back of the room loudly declared that engineering was a "white" profession.  When my jaw nearly hit the floor most of the students burst out in laughter.  I had never heard anything like this.  I quickly recovered however and quietly told myself that for the remainder of the class I was now going to play the student. I wanted to let these black kids teach me something I'd probably never forget.

For the next twenty minutes I stood at the chalkboard writing down the names of common professions.  Next to the profession I let the students direct me to writing either "white" or "black" based on their perception of "correct" life choices for people of color. There was raucous laughter and the students were at the edge of their seats proclaiming their judgments in near unison.  Mathematician? White.  Architect? White.  Athlete? Black.  Musician? Black.  Engineer? White.  Chemist? White.  Physicist? White. Journalist? (this one caused some confusion) Teacher? Black.  Economist? White. Business? White.

After we had covered the board with our list, I asked the students to consider the possibility of crossing over to one of the "white" professions.  The response was unanimous: such a compromise would render the student an "Oreo." The students believed that a black engineer, for example, was black on the outside but unfortunately white on the inside.

During the several years I taught in the minority writing program, foreign students would often be allowed to join the writing course in order to improve their English and composition skills.  Of these the Nigerian students were by far my favorites.  Their respect for scholarship, learning, and academic achievement was unmatched.  Their essays ranged in interest from international affairs to advertising -- and the quality of their work was excellent.

What fascinated me was how the classroom dynamic changed with the addition of the students from Nigeria.  The African-American students looked at the coal black Nigerians like they had landed from Mars.  For their part, the Nigerians rarely showed any interest in the culture of the black students on campus.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/eric_holders_tragic_prison.html at February 25, 2009 - 12:16:18 PM EST

Trimmed to save space and highlight the point I caught.   I went to school in 2 different areas, I transferred just after hitting high school.  In one area kids were kids, black, white, asian, etc.  were all treated the same, and generally performed according to their individual apptitudes.  some of us were better with "things" others with "ideas" or "doers" or singers.   It was an Individual thing.  Later on when I got down to SoCal and started high school, I found it strange that in some cases people were grouping themselves by skin color rather than interests.  I had had classes on racism, but the big city school I attended is what really educated me.   To me, all of the people choosing to group strictly by skin color were racists.   This article drives the point home, the students here are the racists, not the teacher.  The teacher is all into letting the individuals decide what they want to do, he is not saying "that is not a proper black job" it is the black students doing that to themselves.  Another aspect of the Harry Chapin song "roses are red", even if he is a typical long haired hippy freak type, that does not mean he cannot find truths and make a point about them in his own way!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #52 on: February 09, 2011, 03:16:16 PM »

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2011/02/the-new-one-drop-rule-from-tragedy-to-farce.html

February 09, 2011
The New "One-Drop Rule": From Tragedy to Farce

One of the more interesting bits of knowledge that has emerged from the Psychoanalytic study of the mind over the last century is that unconscious conflicts can often be expressed in two diametrically opposed outcomes.  The classic example is of the young child's hatred toward a new baby who displaces him form the center of his mommy's universe.  The child would like to kill the baby (loving feelings toward a sibling develop much later and sometimes never develop at all) and often makes aggressive actions toward the intruder.  There is a reason that wise parents do not leave 2 year olds alone with newborn siblings.

**Must read.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2011, 01:48:43 AM »

"There IS a thread dedicated to matters of race, and if this conversation goes any further, lets take it there; so I will limit myself to stating that I think it self-apparent that racism is FAR less a problem than it used to be.   Look at the positions of power held by Colin Powell, Condaleza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Barack Obama, Holder, and many, many others.  Look at the lack of issue when interracial couples are protrayed on TV and in the movies.   

Certainly race-baiting remains-- look at the tactics of the progressives, the Pravda media, the Dem Party, but arguably that is a sign of desperation.

If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you weren't a racist, vote against him in 2012 to prove you aren't an idiot."

Racism has greatly improved in mainstream white America, however the left and their allies in minority communities have become much more racist and do so without condemnation, creating a blatant double standard.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2011, 09:00:09 AM »

The Pravdas of the MSM being some of those allies , , , IMHO ultimately this dynamic contains the seeds of its own destruction if we "Question boldly.  Hold on to our Truth. Speak without fear." (Glenn Beck)  , , , This forum comes to mind  grin
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2011, 12:56:01 PM »

"There IS a thread dedicated to matters of race, and if this conversation goes any further, lets take it there; so I will limit myself to stating that I think it self-apparent that racism is FAR less a problem than it used to be.   Look at the positions of power held by Colin Powell, Condaleza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Barack Obama, Holder, and many, many others.  Look at the lack of issue when interracial couples are protrayed on TV and in the movies.   

Certainly race-baiting remains-- look at the tactics of the progressives, the Pravda media, the Dem Party, but arguably that is a sign of desperation.

If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you weren't a racist, vote against him in 2012 to prove you aren't an idiot."

Racism has greatly improved in mainstream white America, however the left and their allies in minority communities have become much more racist and do so without condemnation, creating a blatant double standard.

I'm a paramedic. The racism among police and fire is extraordinary. That is the main reason why I see more racism now than when I was a kid. Public servants, at least in my city, have terrible attitudes.

Even if it has improved overall, I think a lot of it is due to rules about it. People don't want to get sued or fired for running their mouths, but it hasn't been that long sense a fellow EMT told me race traders should be killed. Maybe the rules of society have changed but I don't think people have changed much.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2011, 02:24:41 PM »

CW,

To what do you attribute this?
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2011, 03:02:35 PM »

CW,

To what do you attribute this?

I think the success of the civil rights movements, mostly African American and Homosexual, simultaneously make whites feel threatened while removing guilt for their lower standing in society. It helps white men feel that they need to "attack back" while letting them feel like they shouldn't feel bad for their opinions, sense they have lost the ability to effectively oppress these other groups in their daily lives.

The fact that black comedians, priests, and musicians are so public and open about their opinions makes white feel like they can vent their bad attitude. The fact that gay rights movement has been so publicized makes it easier for straight men to identify homosexuals that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. It is harder for gay men to hide and easier for allegedly straight men to feel threatened, so they take their shots.

The success of black people in promoting themselves reminds whites that they are a part of the group. Whites think that if blacks get a bigger share of the pie, they will get less, because there isn't enough to go around. Even though whites have much more, they don't want to share. White people think that because they only benefit passively from their father's and father's father's crimes, they don't hold any responsibility, and resent losing any part of it.

I think the increase in racism among blacks is due to the stacking of more and more frustration. The collapse of the traditional family, generational poverty and the difficulty succeeding in education sense their parents were uneducated and they go to underfunded school, problems on top of problems, they see that they could come up but find it practically impossible. Black on black violence is in part due to self loathing, and therefor hating other people that look like yourself. Racism towards whites is due to seeing other people with so much more, or being angry that so many of their own people can't get ahead.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2011, 03:08:29 PM »

Smartass tangent in defense of the English language:

a) I suspect you mean "race traitors" not "race traders"; and

b) "since" not "sense" in paragraph 4 ("because" would be a better choice of word btw, "since" is better used for time than causality.

Yip!

PS:  From where are you?
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2011, 03:17:08 PM »

Smartass tangent in defense of the English language:

a) I suspect you mean "race traitors" not "race traders"; and

b) "since" not "sense" in paragraph 4 ("because" would be a better choice of word btw, "since" is better used for time than causality.

Yip!

PS:  From where are you?

Sorry about the English. I scored in the 11% when I took my GED test back in the day (;

Normally I try harder to catch it, but I'm doing my calculus 3 work in another window. Talking about racism is my mental break.

I'm from Dayton, OH - which explains some of my opinions. DYT is one of the most segregated cities in the country. The town of 8000 I live in now has zero black kids in the high school, despite being within 5 miles of down town. The suburb I grew up in, Moraine, had a sign up into the 90's telling blacks to keep out after dark. When my parents got their first black neighbors, they were harassed by their other neighbors - though I think he was a sheriff and had some ability to keep people off his lawn.

Edit - here is a news story about how we are less segregated than we used to be: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/dayton-suburbs-less-segregated-since-2000-data-says-1031697.html
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 03:22:25 PM by Cranewings » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2011, 03:44:36 PM »

Entirely possible that where you live is tilting your perceptions.   In the big picture however I think the improvment has been dramatic and the prognosis good.
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2011, 07:39:34 PM »

Well, I hope you're right sir.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2011, 11:57:48 PM »

www.daybydaycartoon.com/2002/11/04/
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 02:25:40 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2012, 02:17:05 PM »

I have patient who is from Thailand.   She went on a sightseeing tour of Egypt and when she came back we spoke.   She enjoyed many of the sights very much but would not go to see the "mummies".  She explained as a Buddhist that she thought that such displays desecrated the dead.  This report reminds me of her feelings about this: 

http://news.yahoo.com/researchers-tribes-clash-over-native-bones-160144542.html
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2012, 12:20:28 AM »

I agree with them. I don't go to museums or to exhibits like "Bodies." I think grave robbing out of curiosity about the person buried there is sick.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2012, 11:20:47 AM »

Yes there is a sort of dishoner for the dead in this. 

Yet I am fascinated by the history of mankind and it unfortunately the only thing left to study of previous generations are the gravesites.

I don't think it is a morbid curiousity that motivates.  It is a study of us I suppose.

Than again grave robbing for money has gone on forever.   Not good.

Do we really learn anything that helps mankind do better in the future from all this archeology?  I haven't given it much thought or know the answer.

Perhaps if we did that would be some sort of moral justification for this.  Otherwise I think you are right and it is morally wrong.

I guess mummy exibits serve no purpose other than to make tourist dollars.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2012, 11:36:27 AM »

All:

This thread is for discussion and articles treating the question of "Can't we all just get along?" 



Moved from the Santorum Topic Page per Crafty's request.

Crafty said,
"I think the real solution here is for people to be free to be gay and other people to be free to be grossed out by it, with or without God's blessing. 

Yes, I am saying that people should be allowed to discriminate."


Crafty, could you elaborate on your thought that "people should be allowed to discriminate". 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #67 on: February 20, 2012, 02:41:47 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/school-tells-mom-to-declare-son-a-racist-after-he-asks-classmate-are-you-brown-because-you-come-from-africa/
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2012, 12:39:03 AM »

Marc, now that you have more time, given Winter Camp is over (it sounded excellent) I hope you have time to address your general comment....

Crafty said,
"I think the real solution here is for people to be free to be gay and other people to be free to be grossed out by it, with or without God's blessing. 

Yes, I am saying that people should be allowed to discriminate."


Crafty, could you elaborate on your thought that "people should be allowed to discriminate".
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #69 on: March 07, 2012, 08:11:21 AM »



For the record, although I post this article, I consider the book's hypothesis to be drivel.  That said there is something here worthy of reflection.
=======================

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120307
Drug Policy as Race Policy

Garry McCarthy, a 30-year veteran of law enforcement, did not expect to hear anything too startling when he appeared at a conference on drug policy organized last year by an African-American minister in Newark, where he was the police director.

But then a law professor named Michelle Alexander took the stage and delivered an impassioned speech attacking the war on drugs as a system of racial control comparable to slavery and Jim Crow — and received a two-minute standing ovation from the 500 people in the audience.
“These were not young people living in high-crime neighborhoods,” Mr. McCarthy, now police superintendent in Chicago, recalled in a telephone interview. “This was the black middle class.”
“I don’t believe in the government conspiracy, but what you have to accept is that that narrative exists in the community and has to be addressed,” he said. “That was my real a-ha moment.”
Mr. McCarthy is not alone. During the past two years Professor Alexander has been provoking such moments across the country — and across the political spectrum — with her book, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” which has become a surprise best seller since its paperback version came out in January. Sales have totaled some 175,000 copies after an initial hardcover printing of a mere 3,000, according to the publisher, the New Press.
The book marshals pages of statistics and legal citations to argue that the get-tough approach to crime that began in the Nixon administration and intensified with Ronald Reagan’s declaration of the war on drugs has devastated black America. Today, Professor Alexander writes, nearly one-third of black men are likely to spend time in prison at some point, only to find themselves falling into permanent second-class citizenship after they get out. That is a familiar argument made by many critics of the criminal justice system, but Professor Alexander’s book goes further, asserting that the crackdown was less a response to the actual explosion of violent crime than a deliberate effort to push back the gains of the civil rights movement.
For many African-Americans, the book — which has spent six weeks on the New York Times paperback nonfiction best-seller list — gives eloquent and urgent expression to deep feelings that the criminal justice system is stacked against them.
“Everyone in the African-American community had been seeing exactly what she is talking about but couldn’t put it into words,” said Phillip Jackson, executive director of the Black Star Project, an educational advocacy group in Chicago that has been blasting its 60,000 e-mail subscribers with what Mr. Jackson called near-daily messages about the book and Professor Alexander since he saw a video of her speaking in 2010.
The book is also galvanizing white readers, including some who might question its portrayal of the war on drugs as a continuation of race war by other means.
“The book is helping white folks who otherwise would have simply dismissed that idea understand why so many people believe it,” said David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “It is making them take that seriously.”
“The New Jim Crow” arrives at a receptive moment, when declining crime rates and exploding prison budgets have made conservatives and liberals alike more ready to question the wisdom of keeping nearly 1 in 100 Americans behind bars. But Professor Alexander, who teaches at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, said in an interview that the more provocative claims of her book did not come easily to her. When she first encountered the “New Jim Crow” metaphor on a protest sign in Oakland, Calif., a decade ago, she was a civil rights lawyer with an impeccable résumé — Stanford Law School, a Supreme Court clerkship — and was leery of embracing arguments that might be considered, as she put it, “crazy.”

Professor Alexander, who is black, knew that African-Americans were overrepresented in prison, though she resisted the idea that this was anything more than unequal implementation of colorblind laws. But her work as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Racial Justice Project in Northern California, she said, opened her eyes to the extent of the lifelong exclusion many offenders face, including job discrimination, elimination from juries and voter rolls, and even disqualification from food stamps, public housing and student loans.

“It’s easy to be completely unaware that this vast new system of racial and social control has emerged,” she said. “Unlike in Jim Crow days, there were no ‘Whites Only’ signs. This system is out of sight, out of mind.”
In conversation, she disputes any suggestion that she is describing a conspiracy. While the title is “provocative,” she said, the book contains no descriptions of people gathering secretly in rooms.
“The main thrust,” she said, “is to show how historically both our conscious and unconscious biases and anxieties have played out over and over again to birth these vast new systems of social control.”
Whatever Professor Alexander’s account of the origins of mass incarceration, her overall depiction of its human costs is resonating even with people who disagree with her politics.
Rick Olson, a state representative in Michigan, was one of the few whites and few Republicans in the room when Professor Alexander gave a talk sponsored by the state’s black caucus in January.
“I had never before connected the dots between the drug war, unequal enforcement, and how that reinforces poverty,” Representative Olson said. “I thought, ‘Gee whiz, let me get this book.’ ”
Reading it, he said, inspired him to draft a bill decriminalizing the use and possession of marijuana.
The Rev. Charles Hubbard, the pastor at Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, a mostly white evangelical congregation in Garland, Tex., said he had started carrying the book with him everywhere and urges fellow pastors to preach about it, though he acknowledged it could be a tough sell in Texas.
“I think people need to hear the message,” he said. “I don’t think Anglo folks have any idea how difficult it is for African-American men who get caught up in the criminal justice system.”
Mr. Hubbard said he was particularly impressed by how “well-documented” Professor Alexander’s book is. But to some of the book’s detractors, including those deeply sympathetic to her goal of ending mass incarceration, its scholarship falls short.
In an article to be published next month in The New York University Law Review, James Forman Jr., a clinical professor at Yale Law School and a former public defender, calls mass incarceration a social disaster but challenges what he calls Professor Alexander’s “myopic” focus on the war on drugs.
Painting the war on drugs as mainly a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement, Professor Forman writes, ignores the violent crime wave of the 1970s and minimizes the support among many African-Americans for get-tough measures. Furthermore, he argues, drug offenders make up less than 25 percent of the nation’s total prison population, while violent offenders — who receive little mention in “The New Jim Crow” — make up a much larger share.
“Even if every single one of these drug offenders were released tomorrow,” he writes, “the United States would still have the world’s largest prison system.”
To Professor Alexander, however, that argument neglects the full scope of the problem. Our criminal “caste system,” as she calls it, affects not just the 2.3 million people behind bars, but also the 4.8 million others on probation or parole (predominately for nonviolent offenses), to say nothing of the millions more whose criminal records stigmatize them for life.
“This system depends on the prison label, not just prison time,” she said.
In a telephone interview, Professor Forman, a son of the civil rights leader James Forman, praised the book’s “spectacular” success in raising awareness of the issue. And some activists say their political differences with Professor Alexander’s account matter less than the overall picture she paints of a brutal and unjust system.
Craig M. DeRoche, director of external affairs at the Justice Fellowship, the advocacy arm of Prison Fellowship, a Christian ministry founded by the former Nixon aide Charles Colson, said he rejected the political history in “The New Jim Crow” but still considered it essential reading for conservatives.
“The facts are the facts,” he said. “The numbers are the numbers.”
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #70 on: March 07, 2012, 07:35:55 PM »

Perhaps it should be considered why we have such a disproportionate number of offenders from certain demographic groups.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #71 on: March 15, 2012, 04:50:00 PM »

Adding this video gem from 'politics'  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=943.msg60936#msg60936  to the race thread by request:

http://www.therightscoop.com/1990-thomas-sowell-explains-derrick-bell/

Sowell: "...[Bell] also said that by black, he does not mean skin color, he means those who are really black, not those who think white and look black. And so what he is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill this position."

Harvard law student Barack Obama made his early mark championing the cause of Prof. Derrick Bell, Harvard Law School's first black professor.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #72 on: March 16, 2012, 10:26:11 AM »

Have not read this yet, but it could be interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/product-reviews/0929903056/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #73 on: March 16, 2012, 06:24:40 PM »

While JDN awaits my thoughts on the matter with varying degrees of patience, I toss out this article from the WSJ to start our intellectual juices flowing:
-------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304692804577283380383835556.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
Can Britain Tolerate Christians?
Nondiscrimination laws become a morass of claims and counterclaims..
By ANNE JOLIS
London

Fifteen years ago, hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull made some mocking headlines when reporters noticed their stodgy guest policy: No double rooms for unmarried couples. "You have got to have principles," Mrs. Bull told the Mirror at the time, under the headline "You Couldn't Make It Up."

The Bulls had been turning away unwed mini-breakers from their Cornish guesthouse since 1986, and no one had sued them for it yet. It was, after all, no crime to be the least-cool B&B in England.

That appears to have changed. Last month a British appeals court upheld a £3,600 ($5,800) fine against the Bulls, who in 2008 turned down Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy for a double room despite their being joined in a civil partnership. The British government has recognized such unions since 2005; the Bulls, born-again Christians, do not. Messrs. Hall and Preddy sued on the grounds that their rights had been violated under the U.K.'s 2007 Equality Act, which bars sexual-orientation discrimination in the provision of services.

The Bulls hope to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court and, if that fails, to the European Court of Human Rights. British law currently exempts some religious institutions from some nondiscrimination laws, but commercial guesthouses don't count. While the Bulls are perfectly entitled to be Christian in private, their business is a "service and public function" under British law because they offer their services to the "public."

Mike Judge of the Newcastle-based Christian Institute, which has funded the Bulls' legal battle, says the couple is seeking a new exemption providing "reasonable accommodation or expansion" for enterprises such as their own. "The equality law has been framed such that, by giving an exemption to a religious organization, it suggests you can exercise religious liberty only within religious organizations," says Mr. Judge.

That's true enough, though Britain's equality and nondiscrimination rules already have more loopholes than a coherent principle can bear. A case in point involves British Airways, a private business that has had better luck enforcing its standards under Britain's patchwork of rights, responsibilities and opt-outs.

In a dispute now headed to the European Court of Human Rights, the British government has backed British Airways in having enforced a long-standing dress code that kept front-office employees from wearing visible religious symbols. Check-in attendant Nadia Eweida refused to submit to the code in 2006, insisting on visibly wearing her crucifix and declining a job for the same pay away from customers. She was subsequently placed on unpaid leave for six months until BA relaxed its policy in 2007.

British courts rejected Ms. Eweida's demand that BA repay her lost wages, and she is now arguing before the European court in Strasbourg that the U.K. government failed to protect her right, recognized both by Britain and the European Union, to religious nondiscrimination in the workplace. Here the government's argument rests on its judgment of what Christianity does and does not demand of its adherents, and it concludes that wearing symbols such as crucifixes doesn't constitute the "practice" of a religion, but merely "behavior or expression that is motivated or inspired by religion or belief," which is not always protected.

Less tortured is the government's secondary point, which is that BA is a private company and the government has "no positive obligations to ensure that a private employer permitted Ms. Eweida to wear a visible cross." The government's filing says that Ms. Eweida's rights, under both British and European protections, were satisfied because she was "free to resign and seek employment elsewhere."

But just as no one forces crucifix-wearing Christians to work for secular-sensitive airlines, nothing compels same-sex couples to seek accommodations at Christian-run properties. In the Bulls' case, however, the government's position comes down to the fact that no one forces Christians to open businesses.

In this morass of rights claims and counterclaims, British Christians may be forgiven for seeing a larger assault on their values and traditions. Yet lost in the country's increasingly awkward debates over religious versus sexual freedoms, and the competing sensibilities of this or that protected group, is an even more puzzling discrepancy over when any private business is allowed to set potentially discriminatory standards. So far the U.K. has respected some such rights in relation to a business's employees, but not its customers.

Even that latitude may soon narrow, as Prime Minister David Cameron's government attempts damage control among its Christian supporters over Ms. Eweida's case. A Downing Street spokesman this week suggested that if the European court finds against Ms. Eweida, the government may look into new protections for religious workers against private standards such as dress codes.

That might satisfy devout Britons for a while, as would a new carve-out for religious business owners such as the Bulls—at least until the next time anyone's convictions, mores, practices or habits conflict with anyone else's in the country. Meanwhile, these small victories will only further muddle companies' freedoms to dispose of their resources as they see fit—regardless of faith, sexual orientation, or ever-changing estimations of political expedience.

Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #74 on: March 23, 2012, 06:42:20 PM »

Economist Walter Williams writing at Townhall.com, March 21:


It's not unreasonable to ask how valuable the variously labeled liberal, Democratic or progressive agenda has been to black Americans and whether blacks should proceed in political lock step with this agenda.

According to an American Community Survey, by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent.

The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them—such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia—haven't elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What's more is that, in some cases for decades, the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans. . . . I'm not stating a causal relationship between poverty and Democratic and/or black political control over a city. What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to help poor people, he wants to leave off his list of objectives Democratic and black political control of cities.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #75 on: March 24, 2012, 04:01:05 PM »

Sharpton and Obama Prostituting Martin Shooting


The shooting and subsequent death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin is the story of a tragic waste of life – both his and that of the neighborhood watch captain who shot and killed him. It now appears that there are questions about the chain of events that led to the shooting, but that is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about what we know for a fact.

What we know is that two families and a community are suffering and being ripped apart because of the incident. It is also a fact that race mongers and the anti-gun cabals will attempt to use this tragic situation as currency to further their disastrous agendas.

I am in no way downplaying or attempting to minimize the gravity of the situation. But it is a fact, that the lawyers giving their opinions, the prosecutors being used on various news programs to take sides, those lining up to cry racism, Obama, and Al Sharpton are not helping things, they are deliberately fanning the flames of discord and grief for television ratings and personal gain.

As I said, this is a tragic situation for all concerned, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the sinful duplicity of Sharpton and Obama. These days Sharpton runs from me like a dog running from scalding water and Sean Hannity is typically there to hold his hand. But I want Sharpton to answer a couple questions for me.

He is coming to Florida to lead a rally, and do what he does best, foment discord – but where was he when the black New York undercover Detectives, Rodney J. Andrews and James V. Nemorin, were brutally murdered execution style by Ronell Wilson who is black? Why didn’t Sharpton lead protests or a march in their honor, to show their families and children that New York appreciated their work their to get machine guns off the streets that were being sold by Hispanic and black thugs? I made a promise to myself that I would never forget those two brave officers – but for Sharpton they never existed.

Where was Sharpton when Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, were kidnapped, brutally tortured, raped, and murdered in 2007? Newsom and Christian had been guilty of enjoying a dinner date and minding their own business, when they were carjacked and bound, then taken to a rented home and horrifically raped, sodomized, beaten, tortured, for hours. According to the testimony of the Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan at the subsequent trial of Eric Boyd, Newsom was repeatedly sodomized with an object and then blindfolded, gagged, arms and feet bound and his head covered. Barefoot, he was either led or dragged outside the house to a set of nearby railroad tracks. He was shot in the back of the head, the neck, and the back, and his body then set on fire.

Channon’s death came only after hours of sexual torture, medical examiner Mileusnic-Polchan testified. Channon suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with “an object,” possibly a broken chair leg, the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution – all while Channon was alive, the forensic expert said. She was then “hog-tied,” with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets. Channon died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said. Didn’t Sharpton, Obama, the race whores think this young couple was worthy of the wall to wall coverage? Didn’t Obama and Sharpton think what was done to them by four black males and an 18 year-old black female warranted their condemnation?

Furthermore, we were told the murders of Christian and Newsom were not racially motivated, they were called a random act. If what happened to that couple was a random act, how in the good name of heaven above can Sharpton, the media, the lawyers and Obama call the Martin shooting racist? Oh, I know, the victims were white.

Where was Obama and where was Sharton in 2010 when 41 people were shot in 50 hours in Chicago? Seven of the shootings took place in two hours – 41 people were shot in 31 incidents, including four homicides – didn’t Obama and Shapton think they should have injected themselves in that hellish two day period? I guess not black on black doesn’t get ratings or pay well.

I don’t remember a march or cries of racism when an 16 year-old and 19 year-old black teens shot and wounded a 18 year-old black teen in front of his home, then casually walked up, and stood over him firing until he was dead. The incident happened earlier this month, but maybe Shaprton, Obama, and the media whores were busy that morning or maybe it wasn’t of interest because the perps weren’t white.

It’s a fact, neither Sharpton, Obama, or any of the media whores were doing 24/7 programming with cries of racism, in 2011 when a 12 year-old New Hampshire white girl was brutally beaten, her jaw injured, her teeth knocked out, and suffered a concussion. The reason the two black youths savagely attacked, was because she refused to be their girlfriend – which is a non-graphic way of saying they wanted her to be their girlfriend for sexual purposes. They called her a “fat ho, lesbian bitch, and c**t, for a month before the beating took place. The two black children were referenced as “bullying” the little girl. I would think Obama would have been all over this travesty, after all, one of the boys was from Kenya and the other from Somalia. Sharpton, as mentioned was no where to be found. The McLaughlin Middle School did absolutely nothing to protect the little girl, even after threats of violence to her were reported.

Also this month, a 13 year-old white boy was beaten, doused with gasoline, and set on fire, as the two black youths responsible told him: “this is what you deserve, you get what you deserve, white boy.” All of this on his doorsteps as he arrived home from school. At least the Kansas City, Missouri Police are attempting to charge the black youths with a hate crime.

What’s worst, but from my experience not surprising, is that the incident may have been precipitated by little boy’s teacher, Mrs. Karla Dorsey – when she allegedly responded to his raising his hand to answer a question during black history month with: “What would you know about it? You’re not our race.”

The boy’s mother discovered that this is not an isolated incident, but, a pandemic pattern of racial bullying and intimidation by black children and by black teachers. Need I mention what it would be like if there were even a suggestion of such a thing happening to a black student. I strongly recommend you read the entire account here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45082 – read what black teachers are doing to these white children, and determine for yourself if the actions of the one teacher was the primary causal factor in the little boy being set on fire.

MSNBC ran headlines saying the racism of Rush Limbaugh and GOP candidates was responsible for the lethal consequences in the death of Trayvon Martin. But somehow, just like Sharpton, Obama, and the other media whores ignored the incidents I’ve just mentioned. The incidents I mentioned are not isolated occurrences, they are a small mention of a larger pandemic.

The neighborhoods I’ve lived in, people who looked out of place or suspicious were watched, and it wasn’t unusual for security or the police to be called to check them out. It wasn’t racism, it was security. People felt safe to go for walks late at night in those neighborhoods. The people who came in and out, either lived there, were visiting, making a delivery, or doing yard work or the like.

But this weekend, here in Florida, Sharpton and every other race monger, will be marching and protesting, instead of letting the legal system take its course. The problem with their behavior is that their condemnable racism, gives credibility to supremacist groups who are looking at the same thing I am, but painting it to their advantage. They are positing themselves as the last hope of white America, drawing frightened and angry people into their ranks.

We can end that, but we cannot do it with Sean Hannity giving shelter to Sharpton‘s damnable antics and Obama fomenting division.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #76 on: March 24, 2012, 04:16:56 PM »

Weird. It's almost like Obama is a hard core racial leftist that attended a racist church for 20 years or something.....

I'm sure JDN is very proud of him.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2012, 07:17:48 AM »

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12069


« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2012, 04:51:10 PM »

**Feel Obama's post-racial healing.




If Obama had a son, he'd probably look like THIS.

If I didn't know better, I'd think Obama and his operatives were deliberately fueling racial animosity to distract from his abject failure as a president.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #79 on: March 27, 2012, 08:29:08 AM »

http://www.mercatornet.com/Newsletterv0810/view_txt/europe_battles_hate_crimes_against_christians

Europe battles hate crimes against Christians
Béatrice Stevenson | 27 March 2012





What was the most vilified religion in Scotland in 2010-2011? Not Islam – only 2.1 percent of religious hate crimes were directed against Muslims. Not Judaism – only 2.3 percent were directed against Jews. According to a report by the Scottish government, 95 percent of all religious hate crimes were directed against Christians.

"These statistics show the shameful reality of religious hate crime in Scotland,” the Minister for Community Safety, Roseanna Cunningham, declared last year. “Like racism, this kind of behaviour simply shouldn't be happening in a modern Scotland but sadly, it seems there are still those who think hatred on the basis of religion is acceptable.”

Christians are also the targets of most religious hate crimes in France. A report released last year showed that 84 percent of cases of religious vandalism had targeted Christian sites in 2010 – an increase of 96 percent in two years. Two hundred and fourteen cemeteries were vandalized, along with 272 chapels, 26 war memorials and 10 crosses.

Christian monuments are not the only targets. Earlier this month the hacker group Anonymous crashed the Vatican website, leaving a message: “Anonymous decided today to besiege your site in response to the doctrine, to the liturgies, to the absurd and anachronistic concepts that your for-profit organization spreads around the world."

The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, an Austrian NGO, documents the growing problem of Christian persecution in Europe in a recently-released annual report.

According to its director, Dr Gudrun Kugler, all Christian denominations in Europe face “a broad phenomena of intolerance and discrimination caused by those who reject and disrespect Christianity as a whole: radical lobbies which have gone overboard, seeking to limit the practice of the Christian religion and with it fundamental rights and freedoms.”

Is she over-dramatising the issue? Dr Kugler responds that many religious leaders and politicians in Europe have been hitting the alarm bell.

Last year Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, a senior Russian Orthodox prelate with a PhD from Oxford, warned that there is a “basic danger of attempting to use religious diversity as an excuse to exclude signs of Christian civilization from the public and political realities of the continent, as though this would make our continent friendlier towards non-Christians.”

And a Muslim government minister in the UK, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, admitted that Christianity was under siege by militant secularism in a landmark speech earlier this year.

“I see it in United Kingdom and I see it in Europe: spirituality suppressed; divinity downgraded… at its core and in its instincts [militant secularism] is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity and failing to understand the relationship between religious loyalty and loyalty to the state.”

Dr Kugler admits that the hardships faced by European Christians are minor compared to the daily threats of murder, beating, imprisonment and torture in countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. But, she says, “History teaches to address injustices before they become a slippery slope towards even greater injustices.”

Dr Kugler says that the growing intolerance and discrimination take several forms.

Human rights violations and discrimination. Christian are being denied the right to educate their children when there is a conflict between the parents’ convictions and state required sex education. The Catholic Church had to shut down adoption agencies in the UK because they were being forced to accept same-sex couples as adoptive parents.

Workplace discrimination. French pharmacists are required to sell the “morning after” pill which causes an early abortion. Midwives and nurses in Scotland must oversee abortions. Workers in the UK are threatened with dismissal for wearing crosses.

Marginalization and negative stereotyping. The media is constantly projecting hostile images of Christians and Christian values. The Norwegian killer Andres Breivik was instantaneously and wrongly called a “Christian fundamentalist” even though he had no connections with any mainstream Christian churches. Last July the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe even passed a resolution to “encourage the media not to spread prejudices against Christians and to combat negative stereotyping”.

Hate crimes. Violence against Christian sites and clerics is becoming more common. Churches, shrines and cemeteries are often torched or desecrated. “It is indisputable that hate crimes against Christians occur in the OSCE region,” Janez Lenarčič, of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, told a conference in Rome last year. “Such attacks instil fear, not just in the individuals they target directly, but also in the wider community, particularly where the Christian community in question belongs to a minority.”

But if most European countries are at least nominally Christian, isn’t it ridiculous to talk about a vilified minority? Wrong, says Dr Kugler. It is not nominal Christians who are getting the sharp end of the stick, but people who take the precepts of Christianity seriously. And these are a minority.

CONT.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #80 on: April 17, 2012, 07:12:56 PM »


April 15, 2012 - 12:27 pm- by Victor Davis Hanson
<http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/bio/>
Polls show that the Trayvon Martin case has split the country apart over
perceptions of race and justice, in ways that may dwarf the polarities
of the O.J. Simpson trial days of 1994. Or does the new friction simply
reflect an ongoing erosion in relations since 2009? Or is it all hype,
and things are still about as they were?

This tension was not supposed to have increased with the election of
Barack Obama, who ran on “healing” and “unity,” and who was proclaimed
by supporters as ushering in a new post-racial age.

Here I list a few random examples of the new racial furies and conclude
with the two irreconcilable narratives.

*The Trayvon Martin Tragedy*

Hollywood director Spike Lee tweeted what he thought was George
Zimmerman’s address, in hopes, apparently, that vigilantes might
assemble there. Ex-boxer Mike Tyson called for George Zimmerman’s death;
the New Black Panther Party put a “dead or alive” bounty on his head,
confident that there would never be a state or federal charge of
conspiracy to commit a felony lodged against them. I think all these
examples were more or less open calls for violence.

Many of the publicly reported “facts” of the yet to be tried Martin case
really were in error and in error by design. Indeed, George Zimmerman
was not white; he really did have head injuries; he did not employ a
racial epithet on tape; he did not voluntarily profile on tape Martin as
a “black”; there was indeed an altercation; Mr. Martin was not a
preteen, tiny, and a model student; Zimmerman did not outweigh Martin by
100 pounds.

But such constructs were all necessary for the narrative of a white
Germanic-sounding vigilante, who, after uttering racial slurs, executed
a little African-American boy, then lied about a fight and injuries, and
got off due to a racist police department and by extension a racist
America. We don’t know what happened (murder, manslaughter,
self-defense?), only that the above narrative did not happen. Most agree
that when one party is shot, killed, and was not armed, then the
evidence must be carefully reviewed to substantiate a self-defense plea;
the objection is not to the review but to the prejudging of the review
and public threats.

*The Race Establishment*

The problem with the race establishment is not its acrimony per se, but
(a) that the acrimony is frozen in amber around 1960, with no
acknowledgment of some 50 years of federal action and three new
generations of Americans, and (b) the inordinate time invested in
blaming “them” rather than spent on introspection on how to achieve
parity with a majority culture in the manner of other minorities’
successes. Or at least that is how I perceive the growing anger at the
Sharpton/Jackson/Black Caucus nexus.

One day, Rev. Wright, the president’s former pastor, is once again
railing against Jews and whites; while on the next, Louis Farrakhan
tours the country warning of the dangers of racial intermarriage and
declaring Jesus a black man. No one rebukes such overt hatred. Revs.
Jackson and Sharpton, as is their wont, flew to the center of the Martin
case controversy, to be photographed and to “organize.” Al Sharpton is
now rebooted from the days of his involvement in the Crown Heights and
Freddy’s Fashion Mart cases. No one wishes to remember his derogatory
comments about homosexuals, Jews, and Mormons, much less the Tawana
Brawley matter in which he lost a defamation case after falsely accusing
a state prosecutor of being one of the assailants. He has a nightly
MSNBC show where he reports on his earlier daytime heroics; in some
sense, he has eclipsed Jesse Jackson as the black community’s premier
civil rights leader. I say that without irony but based on the official
praise from the country’s leading officials.

Attorney General Eric Holder lauded the defamer of state prosecutors
“for your partnership, your friendship, and your tireless efforts to
speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine
a light on the problems we must solve, and the promises we must
fulfill,” and said of the ongoing Trayvon Martin case: “I know that many
of you are greatly — and rightly — concerned about the recent shooting
death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a young man whose future has been
lost to the ages.” Holder’s “lost to the ages” quote bookends the
president’s comment that Martin resembled the son he might have had.
Whether those editorials will influence the jury pool in Florida no one
knows, but I cannot remember a president and attorney general
editorializing about a local criminal case before it has even gone to
trial. If before the O.J. trial Bill Clinton had said that Nicole
Simpson looked like the daughter he might have had, or had Janet Reno
said Nicole was lost to the ages, well, fill in the blanks.

Holder himself almost seems to enjoy expressing his racial passions
(e.g., “cowards,” “my people,” his allegations of racism against
congressional overseers in the Fast and Furious inquiry, his accusations
of racial profiling against the Arizona immigration law, which he
confessed that he had not yet read, etc.). He chose not to prosecute the
New Black Panther Party for voter intimation. Nor, apparently, has he
much concern with the latter’s bounty on Zimmerman–or its radio
station’s calls for a race war. If John Ashcroft had said anything
similar, or had even Alberto Gonzales, proverbial hell would have broken
loose.

*From the Very Top*

This attention to racial division is not new with this increasingly
desperate administration. Before a Latino audience, President Obama
blasted congressional Republicanism and soared with the following
statement: “America should be a place where you can always make it if
you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where
they come from, should have a chance to succeed.” The “look like”
formula was popular and used also by First Lady Michelle Obama, who had
also complained about a description of her White House infighting,
written by a /New York Times/ reporter: “That’s been an image that
people have tried to paint of me since, you know, the day Barack
announced, that I’m some angry black woman.” None of these comments was
helpful in erasing away the old “never been proud,” “raise the bar,” and
“downright mean country” campaign tropes of 2008.

When Rick Perry referred to “a big black cloud that hangs over America —
that debt, that is so monstrous,” charges of racism flew. Chris Matthews
referred to Perry’s support of federalism with the quip “this is going
to be Bull Connor with a smile.” At some point, every Republican nominee
was alleged to be waging a racialist campaign, as we heard that
Gingrich’s food stamp references were racist and still more about the
segregationist past of Romney’s Mormon Church.

In a Democratic National Committee video in April 2010, Obama called on
“young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women . . . to stand
together once again.” Shortly before the November 2010 congressional
elections, Obama told an audience that Republicans “are counting on
black folks staying home.” Before the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama
affected the supposed accent of black America in emphasizing shared
race: “Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We’ve got
work to do.” Was “we” the black community or all of America? He appealed
to Latino voters not to stay home from the 2010 elections, but instead
to “punish our enemies”—and not to fall prey to the Republicans’
“cynical attempt to discourage Latinos from voting.” Conservatives,
remember, wished, according to the president, to round up Latino
children while eating ice cream. There is now an African Americans for
Obama campaign group, and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith warns us that
he has Obama’s back.

All this is not quite new. Obama stereotyped the Cambridge Police
Department as having “acted stupidly” for detaining Harvard professor
Henry Louis Gates. He allegedly complained that racial bias explains
much of the Tea Party opposition to his own administration, and used the
derogatory “tea-baggers” sexual slur to characterize the protests. After
Rev. Wright, the clingers speech, and “typical white person,” one would
have thought that Obama would have tended to avoid the question of
racial tensions.

Members of the Black Caucus have talked a lot about the Trayvon Martin
case, calling it an “assassination” and a “murder” and alleging that
Zimmerman shot Martin down like “a dog.” This too is not new in the age
of Obama. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee said debt arguments showed racial
animosity toward Barack Obama. Rep. Barbara Lee accused Republicans in
racist fashion of trying to deny blacks the vote. Rep. Andre Carson
claimed that the Tea Party wished to lynch blacks from trees. Rep.
Charles Rangel alleged that Rick Perry’s job creation in Texas was “one
stage away from slavery,”

Post-racial icons like Morgan Freeman blasted opposition to Obama with
“It’s a racist thing.” Whoopi Goldberg blurted out, “I’m playing the
damn [race] card” over Obama’s sinking polls.

*Why?*

I could go on and on, but one gets the message. So why the anger at this
point and not, say, in 2007, when the evil Bush was president and Obama
was but a weak senator and a dubious presidential candidate? For eight
years there were African-American secretaries of state. Bush, through
his African AIDS initiatives, saved millions of blacks who had no access
to medicine. Minorities were visible in his cabinet. No one objected to
the fact that Obama garnered 96% of the black vote, or thought much
about it when, in the bitter Democratic primaries, the Clintons alleged
that race was used to whip up support against them. So why, then, the
anger now, when things should have improved even more?

And I do not mean just African-American anger. To read comments
following these stories on the Internet is to enter the world of white
counter-rage at a level I have never seen. We talk of black accusations
of racism, but they are earning a counter-response that is equally
scary, with some irate and others wearied to the point of quietism and
isolation. The lurid Drudge Report weekly posts videos of
African-American teens flash mobbing or attacking and beating whites, in
not so subtle reminders that in terms of violent crime blacks commit
roughly 50% of the offenses, while making up only 11-13% of the
population, and are 7-8 times more likely to harm whites than vice
versa. Indeed, 94% of all blacks who are murdered each year die at the
hands of blacks. The more Eric Holder emphasizes racial distinctions,
the more he seems oblivious to the fact that he is alienating far more
than he is encouraging.

*What Is It All About?*

Two racial narratives without much hope of a compromise seem behind
these different views:

A) The current black leadership believes in the following narrative: Due
to the wages of past American racism and well over a century of Southern
chattel slavery, blacks have been damaged in ways still underappreciated
by whites. Thus, true equal opportunity and justice will take decades
more of instruction, recompense, affirmative action, and set-asides to
achieve real fairness. Whites say that they are not racist, but daily
they do or say things that to others seem very racist. One can be
destructively racist without the overtness of Jim Crow.

When blacks employ the N-word, or a Rev. Wright uses racist language, or
the Black Caucus (or Black Panther Party) employs incendiary vocabulary
that would earn their white counterparts ostracism, all that is a false
equivalence. One must see this apparent asymmetry as a faux-asymmetry,
given the hurt in the black community that suddenly in 2012 cannot quite
be held to the same standards as the inheritors and present
beneficiaries of privilege. If 50% of the black community has achieved
near parity in the half-century since the civil rights reforms, 50% have
not, largely due to the unwillingness of the majority culture to invest
the necessary resources and alter attitudes to finish the job of racial
parity. Therefore continued federal reparatory action is necessary until
100% parity is achieved, to paraphrase Eric Holder. If black crime is
inordinately high, it is largely because of either present racism or the
legacy of racism or both, and continues on due to the general neglect of
the white majority, who objects only when the violence spills into their
own enclaves. As for other minorities, they have suffered from white
racism and may have transcended it, but slavery was a special case and
left an imprint on the American psyche that explains the sensitivity of
black/white relations in ways unlike other racial and ethnic polarities.

*Versus*

B) The counter-narrative is just as uncompromising. It runs I think as
this: We live in a multi-racial society now, where almost every minority
group has genuine claims on past exploitation, from the Holocaust to the
frontier wars to the internment. But after a half-century of hyphenation
and racial identity politics, and a trillion dollars spent on federal
race-based programs, it is time to move beyond race and evaluate
Americans on their behaviors and talents, without worry whether any
particular group statistically does better than another–especially given
that race itself in the 21st century is problematic with intermarriage
and the waves of new immigrants. If we do not, our future is Rwanda,the
Middle East, or the Balkans.

Millions of so-called whites are now adults who grew up in the age of
affirmative action, and have no memory of systemic discrimination. To
the degree some avoid certain schools, neighborhoods, or environments,
they do so only on the basis of statistics, not profiling, that suggest
a higher incidence of inner-city violence and crime. Most in this
generation assume that a B+ white student in state college has none of
the chances to get into law school, medical school, or graduate programs
that a B- African-American student enjoys. If the black leadership were
to preach a more balanced message of both monitoring race-based
discrimination while addressing more vigorously endemic pathologies in
the inner cities (such as illegitimacy, absentee fatherhood, drug use,
crime, violence, misogyny, and anti-intellectualism), most racism would
eventually disappear—as black crime rates, graduation rates, or
illegitimacy rates matched those of the general public. Liberal whites
and black elites profile as much as anyone (consider where they live,
where they put their children in schools, and the fact that they
associate with those quite distant from the inner city).

The phenomenal success of Asians, Punjabis, Armenians, Arabs, Latin
Americans, and other supposedly non Anglo-Saxon groups is proof that the
majority culture holds no one back on the basis of skin color. The crux
for every group is culture, not skin color. Unfortunately, “racism” has
become a careerist tool that leads to political and professional
advantage when the charge is leveled; if there are indeed two black
Americas, then the elite often uses the plight of the non-elite as
arguments for its own claim to exemptions from criticism and often
advantages in admissions and hiring.

Those two narrative don’t match and won’t, and so race relations have
gotten only worse—as Barack Obama and Eric Holder well know. They do not
seem to care or feel there is advantage to be had in the new polarity.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-trayvon-martin-case-and-the-growing-racial-divide/?singlepage=true

Once upon a time – 2005 to be specific – Academy Award Nominee *Roger L.
Simon* got together with *Charles Johnson* (the blogger behind Little
Green Footballs) and *Glenn Reynolds* (the blogger behind Instapundit)
to create a new blog that would shed light on issues important to
Americans through insightful reporting, commentary and analysis. The
mainstream media tried to dismiss them as disgruntled people blogging in
their pajamas. They rejected the evaluation but adopted the name, and
Pajamas Media was born.

What began as an online blog site in 2005 has grown into the must-read
website you are visiting today. Renamed *PJMedia* in 2011, this is the
place where you will find news delivered in its most insightful form.

Read the exceptional reporting of our influential bloggers including
*Victor Davis Hanson*, *Michael Ledeen*, *Claudia Rosett*, *“Spengler”
David Goldman* and many more. And check out our lineup of PJ Columnists
including *Zombie*, *Barry Rubin*, *Roger L. Simon* and *Stephen Green*
where their take on a story is often comical but always right to the
heart of the matter.

Don’t miss the *PJ Tatler* for breaking news and gossip from inside the
beltway. And consult *PJ Lifestyles* for the latest on TV, music,
movies, fashion, technology and food.

At last count, 1.4 million unique visitors come to www.PJMedia.com
<http://www.pjmedia.com/> each month and consume 20 million page views
of our content. And those big numbers keep getting bigger. We want to
count you in that number too. So, enjoy today’s visit, and come back often.

There’s one more big idea we want to share with you.

Beyond covering and commenting on the news, PJ Media is on a mission. We
call it *voices from a free America*.

Our voices work to …

• keep speech free in our society and media,
• ensure free thinking in our schools and media,
• encourage a free and prosperous economy,
• rid our children of massive government debt and an overreaching
government,
• and defend, protect and preserve what made, and will continue to make,
America great.

Add your voice to ours.



--
A mistake not corrected is another mistake. - anon
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #81 on: April 24, 2012, 10:20:21 AM »

Thomas Sowell, black conservative, on a roll again about race and the Zimmerman Trayvon story. (Could also go under Media Issues) Two excerpts:

"the repeated references to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a "white African"?

All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game."
....

"The last line in most of the transcripts shown on TV was that of the police dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to continue following Trayvon Martin.

That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."

That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin. At this point, neither I nor the people who assumed that he continued to follow the teenager have any basis in fact for believing that he did or didn't.

Why was that reply edited out by so many in the media? Because too many people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news to fit their own vision of the world. "
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/24/who_is_racist_113933.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2012, 12:14:54 PM »

Interesting points!

Please copy this on the Self Defense Law thread as well.  TIA
Logged
Dog Robertlk808
Power User
***
Posts: 544


« Reply #83 on: April 24, 2012, 05:09:28 PM »

Quote
Thomas Sowell, black conservative, on a roll again about race and the Zimmerman Trayvon story. (Could also go under Media Issues) Two excerpts:

"the repeated references to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a "white African"?

All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game."


On a personal note I guess I can relate to this half and half thing or whatever.  Being of mixed race or mixed nationalities (1/2 German & 1/2 Samoan) really confused people where I grew up (Belleville, IL) to break it down simply, due to my features and light skin some Caucasian people saw me as something other than white because of my features & they would ask if Im Indian, Eskimo or something else. Even though my features were different but my skin was "white" some African Americans just saw me as "white."  Believe me I got crap from both sides. I also decided to tell people I was Hawaiian because I got tired of saying Im German / Samoan or just Samoan because no one knew where Samoa was.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 06:02:09 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged

"You see, it's not the blood you spill that gets you what you want, it's the blood you share. Your family, your friendships, your community, these are the most valuable things a man can have." Before Dishonor - Hatebreed
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #84 on: April 24, 2012, 06:03:03 PM »

As part of my apparently Sisyphean mission to get people to use the subject line I have taken the liberty of filling yours in for you  cheesy
Logged
Dog Robertlk808
Power User
***
Posts: 544


« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2012, 07:27:45 PM »

Quote
Thomas Sowell, black conservative, on a roll again about race and the Zimmerman Trayvon story. (Could also go under Media Issues) Two excerpts:

"the repeated references to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a "white African"?

All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game."


On a personal note I guess I can relate to this half and half thing or whatever.  Being of mixed race or mixed nationalities (1/2 German & 1/2 Samoan) really confused people where I grew up (Belleville, IL) to break it down simply, due to my features and light skin some Caucasian people saw me as something other than white because of my features & they would ask if Im Indian, Eskimo or something else. Even though my features were different but my skin was "white" some African Americans just saw me as "white."  Believe me I got crap from both sides. I also decided to tell people I was Hawaiian because I got tired of saying Im German / Samoan or just Samoan because no one knew where Samoa was.

LOL, my bad!  Thank you Guro Crafty!
Logged

"You see, it's not the blood you spill that gets you what you want, it's the blood you share. Your family, your friendships, your community, these are the most valuable things a man can have." Before Dishonor - Hatebreed
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #86 on: May 16, 2012, 01:45:00 PM »

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/16/warrens-story-falls-apart/print/

Warren’s Story Falls Apart

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 16, 2012 @ 12:45 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 28 Comments

The wheels have finally fallen off Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s diversity wagon. The reliably leftist Boston Globe has issued a retraction of Warren’s claim that she is 1/32 Cherokee Indian. “Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in the May 1 Metro section and the accompanying headline incorrectly described the 1894 document that was purported to list Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee,” the paper writes. “The document, alluded to in a family newsletter found by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, was an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Neither the society nor the Globe has seen the primary document, whose existence has not been proven.” The original story? A headline piece in the Sunday Metro section. The correction? The third item on the correction page, typically buried deep in the paper. The larger issue? The transparent efforts of a biased media to maintain the fiction as long as possible.

The Globe’s original story, published on May 1st, reported that a document proved Warren’s claim. “A record unearthed Monday shows that US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has a great-great-great grandmother listed in an 1894 document as a Cherokee, said a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society.” The same day the Boston Herald reported that “the Harvard Law professor’s campaign last night finally came up with what they claim is a Cherokee connection–her great-great-great-grandmother.” ABC News also did a May 1st report, noting that genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Association ”set out to hunt down Warren’s ancestry last Thursday. In less than a week, he discovered documents citing an 1894 marriage record that lists Warren’s great-great-great grandmother, O. C. Sarah Smith as Cherokee, meaning that Warren is 1/32nd Native American.”

On May 4th the New York Times  took it a step further, claiming that Republican opponent Scott Brown’s questioning of Warren’s assertion “is straight from the Republican cookbook of fake controversy,” and that “Massachusetts Republicans place doubts on her racial claims to portray her as an opportunistic academic seeking special treatment.” Writer Kevin Noble Maillard, a law professor enrolled as a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, offer his own take on the controversy. “For the Cherokee Nation, Warren is ‘Indian enough;’ she has the same blood quantum as Cherokee Nation Chief Bill John Baker,” he wrote.

The meme, “Warren is 1/32 Cherokee” continued to be promoted by several different news outlets, most of which did nothing more than regurgitate the original story, absent any independent fact-checking. These included CBS News, the Huffington Post and the Associated Press. The most hilarious assertion regarding Warren’s claim came courtesy of the Washington Post’s David Treuer. In a column entitled, “Elizabeth Warren says she’s Native American. So she is.,” Treuer makes the absurd claim that “an Indian identity is something someone claims for oneself; it is a matter of choice.” He further excuses Warren’s assertion, contending that “to be a woman from Oklahoma of working-class upbringing — and to want not only to walk the halls of power but to help build them — you have to press whatever advantage you have. Doing so might seem distasteful to those who’ve never had to do it because they were born into privilege and power.” In other words, lying is acceptable — as long as one’s lower class and purported ethnicity qualifies one to do so.

Despite the mainstream media pile-on, it didn’t take long to prove that Elizabeth Warren’s assertion was nothing more than wishful thinking. Breitbart.com was apparently willing to do something most other news organizations were unwilling to do: conduct an actual investigation of Warren’s assertion. They reviewed original marriage records found in the files of the Logan County, Oklahoma Court Clerk’s office in Guthrie, Oklahoma, and spoke with Logan County Court clerk ReJeania Zmek. Breitbart discovered that the original May 12, 1894 marriage license and the corresponding May 13, 1894 certificate of marriage of William J. Crawford, great-great-grand uncle of Elizabeth Warren, and Mary E. (Long) Wolford contains a column for the race of the bride and the groom — but both of them left it blank

Zmek offered another indication that something was amiss. “In modern times we keep marriage license applications,” she said. “The way they’re issued now, you do the application, then you do the license. We currently do keep records of marriage license applications.” Yet she revealed that this practice didn’t begin until 1950.

Zmek then revealed (probably inadvertently) why many Americans consider mainstream media claims of even-handed reporting beneath contempt. She confirmed to Breitbart that “no other news organization had contacted her to date on any national topic or to inquire about the validity of this purported 1894 Logan County, Oklahoma marriage license application or anything related to the 1894 marriage of William J. Crawford.”

Such “errors of omission” might be acceptable were it evenly applied to both sides of the political spectrum. Yet one need only compare the Washington Post’s recent effort to portray Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney as an anti-gay bully based on a single incident that happened 47 years ago with the mainstream media’s calculated incuriosity regarding large portions of president Obama’s life, which still remain off the record almost four years into his time in office. Furthermore, as the Journolist scandal of 2008 reveals, leftist media members coordinated efforts to keep Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary rhetoric from damaging the president during that election run.

Elizabeth Warren can continue to insist that she is part Cherokee, whether based on dubious assertions, like her grandfather having “high cheekbones,” or ridiculous rationale such as the claim that she did so “in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am.” And the leftist media can continue to protect her by asserting that she didn’t use such claims to advance her career. But the fact remains that the University of Pennsylvania, who listed her as a minority in a “Minority Equity Report” from 1987 to 1994, and Harvard University, who listed her as a diversity hire in 1996, were more than willing to do so based on nothing more than hearsay. And the mainstream media, as well as the New England Historic Genealogical Association, which is now saying that “the original [marriage license] application cannot be located” were also willing to take Warren at face value, or base their entire assertions of proof on an unsubstantiated March 2006 family newsletter quoting an amateur genealogist.

Yet it remains to be seen if the people of Massachusetts will be as flexible regarding the truth on election day next November. Undoubtedly they will base their votes for either Republican Scott Brown or Warren on a number of issues. Warren might want to hope that personal credibility isn’t one of them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/16/warrens-story-falls-apart/

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2012, 05:51:56 PM »

Woof All:

A ways back JDN pushed me to flesh out a passing comment I made about "right to discriminate".  The subject being an explosive one, full of opportunities to be taken the wrong way and life being short, invariably there have been other things to do first.

However I now have and share here what I regard as well-reasoned and well-written by a friend of mine for whose IQ, education, and patriotism I have great respect.  Though he no longer practices, his having been an attorney informs what he writes here.

Marc
=======================

The US Constitution is the contract by which the federal government was granted certain specific powers.  All other powers were retained by the States and the People.  This is no different than any other type of contract under which the parties to the contract possess only those powers granted them under the terms of the contract.  The fact that you and I might have a specific business contract for a specific project does not give either of us the power to force the other to behave in certain ways in matters that are not specifically delineated in the contract.

The US Constitution was not written or amended in order to force individuals to behave in certain ways except in those specific instances where it explicitly says so.  The primary example of this type of provision is the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery.  That amendment was directed specifically at the behavior of slavery from the People, the States and the federal government.  Contrast the language of the 13th Amendment with the language of the 14th Amendment that is directed specifically at the States.  The due process and equal protection clauses begin, “No State shall …”  If you recall, the Civil Rights laws in 1868 and 1964 negated State laws that authorized racial discrimination under the authority of the 14th Amendment because persons of all races born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US and of the State in which they reside.  (That was a specific rejection of the Dred Scott decision that said that because Scott was born of slave blood in Virginia, he was not a citizen of the US or of the non-slave States in which he resided after his birth.)  But again, these laws technically struck down State Jim Crow laws that made racial discrimination lawful and permitted State and local governments to require it.

Anti-discrimination laws go much further than the US Constitution.  They grant preferences to certain groups.  They criminalize certain personal behavior.  They prohibit individuals from making certain choices on the basis of the behavior of the persons against whom the individual wishes to discriminate.  I believe that people should discriminate based upon behavior – not race.  If we cannot discriminate based upon behavior, then society will move towards anarchy.  I believe that those laws are beyond the reach of the federal government. 

And where would the power of the federal government end?  Should anyone’s vote for Obama and against Romney be invalidated because it was based upon anti-Mormonism?  Should any vote for a gay marriage referendum be invalidated because it was based upon the voter’s belief that the influence of traditional organized religions should be eliminated?

People have the right to make decisions for reasons that others deem stupid or bad.  The federal government does not have the power to force people to think or act in one certain way.  And the core of the social contract called the US Constitution are the words in our Declaration of Independence that point out specifically that all governmental authority comes from the consent of the governed – not some other source whether that source be a divine right or an elite university education.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #88 on: June 25, 2012, 08:37:04 AM »

Crafty, thank you for returning to this question.  It is an excellent post and a good beginning.  Much of what your friend says is well-reasoned and I agree.  However I found the following paragraph a bit misleading.


"Anti-discrimination laws go much further than the US Constitution.  They grant preferences to certain groups.  They criminalize certain personal behavior.  They prohibit individuals from making certain choices on the basis of the behavior of the persons against whom the individual wishes to discriminate.  I believe that people should discriminate based upon behavior – not race.  If we cannot discriminate based upon behavior, then society will move towards anarchy.  I believe that those laws are beyond the reach of the federal government."

A "behavior" is usually defined as "an observable activity in a human or animal."

For example, I don't like rude boorish people so I tend to avoid them.  Also, I don't like people who constantly criticize America.  I can and do discriminate/avoid them based upon their behavior.  It's legal. 

However, behavior is not the issue.  I can terminate anyone, including an African American for incompetence, however I should not be able to terminate an African American simply because I don't like blacks.  Race, color, gender, creed are the basis of wrongful discrimination.  That's wrong. Especially in public.  It's not a behavioral issue.

Discrimination has no place if you believe,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #89 on: June 25, 2012, 09:14:06 AM »

Women's equal opportunity law in sports....  The Ann Meyers Drysdale story.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-pugmire-qa-20120625,0,6717823.story
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #90 on: June 25, 2012, 10:16:43 AM »

Cute story that a big Olympic star in a BIG money sport could get a break, but fhe unintended consequence of Title IX is that local girls here can no longer play for the University.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #91 on: June 25, 2012, 02:28:55 PM »

JDN: 

I suspect his comment about prohibiting discrimination based upon behavior to be a reference to anti-gay discrimination.

As for the rest, agreed that one should discriminate based upon behavior not group membership (though worth noting is that we all know of the burdens of a lawsuit alleging discrimination in response to firing someone for behavior and/or a class action suit alleging disparate impact) but you have yet to address the asssertion that the Constitution does not grant the power to make such discrimination illegal.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #92 on: June 26, 2012, 09:18:59 AM »

Cute story that a big Olympic star in a BIG money sport could get a break, but fhe unintended consequence of Title IX is that local girls here can no longer play for the University.

"the local girls can no longer play for the University".  Why not if they are good enough?  It they are not good enough, they can play for a smaller college.  Or even on Club teams.

"BIG money sport"?  Women's Basketball?  You must be kidding.  huh  Nearly all women's sports lose money including Basketball. 

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-05/sports/30039309_1_program-revenue-national-championship-game
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2012, 01:07:56 PM »

... but fhe unintended consequence of Title IX is that local girls here can no longer play for the University.
"the local girls can no longer play for the University".  Why not if they are good enough?  It they are not good enough, they can play for a smaller college.  Or even on Club teams."

Or they can just to hell but what I wrote was that they can not play Div I for the local land grant University because of Title IX.  The state taxpayer pays instead for world class players from foreign countries to take those spots. In my daughter's sport, a 3 time state champion plays 6th (last) singles. How many local girls do you think are better than that?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2012, 01:18:19 PM »

I don't mean to intrude, but I must confess to not seeing the logic of blaming Title IX on this. There are many local land grant colleges with many sports which feature male athletes from other states. Is Title IX to blame for Big 12 and Big Ten recruiting football players in the South? And, colleges and universities have been recruiting international talent for years. Of course, many of those were for academic scholarships....
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2012, 02:01:12 PM »

Probably the thought of rape and pillage by divisions of gays would frighten the Iranians more than airstrikes.  I am not against gays living their lives left alone but this is out of control:

****Pentagon To Hold First-Ever Gay Pride Event Tuesday
By Elizabeth Flock

June 25, 2012 RSS Feed Print 
In this July 16, 2011 photo, two women, both active duty sailors in the Navy who gave their names as Nikki, left, and Lisa, kiss as they march in the Gay Pride Parade in San Diego.
Less than a year after the Defense Department's "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy toward gay and lesbian service members was repealed, the Pentagon says it will hold its first-ever Gay Pride event Tuesday.

The event is likely to be a more toned-down version of the Gay Pride parades that take place every June in cities around the world—sans the flags, wigs, beads and boas. (Though some have suggested rainbow camo or berets.)

Instead, the Pentagon has planned a somber-sounding panel discussion entitled "The Value of Open Service and Diversity," according to a Defense Department press release.

The event will also have a keynote speaker: the Pentagon's top lawyer Jeh Johnson, who co-chaired the 2010 study on how a DADT repeal might affect combat operations, housing and other issues, according to the Washington Post.

Johnson, along with co-chair U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, concluded in the study: "While a repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting."

Several months after the report, in December 2010, DADT was repealed.

As Gay Pride events took place across the country this month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued his own Pride Month message to gays and lesbians in the military, saying he was "very proud of how we implemented repeal" of DADT. "Diversity is one of our greatest strengths," he said.
Elizabeth Flock is a staff writer for U.S. News & World Report. You can contact her at eflock@usnews.com or follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2012, 04:26:52 PM »

I don't mean to intrude, but I must confess to not seeing the logic of blaming Title IX on this. There are many local land grant colleges with many sports which feature male athletes from other states. Is Title IX to blame for Big 12 and Big Ten recruiting football players in the South? And, colleges and universities have been recruiting international talent for years. Of course, many of those were for academic

Intrusions always welcome!

Blame seems so negative, I am just saying there is an unambiguous cause and effect relationship. Title IX causes the full rides to.be offered in non-revenue women's sports and the full rides cause those spots to be taken by player better than available locally. Some might find that to be a good thing. I'm just saying it's a fact.

Schorlarships in men's revenue sports are not caused by Title IX, they are limited by it. The local policy choice may have the same effect, but I don't see the parallel to Title IX.

Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2012, 04:41:28 PM »

I don't mean to intrude, but I must confess to not seeing the logic of blaming Title IX on this. There are many local land grant colleges with many sports which feature male athletes from other states. Is Title IX to blame for Big 12 and Big Ten recruiting football players in the South? And, colleges and universities have been recruiting international talent for years. Of course, many of those were for academic

Intrusions always welcome!

Schorlarships in men's revenue sports are not caused by Title IX, they are limited by it. The local policy choice may have the same effect, but I don't see the parallel to Title IX.



Thanks... I like your spirit, DMG. What you say about scholarships in men's sports is only sort of true. For example, the NCAA limited the number of scholarships for football not because of Title IX, but because of programs like Oklahoma having something like 90 scholarship athletes and winning 50 games in a row. It is true that sports such as wrestling (a sport I love, by the way) have cut scholarships, or even the program all together. However, it is also true that many of the non-revenue women's sports (which, as JDN correctly points out is pretty much all of them), there would be no scholarships for the women to play them, no matter where they are from.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #98 on: June 29, 2012, 12:57:12 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christian-student-expelled-over-her-views-on-homosexuality-loses-lawsuit-against-ga-university/
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #99 on: June 29, 2012, 07:50:59 PM »


I don't think the title is accurate. Shewas expelled not for her views, but for the expression of these views. We don't what she said, or how we said it (according to the article). There as long been the view that not all speech is protected. Libel, slander, "fighting words," "hate" speech all fall into that category. Not only can you not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, you also can't incite a riot. Without knowing what she said, we can't really know if the action of the university is cause for alarm.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!