The Kennebunkport Hillbilly (sung to the tune of The Beverly Hillbillies Theme Song)

Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy name Bush. His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush. He drank like a fish while he drove all about. But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out. that is.Criminal record.Cover-up.

Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale. He can't spell his name but they never let him fail. He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk. And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke. Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.

The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam. Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom." Let the common people get maimed and scarred. We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard. Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.

Twenty years later George gets a little bored. He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord. He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be." So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP. Gun owners, that is.Falwell.Jesse Helms.

Come November 7, the election ran late. Kin folks said "Jeb, give the boy your state!" Don't let those colored folks get into the polls." So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes. Chads, that is. Duval County. & Miami-Dade.

Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in. Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win." Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation. And that's how George finally got his coronation. Rigged, that is. Illegitimate.No moral authority. Y'all come vote now.Ya hear? Paid for by the Katherine Harris Foundation for Corrective Plastic Surgery.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 05, 2001

Answers

FS,

Why is it "funny" when the liberals trash a white male conservative, but "racist" or "sexist" or when the conservatives mock a woman or person of color?

Why do liberals decry judging a woman based on superficial characteristics like physical appearance and then attack Katherine Harris for her choice in makeup or clothing?

Why is do liberals consider drug abuse and addiction a tragedy when it impacts the poor or a Hollywood celebrity... but consider it a source of humor when a conservative is involved.

What is funny about insinuating Florida used "Jim Crow" tactics to turn away African-American voters? Or about the United States Supreme Court "coronating" a presidential candidate?

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, FS, but I think even President Clinton deserves a measure of respect if only for the office he occupies. The more disturbing aspect of the coarse little ditty is the ugly hypocrisy it suggests. Liberals have demanded society treat women, persons of color and other "disenfranchised" people with respect bordering on adulation. It would seem some don't mind engaging in the same nasty behavior they find so reprehensible in their political opponents.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

Surely you don't mean what I think you meant when you said:

Liberals have demanded society treat women, persons of color and other "disenfranchised" people...

I take that to mean that you think women and people of color are "disenfranchised" people? Either that, or you put your thoughts so poorly you shouldn't be putting them in writing.

I hate to argue with people, Ken. However, you ignored our discussion about "facts" and male-dominated history on the last thread we spoke on, and I can't just keep ignoring what I believe is your tendency towards misogynist attitudes. I think you, and all people of all colors and gender, should be proud of who they are and quit whining about what a raw deal they're getting.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), January 05, 2001.

BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!

Good one FS!!

-- poor Ken crying (we feel @ your. pain), January 05, 2001.

"Netscape,"

I meant exactly what I said... women and persons of color, as large, social groups in America, contend they are "disenfranchised." They have complained about this at length. Otherwise, why would affirmative action exist?

More to the issue at hand, members and advocates of these groups have complained bitterly about men and/or whites engaging in sexist or racist humor. I have noticed, however, that at least some members of these groups feel it perfectly appropriate to engage in the same type of sexist or racist humor. Liberals (of varying gender and ethnicity) trumpet the virtues of sensitivity and political correctness. Some also enjoy a good belly laugh at the last male- bashing cartoon in Cosmo.

Frankly, I think we're saddled with a coarse, vulgar culture... perhaps an inevitable price of free speech. I think mocking a person because of their physical appearance (or style choices) is petty and small-minded. What I find more repugnant, however, is the hypocrisy.

How can liberals argue for "hate crime" legislation and draconian punishments for the slightest violations of PC codes... and then giggle at the above song?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

So, Ken, do we need to outlaw parody? I think you insult me with your comments, as I do not believe I have ever deridded obvious parody of Clinton or Gore. Sure I have debated against the various allegations made toward both of them, but I am also sure I would laugh just as hardily over a good parody of anyone, including myself, I support. You do remember that thread where someone on tb uncensored parodied all the regulars, right? I will paste in the url if I find it. Someone butchered me and I thought it was hilarious.

When we take ourselves too seriously we take all the fun out of life. This is a particularly clever parody, and if I find one of Gore or Alec Baldwin, I promise I will post it.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 05, 2001.

FS, that was funny.

I even had the song going in my head. too cute.

A world too serious.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 05, 2001.

Affirmative Action exists because people were being discriminated against based on intrinsic characteristics such as their gender and/or race. Affirmative Action may not be the best remedy now, nearly forty years after it was put in place, but it was very necessary in the early 60's.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 05, 2001.

I have never said we need to outlaw "parody" or any other form of expression. The song is not a parody... unless Gov. Bush was the author or recording artist of the Beverly Hillbillies theme song. It's just a series of personal attacks hewn to fit a well worn tune.

How do you feel about Ted Danson's 1993 Friar's Club appearance in blackface?

The problem, FS, is we all have different places we draw line between what is humorous and what is offensive. You might think it's great fun to called a drug-abusing, combat-dodging moron... You might be the first to chuckle at "black jokes" or "blonde jokes." You have the right, just like Mr. Danson, to don blackface, use racial slurs and eat watermelon. Someone might find it funny.

On the other hand, someone might find it offensive.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

I meant exactly what I said... women and persons of color, as large, social groups in America, contend they are "disenfranchised."

Gee, Ken. I've never actually met anyone in my life who complains about being disenfranchised (except a very few white males[such as yourself] and a few rare people on the evening news [you know they're rare or they wouldn't be on the news!]). I thought you were intelligent enough not to lump people into groups like that. Oh well. I guess maybe I'd better spend more of my time searching for those "large, social groups" I'm so painfully unaware of because you say it's that prevalent.

"Otherwise, why would affirmative action exist?"

I don't deny it exists, I only deny it exists in any meaningful manner because it's not that meaningful to begin with. I only know of one affirmative action representative in any Federal agency, and the ACLU defends everyone, regardless of race, creed, etc. The whole world isn't out to get you, Ken. Most people don't care about the color of someone's skin or their gender as long as they get their work done and don't get personal. If people are treating you badly, probably the reason isn't really because you're a white male, but you are just extending that thought. I think that's the same mistake those people who are interviewed on the news make. People like you can't possibly believe there might be something else wrong with your personalities or actions! Grow up. The rest of us "disenfranchised" hoardes have...it's your turn.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), January 05, 2001.

Netscape,

I suppose everyone should stop doing social research and simply call you. Since you haven't heard anyone complain about being disenfranchised, it must not be an issue. (sigh)

While this may startle you, the world is much than your back yard. An entire body of law has been developed on the premise that women and persons of color had been victimized by institutional barriers, i.e., affirmative action. Advocacy groups like NOW and the NAACP have made it their mission to address the problem.

These groups demand that society treat gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., as classes... not individuals. And society has. We have laws that give preference to a Harvard-educated African American woman from a wealthy family over a white male high school dropout. Gender matters. Race matters.

As Tarzan notes, there was a clear case for affirmative action... and it has worked. The case is not as clear now, given the strides made by women and persons of color. Frankly, I don't know.

I also don't know why you feel compelled to take a policy argument and make it personal. Affirmative action has not harmed me. I don't feel "abused" by anyone. When someone tells a racist joke, I think someone else ought to have the moral courage to be offended. It doesn't matter to me if the joke is anti-white or anti-black.

Consistency... a slippery concept, but one well worth learning.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

Oh please. I'll tell you what...since you don't know who I know and what experiences I've had...and I don't know who you know and what kinds of experiences you've had...let's use our common ground. There are males and females who post here, and I challenge you to find any posts where a woman or a person of color complained about their lot in life. Most people graciously accept who they are, (Gasp! They're even proud of who they are!) work to build a better life, and don't complain about it. (Except you, of course.) Oh, wait! I remember a fat person complaining about fat discrimination once. Darn. That must make you right. One person out of dozens complained about something they have some control over and that means women and people of color sit around and whine all day. What was I thinking? Your argument is bullsh*t, Ken.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), January 05, 2001.

Netscape,

If ONE person in dozens is going to file a lawsuit against you, you are in REAL trouble considering the costs and time commitments they require, and the fact that for a large corporation that means a LOT of lawsuits. If I thought I'd have to run that gauntlet to get something done, I wouldn't do it. You'd waste time and energy and in the end no one would be happy anyway. Even one person in 10,000 is a big problem, considering people are filing for multiple millions in damages in each case now.

There's a very practical, though unspoken reality here. If an employee doesn't work out and they are white and male, it's not difficult to end their employment. If an equally incompetent black female is to be let go, how much extra documentation and consulting with the lawyers do you think gets done BEFORE you can dismiss them?

That being the case, and knowing in some industries a small but significant percent of employees don't work out, who would you hire, everything else being equal? Would a person's gender or race affect your judgement at all after you were burned once or twice? Unfair to the next guy who's probably great, but then you have your own family to provide for.

Utopia, sweet Utopia,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 05, 2001.

I think that before Affirmative Action could be profitably discussed, it should be defined. To the extent it means promoting and requiring racial "preferences" (the euphemism for racial discrimination), it was ALWAYS wrong, IMO. In other ways, it's less pernicious, or might be ok (e.g., outreach programs).

It was/is wrong because for every person who benefited from a racial preference there was/is someone who's had his or her individual rights (e.g., life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) violated as a direct consequence of the "preference".

You can't give a "preference" to someone without taking away something from someone else. And, in the case of Affirmative Action, that "something" is a basic right.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 05, 2001.

If an employee doesn't work out and they are white and male, it's not difficult to end their employment. If an equally incompetent black female is to be let go, how much extra documentation and consulting with the lawyers do you think gets done BEFORE you can dismiss them?

Very little. As long as you are prepared to show that the employee was incompetent and you are in an at-will employment state, there won't be a problem, regardless of race. As an employer, your burden under the law is to prove that you treated the employee fairly and in the same manner as the others.

We had a layoff last summer where a disgruntled employee alleged discrimination. The EEOC gave us a call and asked for employment data on those who had been retained and those who had been let go. They asked to see data on race, age, gender, salary, and results of last performance evaluation. We provided that data, which showed that race, gender, and age weren't factors but that salary and poor evaluations were. It took all of about four hours to compile. The suit was promptly dropped for lack of grounds. The EEOC has better things to do than investigate employers who aren't practicing discrimination.

the results of That being the case, and knowing in some industries a small but significant percent of employees don't work out, who would you hire, everything else being equal? Would a person's gender or race affect your judgement at all after you were burned once or twice? Unfair to the next guy who's probably great, but then you have your own family to provide for.

Unfair and patently illegal. The law says you can't make employment decisions based on race, gender, age, veteran status, family status or ability (with reasonable accomodations), not that you can disciminate against white men.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 05, 2001.

One more thing. Proving you didn't get a job because of discrimination is damn difficult. Unless you have access to and knowledge of the other applicants and specific proof that you didn't get the job because for an illegal reason (such as a note on your file), you're pretty much SOL. Most employers are smart enough to not write "Great candidate, if only he were white," on a resume.

Of course, if you're ignorant enough of employment laws to believe you can't fire a member of a certain group for a reason totally unrelated to their intrinsic qualities, then why would you hire a person you believe will eventually invite a lawsuit in the first place?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 05, 2001.

Netscape,

Even though I've seen Ken agrue about the "taste" of some posts (including KOS mud wrestling requests), I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this forum take your viewpoint that affirmative action doesn't have meaning. I wouldn't be here without affirmative action, where companies needed to up their female quotos.

This just boggles my mind. Since no one has ever complained to you about their lot in life, you can conclude that *we* are all satisfied with the way society treats us. Get a grip bud! Discrimination is out there and Ken's point is well noted.

Feminists are the first to "parody" Katherine Harris when they should be applauding all women who advance themselves beyond the "baking cookies" (to repeat a Hillary phrase which they supported) stage in life. Ken points out the hypocrisy and I see it too.

Now I don't know much about you but let me guess that you're not gay, nor black, nor Chinese. Can I assume you're a white male living no where near a ghetto or project? Do you also think that racial targeting doesn't exist?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 05, 2001.

Maria-

Don't sell yourself short. While the EEOC keeps track of the race, gender, age, ability and veteran status of private sector employees, they do not impose any guidelines on private buisnesses.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 05, 2001.

Netscape,

Our "common ground" is not remotely suitable as a basis for discussion. A miniscule Internet forum where most users have anonymous handles and hardly constitute a representative sample. Let's try Social Statistics 101 and actually look for data sources other than your personal experiences and this obscure forum.

EEOC Charges

This links shows you the number of charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

EEOC Data

And this link takes you to the entire EEOC database. People do complain about discrimmination. In fact, entire organization are devoted to advancing the cause of women, African Americans and other aggrieved groups.

NAACP

There are no end of books, journals and other media dedicated to the cause of oppressed persons. Consider popular author Suan Faludi and her book: "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."

I could provide pages of links to substantiate the claim that women and persons of color do complain about their lot in life... and that some of these claims may be justified. I can also demonstrate that America has become a culture where victim status confers distinct benefits.

Powerful advocacy lobby constantly to improve the benefits of victim status. African American groups want reparations. So do Native American tribes. Affirmative action, quotas, MBE requirements, WBE requirements, special scholarship and funding for minorities, hate crime legislation, empowerment zones, enterprise zones, etc.

Now, how about a response based on data and what I actually said rather than another mindless personal attack?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

I ditto Tarzan's words. I am in a position to hire/fire and these things NEVER enter into the equation. As far as you being offended, Ken, I am sorry. Maybe this song does not fit the exact definition of parody, like what weird al yankovich does, but it is certainly lampoon-I do not see any rascist jokes in the song. It is a given that there is cruelty in most humor, and some truth in every "joke". You are right that the invisible line is different for everyone-I was wrong to think everyone would find it funny-who dies and left me the boss of what may or not be funny?

As far as Eve's comments, a dilemma is presented. If not affirmative action, would would you have proposed to solve the problem of blatant discrimination in the workplace against people of color and women? Libertarian views often fail when practical solutions are sought-the views often point to an ideal state of man-surely no one should be systematically passed over-but the unfortunate facts are that before affirmative action, many many people were systematically eliminated because of race, religion, and gender.

Eve, what would have been a better solution?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 05, 2001.

Ken-

Are you saying that you are opposed to reparations for Native Americans? What about for Japanese Americans who were interred in war camps during WWII?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 05, 2001.

For the billionth time... personal experience does not equal social research. Gender or race may not matter to you in your particular position, but it does matter to many American workers and businesses. Have you ever managed a contract with an MBE/WBE requirement? Have you ever been investigated by the EEOC? Have you ever been sued for discrimminatory hiring practices? These things happen every day... you want more links?

FS, should a woman who lives in small town America say that urban violence is not a problem because she doesn't see it everyday?

As for humor, I think a fair amount of harm is done under the guise of "making a joke." If I'm standing with a group of people and someone tells a racist joke, I'll leave. If the joke is patently offensive, I'll say something before I leave.

Whatever my opinion of President Clinton as a human being, he is still the president. The office deserves respect, if not the man. I feel the same way towards Gov. Bush. First, the man is the president- elect. Second, I don't he deserves ridicule simply because he is a conservative with limited public speaking skills. I don't think he should be mocked because he may or may not have had a drinking problem or used illegal drugs.

There is a difference between good-natured ribbing and mean-spirited ridicule. Your song clearly falls into the latter category.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

Tarzan,

I have not researched the reparations issue, however, I think the "generousity" of the American gov't has created the horrific reservation system. The impulse to make amends is powerful and often noble. On the other hand, I do not think one can "fix" things simply by writing a check. Look what happened with the welfare system and its culture of dependence. If you wrote a big check to every Native American living today, it would do as much harm as good. I have spent some time on reservations and working with Native American youth. You can see the road paved with good intentions.

I wish I had a better answer.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

FS, there are few times when I agree with Ken, but I do agree with his (and Maria's) post. This song, I suppose is parody, but the meter bites. Worse than that, the "parody" should only insult Bush and the GOP--but it goes beyond that. And that's why I'm not really laughing at this one. (Perhaps they should try again? This time let's see if they can stick to "Bush and his Coronation" theme.)

Mar.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), January 05, 2001.

Thank you for linking to those sites because I think they illustrate my point perfectly. At the EEOC site, it stated that there were 77,444 charges filed. That's less than 100,000 people in a country of how many million?

At the NAACP site, it states that there is somewhere over 500,000 members.

"The NAACP is now a network of more than 2,200 affiliates covering all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Japan and Germany. Headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, total membership exceeds 500,000."

Ok, let's say that there are a million or so people in the world that feel disenfranchised enough to join an organization or file a complaint because of it. Heck! Let's make it 2 million to make it interesting! There have always been complainers in the world and there always will, but what you have demonstrated is that there is a minority of people complaining about it. You are still the only person I hear whining here, Ken. No one else has joined in this thread (so far) and said, "I'm treated badly because I'm (fill in the blank)." Just you!

You know what I've noticed? I've noticed you can make personal attacks (i.e. Brian over at Poole's) but you can't stand it when someone calls you on your faulty thinking. (You can dish it out but you can't take it.) I don't want to get personal with you. I don't even like to argue. However, I can't stand it when I hear a white guy whining that he's got the short end of the stick because he's a white guy. Boy, if this isn't irony, I don't know what is.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), January 05, 2001.

These groups demand that society treat gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., as classes... not individuals. And society has. We have laws that give preference to a Harvard-educated African American woman from a wealthy family over a white male high school dropout. Gender matters. Race matters.

Let's get one thing straight. EEOC complaints and civil rights laws are not about classes of people but about discrimination based on intrinsic characteristics. If these laws were based on classes they would not be written so as to be applicable to everyone. If your white high school drop-out were more qualified for a job than the black female Harvard grad and he could prove that the decision was made solely on race, the case would be investigated by the EEOC just as any other case. If the EEOC decided the case was without merit, the drop-out could still file suit. Moreover, sexual orientation is the one intrinsic category that is NOT covered by the EEOC.

I know of no laws requiring private employers to give preferential treatment to an individual based on an intrinsic trait. In fact, the EEOC's own guidelines on Affirmative Action consistantly treat it as a voluntary set of guidelines which may be used as a tool to remedy discrimination (which means such a program could be court-ordered in indvidual cases).

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 05, 2001.

I just looked up the number of employed people at Ask Jeeves (It doesn't allow us to look at their source). I don't have any reason to believe these figures aren't accurate though.

Link

"Labor force: 139.4 million (includes unemployed) (1999)

Labor force - by occupation: managerial and professional 30.3%, technical, sales and administrative support 29.2%, services 13.4%, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and crafts 24.5%, farming, forestry, and fishing 2.6% (1999) note: figures exclude the unemployed

Unemployment rate: 4.2% (1999)"

I still say there aren't all that many people complaining compared to the number of people here. But hey! Maybe you're listening to people who are unemployed! (That would make sense!)

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), January 05, 2001.

Love your logic, Netscape. Crime must not be a problem because felons only comprise a small part of the population. The EEOC, NAACP and NOW are representative of larger issues. I'm not arguing that everyone is the victim of discrimination. I'm arguing that there are groups of people (by definition, a minority is less than a majority) who complain bitterly about discrimination.

If you actually bother reading, I made a point to say that I do not feel aggrieved. I am not "complaining" or claiming victim status. I do think that gender discrimation and racial bias are problems in America. By your logic, these are not problems. Everyone just loves being black, white, yellow or red; works hard and doesn't complain. Are you living in America? Have you heard of Jesse Jackson, Jr., or Al Sharpton?

Where do you live? Wonderbread, Ohio?

Racist and sexist attitudes are perpetuated by people with your "head in the sand" attitude. America does have real (and imagined) problems around race and gender. We have serious problems around "class." We have become a coarse, vulgar society where it is acceptable to ridicule people in the name of humor... unless you live or work in a PC zone. In PC zones, the only racism or sexism that is tolerated is that directed at a mythical male, anglo ruling class.

You can attack all day, Netscape. Until I see some coherence in your writing, I'm not going to worry much.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

ok, I'll nibble where the hell is wonderbread ohio?

Kb? help me out here or is Ken really exercising a sense of humor today? :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 05, 2001.

FS,

You said,

"...a dilemma is presented. If not affirmative action, would would you have proposed to solve the problem of blatant discrimination in the workplace against people of color and women? Libertarian views often fail when practical solutions are sought-the views often point to an ideal state of man-surely no one should be systematically passed over-but the unfortunate facts are that before affirmative action, many many people were systematically eliminated because of race, religion, and gender. Eve, what would have been a better solution?"

As a libertarian, I believe that private businesspeople have the right to be idiots and engage in irrational racial (or other) discrimination. But, I don't think most would. I mean, for example, if a black genius came along and the company needed someone with his expertise, why would they pass over him?

And if a black customer offered to make a huge purchase, what businessperson would pass him over?

In the public sector, cases of discrimination should be treated individually. That is, to the extent discrimination has been shown in a particular case, the personn who was discriminated against should get the appropriate redress.

This is much better than, say, punishing an innocent person (through a racial preference program) for offenses committed by another.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 05, 2001.

Tar, thanks :) I didn't think anyone "heard" me.

Netscape, have you ever walked in someone else's shoes. Try a pair of high heels. A coworker (male) laughed at me once because I wore flat shoes. I could no longer stand (literally) high heels.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 05, 2001.

Tarzan,

In practice, EEOC complaints and civil rights laws protect minorities. Nonminorities have sued for protection under civil rights laws, however, affirmative action and quotas for minorities have been upheld by the judicial system. See Steelworkers v. Weber 443 US 193. In addition, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1991 to address ruling from a right-leaning court. Preferences based on class (gov't contracts) were upheld in Adarand Constructors v. Pena. (WBE/MBE/DBE)

Your wording on "private" employers neatly sidesteps the requirements of public and quasi-public entities... not to mention the requirements mandated by almost any gov't contract, grant or loan. Nor do you acknowledge the effect of successful litation. Directly and indirectly, public and private employers are forced to act carefully in hiring, discipling and firing workers. Gender and race matter in the workplace.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

Oh one other thing. Just because someone doesn't complain doesn't mean all is well. I read a statistic once that 10 children die each day from abuse. That really wasn't the thing that hit me hard but the realization of the numbers must be living through the abuse (and of all kinds).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 05, 2001.

The Pope, a woman, a black guy and Ken Decker walk into a bar...

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 05, 2001.

In practice, EEOC complaints and civil rights laws protect minorities.

In practice, discrimination affects minorities.

Nonminorities have sued for protection under civil rights laws, however, affirmative action and quotas for minorities have been upheld by the judicial system. See Steelworkers v. Weber 443 US 193.

Interesting you should bring up Steelworkers v. Weber. It's an example of a voluntary, temporary affirmative action program created without any government involvement. The fact that it was both voluntary and temporary figured strongly in Justice Brennan's decision.

While we're talking about court cases, you should review Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, where the court found that public employers could not lay off white workers to protect the jobs of black workers.

In addition, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1991 to address ruling from a right-leaning court. Preferences based on class (gov't contracts) were upheld in Adarand Constructors v. Pena. (WBE/MBE/DBE)

Adarand or no, minority set aside laws have been struck down recently in Ohio, Atlanta, Florida, Kansas, Detroit, New York, etc.

Your wording on "private" employers neatly sidesteps the requirements of public and quasi-public entities... not to mention the requirements mandated by almost any gov't contract, grant or loan.

I thought it was understood that federal and semi-federal businesses and entities have a completely different set of rules all around, including affirmative action. If you'd like to discuss what government contractors go through, we should start a seperate thread.

Nor do you acknowledge the effect of successful litation.

Since I haven't actually brought up litigation except to mention that employees who bring up meritless cases to the EEOC are still able to sue, I find it disingenuous that you're accusing me of not acknowledging successful litigation! If you want me to address it, please be honest and upfront about it. Directly and indirectly, public and private employers are forced to act carefully in hiring, discipling and firing workers.

As they should. I certainly don't wish to make arbitrary decision in hiring, discipline and terminations and I don't wish them to be made about me.

Gender and race matter in the workplace.

So does age, ability status, religion, and veteran status. Title VII ensures that employment decisions can't be based on intrinsic characteristics. You can't fire someone simply for being black, but you can fire him for being incompetent. I'm more than a little surprised you seem to have a problem with that.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 05, 2001.

Come now, Tarzan, let's discuss the points I make rather than those you make for me. I'm not arguing for or against affirmative action. My use of it as an example simply underlines another point I made, to wit, women and minorities have complained about discrimination. Their complaints were valid enough to give rise to a body of law not only protecting their rights, but conferring specific preferences... at least in some circumstances.

I made this point because Netscape apparently feels I (and a few other white guys) are the only people complaining about gender and race issues. She does not seem to think there are advocacy groups that lobby for preferences like WBE/MBE/DBE... perhaps these programs spring from the forehead of Zeus?

The issues surrounding race and gender, including litigation, have made employers cautious in dealing with employees. Justified or not, employers are concerned about dismissing a woman or minority employee because of the threat of litigation (and the attendant negative publicity). This threat of legal action effects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees.

But you have already acknowledged my key point... sexism or racism can run both ways.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

Tarzan,

Moving from the affirmative action debate, what do you think of feminists who engage in male bashing? African Americans who tell "white" jokes? Or the little that started this thread? Is it OK to treat alcohol addiction a medical disorder for liberals but a character flaw for conservatives? Just curious.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

Nearly all the people who were DISENFRANCHISED and CHEATED in Florida were POOR -- p. o. o. r.

Guess what? Poor people are often blacks, women, children, and minorities, foreigners.

That's the fight here, not twisting of the facts to serve Ken Decker's callous "tradition."

SOCIAL JUSTICE.

-- Social Justice (get@real.com), January 05, 2001.

<<<>>>

That was great man! Thanks for posting it -- I'm going to see that it gets all over the web. RIGHT ON FS!

-- SO true (we've@been.had), January 05, 2001.

Eve -- "And if a black customer offered to make a huge purchase, what businessperson would pass him over? "

Eve, I took my black friend to the store to go Christmas shopping while her car was in the shop. She had a camera in one hand and her cash in the other when she went to stand by the cash register. I wasn't buying anything, and I stood well back and behind my friend. The clerk refused to acknowledge my friend. Instead, he leaned so that he could look around her and asked if he could help ME with something.

She didn't sue the store. I was a rabid, ravening bitch about the situation, and my friend said it was the way things are for her. End of story.

My father's black coworker was the president of the school board and a tax paying citizen of the U.S. He was pulled over by cops all the time for "license checks". He didn't sue. My father was furious about the situation, and his friend said it was the way things are for him. End of story.

My mother and her black coworker visit stores as part of their employment. Her black coworker is routinely followed around by white clerks while my mother is not. My mother is furious about the situation, and her friend says it's the way things are for her. End of story.

There are three examples where racism was clearly expressed and nothing was done about it.

-- helen (b@r.f), January 05, 2001.

Futureshock -- I thought your offering was very funny and very clever...but I also think the arguments given by Ken and Maria are valid.

-- helen (b@r.f), January 05, 2001.

eve:

helen is unfortunately absolutely correct. Here in the deep south, there are businessmen who would sooner *go broke* than serve a black customer. It's a matter of principle and money is not relevant. Your nice objectivist theory utterly fails to consider human perversity.

As another example, if Frank were a doctor, ask him how much he'd charge to perform an abortion. You'd quickly learn that price is meaningless. These are matters of passion, not price.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 05, 2001.

Justice,

First, I am not convinced people were "disenfranchised" or "cheated" in Florida. Elections are messy. I have heard accusations from both sides about "cheating." From my perspective, I find it difficult to believe one political party is more (or less) guilty than the other.

Second, poverty is color blind. There are plenty of poor white folks.

Third, what in heaven's name is my "callous tradition?"

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 05, 2001.

"As a libertarian, I believe that private businesspeople have the right to be idiots and engage in irrational racial (or other) discrimination. But, I don't think most would. I mean, for example, if a black genius came along and the company needed someone with his expertise, why would they pass over him?"

Eve, your view unfortunately devolves into social darwinism. I am not going to repeat the counterpoint of others on the above qoute. All I can say is, yes, they would pass him over. There was a time, in areas of this country, and there are times today, where this was done and is done.

I think your position leads to a survival-of-the-fittest free for all, and I think eventually, in a country of our size, chaos will ensue. Less than 40 years ago Governor Wallace defied a court order and used the national guard to try and prevent african-americans from entering a university. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. If we just allow one dog to eat another dog until we know who the top dogs are, we will have a huge sub-class of dogs headed for the pound to be euthanized.

You may want to retract your examples-Though you earnestly tried to answer my question, I do not think you have provided a practical solution. Humans are animals, and they are hierarchal animals, and left to their own devices with none or little governmental oversight, will do anything, and in many cases illegal and immoral to get to the top of the heap. People are not intrinsically fair-they are not intrinsically righteous, and are not spiritually mature. I too hope that some day we become truly civilized-but until that day I am not willing to strip government of most of their oversight.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 05, 2001.

And Ken:

I find it ironic that you are talking on this thread about how debased it was for me to present a ditty which you call ridicule; which you call mean-spirited.

We have all known you for awhile, bud, and ridicule/sarcasm are part of your particular bag of tricks-they are in my bag, too. So it takes one to know one. It is hard for me to have empathy for you in this respect, because I have debated with you, and I have left threads where I felt you were being overly sarcastic. I think you can admit this, as I would hate to put it to a vote!

I have acknowledged that I should not have been the arbiter of humor in posting this. I have not yet seen an acknowledgement from you that I made this admission. You keep hammering at my motivations. I find that a bit mean-spirited, but all in a day's fun, right?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 05, 2001.

The NBA discriminates against people of no-color.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 05, 2001.

Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger, The Pope, Jesse Jackson, and a Boy Scout were on Air Force One………

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 05, 2001.

Sure, FS, I'm not all sugar and spice. As a general rule, though, I try to focus on stupid ideas rather than stupid people... a distinction that seems lost on Netscape and you.

I also don't pick on people based on gender, race or other personal characteristics. If you were a recovering alcoholic or drug addict, I would not ridicule you for these all too human failings. Had you served in the National Guard rather than a tour in Vietnam, I would respect your service... not mock it.

I've never commented on any poster's personal appearance... and I have seen the Vegas pictures. My visage has been commented upon in a less than flattering way... so has my job, my place of birth, my education, etc. Find one post where I have attacked a person because they had a blue collar job or lacked a high school diploma.

If you go back and read my posts from TB 2000, you'll find an occasional slugfest with Invar, Big Dog or some of the Y2K doomers... but most of the time--if you read carefully--you'll find that I have criticized ideas... not people. The problem is that most people take the critique of their ideas quite personally.

I don't know you. I wouldn't recognize you if you bumped into me in the street. You thought the little George W. Bush song was funny. I thought it wasn't.

Your little tune rips a guy who may have overcome alcohol abuse, a misspent youth and other challenges to make something of his life. It questions the intelligence of a person who has earned an MBA, run a business and who has, by some accounts, done a decent job running the one of the largest states in the union. It calls Bush and his brother racists. It rips Katherine Harris, a successful woman who apparently doesn't dress to suit some wags. It rips the Supreme Court suggesting they crowned Bush.

What really sticks in my craw is how liberals have engaged in smear tactics... after crying foul over the conservatives doing the same thing to Clinton. The liberals defended the unfair attacks against Janet Reno and her appearance... and then jumped to attack Katherine Harris. Politics first, principles second, I suppose.

Answer this, FS... is it enough that the personal attacks on our leaders--liberal or conservative--are funny? Is it acceptable, for the sake of partisan politics, to demonize any person with chutzpah to serve in public office. Do we really want a nation where every leader is drawn as a cartoon character?

And people wonder why we can't do better than Gore or Bush.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 06, 2001.

Ken-

Should we eliminate all political humor?

Should we edit all reruns of saturday night live that contain it?

Do you want me to believe that setting up a president as a sacred cow, not to be mocked, is anything other than setting up a monarchy?

Ken, for me there are NO sacred cows. For you there are. But I think it is a dangerous, outright dangerous position to set up any politician or public leader, including the president, including the dali lama, as free from parody or base humor.

My little ditty was mean-sure-but it is not being passed along as FACT-and to borrow a phrase from you-the point is lost on you that there is a difference between outright allegations and obvious humor, no matter how derisive that humor is.

A legal definition of parody is that the writing be so outrageous that no reasonable person could consider it true. This is why Larry Flynt won his case against Jerry Falwell. This is why a court did not shut down the web site parodying Bush that the petty little tyrant tried to have removed. This has stuck in my craw since he tried to do it. Apparently Dubya is so beyond reproach that he cant talk the humor of a teenage boy.

And your position, Ken, reminds me of that-to wit, you have set up Dubya as a sacred cow, as he himself wants to be treated. My little ditty was outrageuos-yes-so outrageous that any reasonable person would not interpret the stanzas as allegations.

You err in comparing it to the "smear made on Clinton". The difference, Ken, is that these smears were being passed off as absolute truth, and people beleived the spin, and all but convicted Clinton and Gore innumerable times.

And by the way, I will be looking for your ridicule/sarcasm regarding ideas, not people. I will be sure to point out when you cross the line in my opinion. I think you have just a bit of a blinder on, there, and maybe you do not mean to be mean, but I HAVE seen you attack people, and not so long ago as the old TB.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 06, 2001.

Flint,

I don't know, Flint, old bean, you might find the cost of me performing a procedure for an incomplete abortion to be VERY reasonable.

;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 06, 2001.

Ken, who once prided himself on having a decent sense of humor, is simply jealous that so much art and wit is coming from the left, and that the right is so dry and dull. The right hardly ever produces satirical send-ups because they're too busy moralizing and preaching. Oh, there's an occcasional conservative humorist that pops up here and there, but the creativity that is strictly political has always been and will always be radical, because radical people are smarter, more progressive, more visionary. They possess and execute flexible and fluid public responses in the face of repressive dogma. They can see a future where people don't take pleasure in "lording it over," where authoritarian ownership and financial crimes, which create abuses of power against the poor, are seen as the barbarous relics of darker centuries. It's easy to make fun of rich people who commit crimes of infamy in open public, and especially of people who directly threaten our democratic process. Flat up against the face of tyranny, it's not only easy, it's absolutely required -- if you still care about democratic freedoms and the right to have your vote count.

-- Lighten Up with the Left (they're@smarter.com), January 06, 2001.

Tarzan, helen, Flint,

Yes -- white racism occurs and has occurred. So has, and does, black racism. Etc. In any case, your examples are very disturbing and poignant. As I mentioned above, in the public sector individual cases of discrimination can and should be redressed on an individual basis. The victim sues the person who discriminated against him.

Regarding the private sector -- I was expressing what for me is a more or less libertarian, freedom-oriented position. And that the free market would ultimately be self-corrective. You know -- the racist jerks would generally be more likely to go out of business sooner or later. Some wouldn't. But those people and little towns -- nowadays, especially -- would be the exceptions rather than the rule. Make sense?

But even without that "idealistic" position, it would be much preferable to have in place laws that allow redress for cases of individual discrimination (like the ones you raised), for example, the Civil Rights Act -- versus programs that racially discriminate and violate the rights of innocent people -- like Affirmative Action - - where it doesn't matter that someone's innocent. The only question is, "Is he white?" Really -- that's ok with y'all? That's racism, isn't it?

FS,

Wow -- you seem to have a very cynical view of human nature. I don't share that view; I believe, for the most part, that human beings are good at heart. And that most are intelligent enough to see that racism is wrong -- that it just doesn't make sense.

In any case, would it bother your conscience at all to know that the program you support violates the rights of innocent people?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

FS,

Typical hyperbole. If I say I don't like something, you suggest I want to "outlaw" it. If I am not amused, you say that I want to eliminate all political humor and set up our leaders as "sacred cows." I suppose it's easier to argue against me when you distort my position.

I enjoy good comedy. Your song, however, isn't funny. It's just bitter and mean-spirited. Gov. Bush has been accused of alcoholism and drug abuse... quite seriously. His ability to lead has been questioned because these alleged behaviors. He and his father have been accused of manipulating the legal system. Bush was soundly criticized for "dodging" combat in the National Guard and being AWOL. Every element of your "parody" has been passed off as "truth" by the media... including your suggestion of "Jim Crow" activities in Florida. Don't you read the papers? And what, in God's name, does Katherine Harris' appearance have to do with her ability to do a job? Are beauty and fashion "sense" requirements for public service?

As for Clinton, some of the "smears" were based on fact. After Clinton lied about sex with Monica Lewinski to a court of law and the American people... it was proven true. Clinton was fined for his behavior.

Hey, both Clinton and Bush have human failings. The problem I have is with vicious personal attacks tarted up as "humor." I don't think all the attacks on Clinton have been fair (or funny). I certainly don't think Madeline Albright or Janet Reno should be the butt of "ugly" jokes.

How about respect, FS, somewhere short of worship? How about giving some credit to people willing to put up with your kind of sophomoric humor and serve this country? Or shall we wait for your next song- writing epic, perhaps poking fun at "Uncle Tom" Powell?

Left,

Ugly jokes about Katherine Harris certainly demonstrate the depth and breadth of wit from the left. Admittedly, the left is probably better at writing cynical articles with arcane literary references. They have little left (no pun intended) but to complain, whine and fret. This century has demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy (and practical failures) of collectivism. Marx was wrong. Capitalism won... in a walk. Where the left has been in power, they have shown they are far better at ironic witticisms than public policy. Liberal programs have failed, and failed, and failed.

I am content enough if the radicals and leftists dominate the comedy clubs and literary magazines. It gives them a way to earn a living and keeps them out of mischief. This will also come as a relief to the poor. They have suffered enough under the left's good intentions.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 06, 2001.

Let's face it. What we find to be funny is often that which re-inforces our preferences. I think some of Rush Limbaugh's parody songs are hilarious. I'm sure that FS and Patricia do not.

The self-promoted reputation that the Left has for having a sense of humor is overdone. Have you ever known of a a humorous Feminist? These females live and breathe their ideology. They wake up angry and go to bed angrier. They take themselves and their cause much to seriously.

-- Lars (larguy@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

Ken:

I am assigning you debit number one for ridiculing my person and not my ideas. You refer to my sense of humor as "sophmoric". Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, but certainly your classification of my sense of humor carries with it an opinion of my person, and it is not really about what I find funny.

Yes hyperbole is part of my bag of tricks-of course I know you would not suggest outlawing political humor-hyperbole is used to make a point about where a particluar continuum has it's end point. You are suggesting respect-this may be a new concept to you, but in my life, people have to EARN MY RESPECT. I was not brought up not to question- I was not brought up that I had to respect my father no matter what he did-he did many things undeserving of respect-so I would not follow some cultural/religious dogma which states I have to respect my parents.

And I will follow no dogma here. I will not be so close-minded that Mr Bush has no chance of earning my respect. Katherine Harris, contrarily has not and will never earn my respect for the actions she took as a politcal hack in Florida. I used hyperbole because, when you follow your position out to its end, I would have to respect Mr. Bush simply because he is president. We disagree, Ken, but I do not feel he is our legitimate president anyway.

Where do we draw the line, ken? At what point do you believe the humorists cross it. I know you have given examples regarding this ditty, but are we to be ever on guard for political distaste?

You also conveniently ignored my legal analysis, perhaps because it leads to me saying you are unreasonable? How do you feel about what Bush tried to do with that parody web site?

If this all boils down to "taste" then we simply have different tastes in humor-and that is fine-we can let a dead dog lie. If you choose, however, to pursue this further, I am here. Have some laundry to do, though, so it may be a few hours.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 06, 2001.

A jew, a polish guy, Future Shock and a monkey walk into a bar...

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

Have you ever known of a a humorous Feminist? These females live and breathe their ideology. They wake up angry and go to bed angrier. They take themselves and their cause much to seriously.

EXCUSE ME.ut having your first boss sit you down on your first day of work and tell you, "You don't belong here, women don't belong here, you're not going to make it and I'm going to help you not maker it" is enough to make you loose your sense of humor over the situation. Stating a fact here, not "complaining". He didn't break me.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 06, 2001.

helen, you really are a great writer. If you are not making your living this way, you really should be. =)

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), January 06, 2001.

p.s...

**Paid for by the Katherine Harris Foundation for Corrective Plastic Surgery.**

Damn that is cruel. She really has been unfairly battered by the liberals and the press. No wonder Katherine Harris was grinning as she certified FL's votes. Revenge so sweet

-- (cin@cin.cin), January 06, 2001.

Cherri,

That had to be a very stressful experience for you. Congrats on hanging in. But it doesn't change the fact that professional Feminists are a grim, tight-lipped bunch who have the sense of humor of a box of rocks.

-- (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

Your song is sophomoric. I don't know enough about you to have an opinion about your entire sense of humor. If you think the song is nifty, I will expect jokes about bodily functions and disabled persons to follow shortly. Hey, your friends may think you the life of the party. Don't expect me to sit through the entire act.

I agree that people should earn respect. I also think people deserve a chance whatever their gender, race, religion or political leanings. I don't think you have given Bush a fair hearing and I doubt you will. If you had just sung a racist song and I were black, I would lower my expectations for ever earning your respect.

Unlike most liberals (and conservatives) I can still respect people with whom I disagree. I can also hold a measure of respect for the office of president, no matter who is sitting in the big chair.

I also have considerably more respect for criticism when it comes from a person I respect, a person with a history of accomplishments, service and integrity. With all due respect, not necessarily an anonymous internet poster.

By the way, you never provided anything resembling legal analysis. I disagree with any attempt to censor political speech, even that I find tasteless. I will not approve of Bush's every action and more than I would disapprove of Clinton's every action.

Enjoy the laundry.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 06, 2001.

The issues surrounding race and gender, including litigation, have made employers cautious in dealing with employees. Justified or not, employers are concerned about dismissing a woman or minority employee because of the threat of litigation (and the attendant negative publicity). This threat of legal action effects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees.

Oh really? Prove it. If it's such a pervasive problem, then someone has quantified it. Provide some citations.

But you have already acknowledged my key point... sexism or racism can run both ways.

I don't think anyone has argued that it doesn't.

Moving from the affirmative action debate, what do you think of feminists who engage in male bashing? African Americans who tell "white" jokes? Or the little that started this thread? Is it OK to treat alcohol addiction a medical disorder for liberals but a character flaw for conservatives? Just curious.

Why do you want to move the discussion from affirmative action?

First, define male bashing. Second, you can't legislate good taste in humor and you can't make someone like you. The law ensures that we treat others equally not that we like them. Get over it. Third, I thought the song on this thread was a good example of low-brow humor and got a guilty laugh over it. I also got a kick out of a number of the many Clinton jokes that have been passed around on the net. Fourth, from a purely legal perspective, you have to treat alcohol and drug addiction as a disability under the ADEA regardless of the political persuasion of the individual. As far as individual opinions, jokes, and commentary, I'll refer you back to my second point.

Second, poverty is color blind. There are plenty of poor white folks.

This is true. For example, there are more whites on welfare than any other group, though certain minorities have a higher percentage of their group on welfare. However, many experts believe that past discrimination plays a factor in current poverty. For instance, children who have educated parents and family members are more likely to become educated themselves, and education is a big factor in escaping poverty. In the past, minorities (blacks most notably) had tremendous barriers to education and job advancement. I believe that as we get further and further beyond our discriminatory past, race will become less of a factor in poverty and class will become more of a factor.

Answer this, FS... is it enough that the personal attacks on our leaders--liberal or conservative--are funny? Is it acceptable, for the sake of partisan politics, to demonize any person with chutzpah to serve in public office. Do we really want a nation where every leader is drawn as a cartoon character?

Political humor has always been vicious and was considerably worse in the past. Thomas Jefferson was subjected to a catchy song calling him an atheist and suggesting he be burned at the staken as a traitor. Buchanan's detractors openly suggested that he was in an "unnatural" relationship with his top advisor (i.e., they said he was gay) and even went so far as to call his advisor Mrs. Buchanan. Warren G. Harding had to deal with rumors of having an illegitimate child. There was a famous chant about it. "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Off to the White House ha ha ha!" A promotional toy issued when Grant was running for President was a metal pig with a lense embedded into the rectum. With one eye shut and the other looking through the recturm you would see a picture of Grant. This is not a new phenomenon. Since the earliest days of our country, candidates have had to deal with intense political rhetoric. It's part of the price they pay for power.

Eve said:

And that the free market would ultimately be self-corrective. You know -- the racist jerks would generally be more likely to go out of business sooner or later. Some wouldn't. But those people and little towns -- nowadays, especially -- would be the exceptions rather than the rule. Make sense?

No it doesn't make sense. If the market would eventually run such businesses out, why did we need to enact equal employment laws in the first place? The free market in American had nearly 200 years to shake out discriminatory businesses before Title VII came along, and yet discrimination was alive and well in 1964 and isn't doing so bad in 2001.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 06, 2001.

Dubya's intelligence must be at least acerage. He does have an MBA from Harvard. Or are we saying that his family bought this degree? Are we saying that the Liberal bastion of Harvard is so venal that it will sell its graduate degrees?

Dubya does have trouble with words. In another thread, Brian suggested that Dubya might have a touch of dyslexia. This may be true. Dyslexia is a disability that often manifests itself in humorous ways. It is not correlated with low intelligence. I posted some links on dyslexia. It is a common problem. Some famous pols have been dyslexic including JFK.

For political comedy, I'll take the monologues of either Letterman or Leno. I find their jokes to be funny, even-handed and sometimes insightful.

IMO, joking about our highest political leaders is mostly a good thing. It tends to keep them honest. We should not be worshipping these people. But neither should we be a nation of cynical mockers that congenitally has no respect for high office or for the people who occupy it. (unless they disgrace their own high office and no longer deserve our respect.)

-- Lars (larguy@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

The song was about an individual, GW Bush, and the way in which he made his way into the office. This is not a joke about every white man in the country. Ethnic jokes are about a large group of people and not individual and the situation surrounding him.

To try to twist this into some kind of relationship the to bigotry and prejudice that millions of people have had to put up with for generations, is an insult. It shows that the "spin" that has been created to justify the removal of affirmative action is well into the mainstream.

Had there been no problem with this society in the first place, there would never have been a need for affirmative action. The goal now is to make it look like affirmative action specifically targets strait white males as the same kind of victims that it was created to help. This is NOT true. Every person who gets a job is effectively taking that job away from someone else. Every person who goes to college is taking away that "slot" from every other person eligible.

People also are trying to give the impression that ineligible people are given jobs because of affirmative action. What it HAS done is prevent qualified people from being denied jobs due to their race, sex etc. There were blatant policies to deny people of color, women etc. jobs they were qualified for because those groups of people were not wanted strictly because of color, sex. Not for any logical or justifiable reason except for the bigotry of the people involved.

This "campaign" to bemoan the "plight" of the strait white man comes right out of the recruitment literature of the Ku Klux Klan.

Lars, if any feminists is madder when she wakes up then she was when she went to bed then she must have had a disappointing time in bed. *grin*

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 06, 2001.

Decker, such a crybaby. This is a silly song, meant to laugh at.

Why weren't you crying when all of the right-wing wacko extremists were disrespectfully slandering and making serious false accusations against Clinton?

The answer... because you are a hypocrite. The only thing worse than a hypocrite is a crybaby hypocrite.

-- (waah@waaah.waaaaaah), January 06, 2001.

>>>>> Cherri <<<<<<

RIGHT ON!! You said it so well!

-- You go girl! (plain@truth.com), January 06, 2001.

Tarzan,

The fear of lawsuits has started an entire industry in the legal and consulting arenas. The existence of a market proves the demand. In my area, I can send employees to workshops or training on gender and race issues on a monthly basis. I receive advertisements from law firms and consulting firms on a daily basis. There is no end of advice from legal and business firms on how to avoid litigation:

Wall Street Journal

And some data:

Biz Journal

The decreases in Atlanta contradict what's happening nationally. "All charges have skyrocketed," said David Grinberg, EEOC's national spokesperson. Grinberg said 19,500 complaints were filed with the EEOC nationwide from 1980 through 1990. Since then the number has exploded. In 1999 alone, 77,444 complaints were filed. That's a 7.1 percent increase over the 72,302 filed in 1992.

As noted in the article, the number of companies choosing to settle rather than litgate has increased.

If you like, I can provide data on the amount of settlements, the number of suits, corporate spending on diversity or sensitivity training, etc.

But let me answer another question first... this thread is not about affirmative action. Start a thread on affirmative action and I'll weigh in. Here, we are talking about a sophomoric ditty about Gov. Bush and the notion of liberal hypocrisy.

Next, I am not trying to legislate taste or make anyone like anyone else. Someone engages in an offensive behavior, I have every right to express my reaction. If you want to chuckle over lowbrow humor, have at it. Your right to laugh is no different than my right to criticize the humor.

I agree that lowbrow humor, including political hatchet jobs, has a long, storied history. So do slavery and human sacrifice and picking one's nose. I never said I was "surprised" to see FS's little song, just not impressed.

Cherri,

Horse fritters. The liberals have argued for years that alcohol addiction and drug abuse are medical problems. You would have a fit if someone ridiculed a person with AIDS... unless, I suppose, the person was a conservative. The song ridicules Bush's alleged alcohol and drug abuse. So is it a medical problem, Cherri, or a failure of character?

Just admit that the nasty little song is no different than the Clinton jokes that the liberals have spent eight years crying foul over.

As for affirmative action, let Tarzan do the debating. He at least has a grasp of the issues and the legislation.

Finally, bias is bias... whether directed at a white man or a black woman. Quotas in government and higher education have cost white men jobs and program enrollment. (Read Bakke?) The argument is that this is justified because of the history of prejudice... but you cannot claim it isn't just another form of discrimination.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 06, 2001.

Tarzan,

Don't get me wrong...my radical libertarianism aside for the moment, I'm ok with Title VII. It's some aspects of Affirmative Action I have a problem with.

But consider this:

Title VII makes it unlawful to "discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

Affirmative Action's preference programs award preferences to an individual because of his race or color. Thus, they must take away from someone else (e.g., discriminate against him) because of HIS race or color. Agreed?

Assuming you agree, and given the quote from Title VII above, Affirmative Action's preference programs are in violation of Title VII. Right?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

OK....Where the hell is Wonderbread Ohio, IS ANYONE EVER gonna answer me? taps foot, waits.

Oh yeah and what are horse fritters?

So a hispanic, uncle dee dah and sumer and they walk into a bar....

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 06, 2001.

It was joke... there is, to my knowledge, no "Wonderbread, Ohio." If Netscape has never heard a person of color complain about bias, she must live in a rather monochromatic neighborhood... or she could be hearing impaired. Personally, I think women and minorities have suffered from discrimination... the hard question is: How do we as a society address the problem?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 06, 2001.

okay so whatz a horse fritter?

As for the discrimination against women, there is none. You dont hear us complainin do you? :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 06, 2001.

The fear of lawsuits has started an entire industry in the legal and consulting arenas. The existence of a market proves the demand. In my area, I can send employees to workshops or training on gender and race issues on a monthly basis. I receive advertisements from law firms and consulting firms on a daily basis. There is no end of advice from legal and business firms on how to avoid litigation

You're kidding, right? The existance of a market proves the demand? You can't be serious. The only thing the existance of a market proves is that a certain sector of the marketplace perceives a need to fill. Prior to Y2K, there was a huge market providing Y2K survival gear, but the existance of that market didn't prove that everyone was worried about Y2K and it didn't prove that Y2K would be a problem. Likewise, the existance and rise in litigation and seminars doesn't prove, in your words, "This threat of legal action effects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees.".

Eve-

Affirmative Action's preference programs award preferences to an individual because of his race or color. Thus, they must take away from someone else (e.g., discriminate against him) because of HIS race or color. Agreed?

No, I don't agree, and neither does the law or the EEOC. Firstly, the EEOC's own guidelines require that all affirmative actions consider qualifications above all other criteria. Simply put, it is against the law to choose an employee or base a promotion solely on race. Additionally, affirmative action programs can't involve quotas (read the 1978 Bakke decision). Affirmative action programs can't be put into place unless there is statistical proof that the company or agency has engaged in discriminatory practices. An affirmative action plan must have a time limit and be as narrow and unobtrusive as at all possible (read the 1988 Croson decision). All affirmative actions are subject to independant review.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 06, 2001.

Decker. Decker. Decker. Just come out and say it dude-I can take it- please, I cannot stand it anymore-just say you do not like me. I already know you do not respect me(an anonymous internet poster), that you find my sense of humor sophmoric, and that you are not surprised I have a "sophmoric" sense of humor. This is a shame, because I actually had some respect for you. Your continued posts on this thread cannot escape a rational conclusion which leads to abolishing political humor-at least figuratively.

Oh, and by the way, if Bush DOES have a medical problem with alcoholism, is he getting it treated? Does he have a sponsor? Home Group? Works the Steps? This came up before.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 06, 2001.

Won derbread, OH

-- (nemesis@awol.com), January 06, 2001.

FS:

Go back and read the title you gave this thread. You said "*no matter what* your political persuasion." In other words, here is something so patently offensive it can ONLY appeal to someone for whom even minimal respect is a stranger, and your prejudice is so strong you cannot imagine that it wouldn't appeal to *everyone*! I get this picture of you pouring gasoline on a dog, lighting it up, and rolling on the ground laughing uncontrollably as the dog races around in panic and pain. Who could possibly fail to find that funny, eh?

Not everyone shares the sense of humor of a cruel jerk, FS. Take my word for it. It's not nearly as universal as you seem to think.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 06, 2001.

I don't know you, FS. You are an anonymous Internet poster. This is not meant as an insult, but a simple statement of fact.

Let's say a man sits down next to me on a crowded bus and says, "Hey, listen to this song I wrote. I know you'll think it's funny" He sings your little hymn. My response to him would be similar to my response to you. "Sorry, but I really don't think your song is funny. In fact, I think it's pretty sophomoric."

Now, nothing I see or hear on a crowded bus surprises me anymore. If you read what I wrote more carefully, you'll see I've already made this this statement. This is not directed towards you personally, but simply me noting that it doesn't surprise me that some people are amused by coarse humor. I understand Howard Stern gets high ratings.

I will say your logic is quite flawed. Just because I don't enjoy something doesn't mean it ought to be banned. I don't like okra, but I am perfectly content to eat other vegetables. I have no desire to interfere with your enjoyment of okra. To borrow from Voltaire, I will defend your right to eat okra against any vegetable censors.

While I defend free speech, I don't appreciate every spoken word. In fact, there are times free speech bothers me. If I'm sitting at a ballgame with a group of children, I really don't like people screaming profanity at the umps or opposing team... even if they think they are tremendously funny.

Disapproval serves a useful social purpose. A civil society enforces social norms with disapproval. If you act like a horse's behind at a party, you probably won't get invited back. If you tell racist or sexist jokes, you may lose friends, or even a job. We cannot legislate common courtesy (or common sense)... nor would I want to try.

As for alcoholism, it is, by current definition, a medical disorder. I have no idea if Gov. Bush is a recovering alcoholic. By all reports, he no longer drinks and has maintained his sobriety for a considerable time. Lacking tangible evidence of a current problem, I think the issue is one for Gov. Bush and his personal physician.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 07, 2001.

Flint:

Did you reas every word I said? What the hay is the matter with you. I apologized earlier in the thread for the title of my post, and I even jabbed fun at MYSELF for thinking most would find the song funny.

It is even low for you, who have known me for a year, and have chatted with me in Bok's to imagine me lighting a dog on fire for a joke. For shame. I hardly think your analogy is fair-and I hardly think it works. I am not sure why you posted this-And your characterization is most unwelcome.

This really is a problem with you and Decker, Flint, that both of you behave like bullies, pretend to hide it with intellectualism, but at the end of the day you try some bizarre extrapolation that because I posted a political humor piece which offends some, that I would find murdering a dog funny. Sorry, but attacking me in this way puts you in a poor light. Anyone who knows anything about me would never in a million years suggest I would do such a thing. Is this your version of reducto ad abusrdum?

Maybe you can explain this to me, Flint. Your characterization of me in your last post is laughable. I guess you are trying to get a rise out of me to prove some point about how Dubya might feel about the ditty I posted-if so, then your post makes more sense. Was this your intent?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 07, 2001.

FS,

I'll let you, Flint and the SPCA sort out the dog analogy. I fail to see where I have been a bully. Had you not put the smug title on this thread, I probably would have rolled my eyes and scrolled by. But you suggested "everyone" would find this ditty amusing, and I disagreed. What is so "bullying" about finding a song offensive?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 07, 2001.

------------------- Cherri,

That had to be a very stressful experience for you. Congrats on hanging in. But it doesn't change the fact that professional Feminists are a grim, tight-lipped bunch who have the sense of humor of a box of rocks.

-- (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001. -----------------

Lars, ah'm not too sure why everyone else in here is fighting, but by God ah've got a broken beer bottle and a rusty knife, and ah'm gonna give Cherri her pick and ah'll just use the other.

-- helen kept going in the bars to hear the jokes... (b@r.f), January 07, 2001.

LOLOL helen!

-- (cin@cin.cin), January 07, 2001.

LOL Helen. Don't let Steinem know that you are a hoot (with hooters).

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

rgar qA RGW ARYOSUAR u Gcw wcwe ewS!

-- ain't no kidding (jiving@social.man), January 07, 2001.

Tarzan,

You had raised the issue of Title VII. I'll repeat that quote:

Title VII makes it unlawful to "discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

Then you indicated that Affirmative Action (specifically its preference programs) doesn't discriminate.

You said,

"Simply put, it is against the law to choose an employee or base a promotion solely on race."

So it's within the law to base a decision PARTLY on race? In this way, then, if the poor white was slightly more qualified than the wealthy black, and all else was roughly equal, the wealthy black could very well win out at that point SOLELY because of his race. Does this make sense?

In any case, when you say it's within "the law", you're referring -- at least as one source -- to the clause in Title VII above, correct? If so, did discrimination exist in my example, according to Title VII? In any case, did discrimination exist in YOUR opinion?

I'm aware that Bakke allows race to be considered, but I'm trying to focus on Title VII right now. And I'm interested in your own opinion. Please keep in mind YOU had raised Title VII.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

Eve-

Okay, I'll try this again. As I said last night, "Affirmative action programs can't be put into place unless there is statistical proof that the company or agency has engaged in discriminatory practices.". Got it? Affirmative action plans are not programs designed to create discrimination in companies, they are remedies to current discrimination. Moreover, affirmative action plans MUST consider qualifications and seniority in employment and advancement opportunities. An affirmative action program is the only time a company is legally allowed to consider race, gender, age and veteran or disabled status in employment or advancement, however, these factors must be balanced with competency, qualifications, and seniority. It is analogous to a university considering the alumni status of the parents of their applicans.

The Supreme Court has found that affirmative action programs are illegal if one or more of the following five instances occurs: 1)an unqualified person receives benefits over a qualified person 2) quotas are used 3)goals which are set bear no relation to the available pool of candidates and thus become de facto quotas 4)the plan is not is not fixed in length 5) innocent bystanders (i.e., employees and applicants) are harmed.

For references sake, see Firefighters Local no. 1784 v. Stotts, where the SCOTUS struck down a consent decree terminating white employees to incerase minority employment. See also Wygant v. Jackson (Mich.) Board of Education, which struck down a labor agreement because it allowed for layoffs of white teachers before minority group teachers with less seniority and Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, in which a Federal Appeals Court barred the law school from considering race in admitting students because there was no proof of discrimination.

Employers consider extraneous factors all the time in hiring and promotion. We had an incident last week where one of my colleagues chose to hire one candidate of another equally qualified candidate because they belonged to the same fraternity. Is this discrimination? In the eyes of the law, no. If your fictional hiring manager chose to hire the black candidate over the white person because the black person happened to be better dressed, would this be discimination? What if he decided to hire the white candidate because they black candidate took a call on his cellphone during the interview? Is it discrimination not to hire a jerk? Well, according to the law, no. However, if the decision were based even in part on race, it would be illegal UNLESS there was an affirmative action program in place AND the black candidate was just as qualified or more qualified than the white candidate.

So what's my opinion on these situations? I think that the first situation involving my colleague smacked of nepotism, however the candidate who got the offer wanted less salary than the other candidate and the two were pretty much equal, so I think it's a defensible position. In the second case, it would depend on the type of job and how badly the white candidate were dressed. Does the job involve heavy-duty client contact? If so, then you probably want a candidate who's dressed well. In the third case, I certainly wouldn't hire such an arrogant candidate, and even under an affirmative action plan, I wouldn't be required (I would, however, have to be prepared to show why I didn't hire the candidate). It is discriminatory (and wrong) to base an employment or advancement decision solely on intrinsic characteristics. However, under extrememly narrow and specific situations, it is permissable to consider intrinsic characteristics along with competency, experience and other qualifications.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 07, 2001.

Oh, one more thing. Title VII created the EEOC. Affirmative action was established by executive order as a remedy available to the EEOC, not as an alteration or change to Title VII.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 07, 2001.

Tarzan,

You and Eve seem to be talking past one another. I think she is saying that any consideration of "intrinsic characteristics" is a form of discrimination. This is not a legal argument, but a philosophical one. Proponents of quotas suggest this discrimination is justified... but it seems discrimination nonetheless.

I had written a long response to your earlier eye-blinking about the market proving the concerns around gender and race in the workplace. Your comparison to Y2K is silly. The market for Y2K survival supplies was not "huge." There were a handful of firms, mostly Internet based. Some had failed before rollover. The flap over Y2K survival supplies proved that a tiny number of people were terribly scared... at least until early this year.

The issue of gender and race in the workplace is much larger... and the market it much larger. I can send you a few pounds of brochures from legal and consulting firms. I can send you dozens of links from business rags like Harvard Business Review discussing the issue. I could renew my AMA membership and send you management survey results. If you give me a few days, I might be able to dig up diversirty/affirmative action spending as a percentage of GDP. The 100,000+ members of the Society for Human Resources Management worry about gender and race... look at their annual conference. SHRM Conference According to SHRM, 32 percent of of American businesses have diversity training initiatives in place. I wonder how firms many had Y2K survival supply programs?

You want to know what some large firms are doing: Fortune Link

Private lawsuits alleging discrimination in the workplace more than tripled in the 1990s, according to the Justice Department. Major factors in the upsurge were new civil rights laws -- including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. --DOJ

Sexual harassment cases rarely go to trial, said Atlanta employment attorney Steve Ensor of Alston & Bird LLP. Many of the people filing the charges he defends against settle for amounts ranging from $5,000 to $15,000.

"If you can get rid of claims for $20,000 or less, it's a pretty good settlement if only to avoid attorney fees," Ensor said.

Attorneys' fees for employers often approach $100,000, said Ken Barr, an attorney at Fisher & Phillips LLP.--Atlanta Business Chronicle

The existence of a market does not prove the rationality of demand, just the demand. Want more?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 07, 2001.

FS or whomever--

What was that wonderful song of the '70's and Watergate with the refrain of 'Haldeman, Erlichman, and Dean'?

Was there a Bill Russell special on Florida and the Supremes yet?

Your song isn't great but it isn't bad. Bring back biting political humor and commentary. Where is Mort Sahl when you need him? Humor makes points much more efficiently than harangues.

-- Pam (Pam@j.o.e), January 07, 2001.

Tarzan,

You said,

"Affirmative action programs can't be put into place unless there is statistical proof that the company or agency has engaged in discriminatory practices."

Ok...let's say the company had engaged in "discriminatory practices" in the past. Could they then be forced to racially discriminate against an innocent person, through a preference program, to "make up for it"? If you read Title VII literally -- no way. But Affirmative Action (through executive order, EEOC or whatever) may allow it, depending on the circumstances. Agree?

Then you wrote,

"An affirmative action program is the only time a company is legally allowed to consider race...in employment or advancement..."

Now, compare this statement with the Title VII quote from above. Do you see a conflict?

You said,

"The Supreme Court..."

As I'd tried to put across before, I know the Supreme Court and other courts have allowed race to be considered in certain situations. Could we focus on the SPECIFIC text of the Title VII quote (e.g., the statute) for now?

You then asked,

"So what's my opinion on these situations?"

I had asked your opinion with respect to the application of one example I gave (the wealthy black v. poor white example) in the context of Title VII. You gave your opinion on other things. Again -- would you give your opinion on what I'm asking?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

Pam, picky point but don't you mean Mark Russell? Yeah, haven't seen him in a while.

Mort Sahl, there's a name from the past. He was cutting-edge in the late 50s; a lefty of course. Sounds strange, but I think Mort was writing jokes for Reagan speeches in the 80s. Times change.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

Ken,

You'd said about my debate with Tarzan,

"I think she is saying that any consideration of 'intrinsic characteristics' is a form of discrimination. This is not a legal argument, but a philosophical one..."

Yes! Ultimately it IS a philosophical (more specifically, a moral) issue. Although for now, I'm trying to focus more on showing Tarzan that, according to the specific text of Title VII (executive orders and court cases notwithstanding), it isn't even legal.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

For some very funny (to me) parody songs, go here

-- Lars (lars@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

Like I said, I don't like to argue. The more I read our philisophical arguments, the more I realize we're just wasting keystrokes. I'd rather spend my time discussing business or fun things!

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), January 07, 2001.

Ken-

Regardless of my philosophy or Eve's philosophy, the laws against discrimination in this country are quite clear. Also, could you please provde evidence of anyone being a "proponent of quoatas"? Since quotas are illegal, a court case where someone has fought to make quotas legal would be just fine.

Once again, you have failed to provide any direct, quantifiable evidence to back up your original statement, which was This threat of legal action effects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees.

You say that my Y2K comparision is silly. Fine. Show quantifiable proof that "This threat of legal action effects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees."

The existance of a market doesn't even prove interest in that market, just the existance of providers. For instance, earlier this year there was a huge market for pure internet plays. By your logic, the existance of all those providers means that that market should be alive and well. Of course, this is all smoke and mirrors, since your point had nothing to do with providers or markets, but was simply that "This threat of legal action effects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees."

Eve said:

Ok...let's say the company had engaged in "discriminatory practices" in the past. Could they then be forced to racially discriminate against an innocent person, through a preference program, to "make up for it"? If you read Title VII literally -- no way. But Affirmative Action (through executive order, EEOC or whatever) may allow it, depending on the circumstances. Agree?

No. Regardless of any affirmative action plan, you must hire the most qualified person, even if that person is white. If the white person is not qualified, then he shouldn't get the job in the first place. In your myopic search for instances of discrimination, you ignore the fact that affirmative actions don't necessarily have to be an either/or plan. For instance, I have a friend who works at a company which has implemented an affirmative action plan to remedy a history of discrimination in their internship program. They have added four colleges on their college recruitment schedule which are historically black and two which have a high percentage of femal students. They have added these schools to their schedules, not taken off majority white schools to compensate. Their agreement with the EEOC and the complaintant requires them to create a larger pool of candidates who are female and/or minority. They are not required to hire these people if they aren't as qualified as the other candidates, only to show that they are making an effort.

Reading Title VII literally, there is no mention of affirmative action. Of course, there was also no mention of disability or veteran status either. Does this mean it's okay to discriminate against the disabled and veterans?

Now, compare this statement with the Title VII quote from above. Do you see a conflict?

No. Laws are often changed to include exceptions. Affirmative action is an exception to the law added after the fact, just like the provision forbidding discrimination against the disabled and veterans. It's analogous to a law that was enacted in my hometown, requiring a mandatory 24 hour jail stay for any driver going more than 20 miles per hour in a school zone. Unfortunately, it was realized that this law would also make it illegal for emergency services vehicles to do their jobs. The city counsel changed the law after the fact to include emergency vehicles and any citizen in an emergency situation.

As I'd tried to put across before, I know the Supreme Court and other courts have allowed race to be considered in certain situations. Could we focus on the SPECIFIC text of the Title VII quote (e.g., the statute) for now?

The court cases I cited have to do with how Title VII is enforced, including the text of your quote.

Again -- would you give your opinion on what I'm asking?

I assumed it was clear. My opinion on your hypothetical situation would depend on the specifics of the situation.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 07, 2001.

Tarzan:

You seem to have lost sight of the forest here. Either affirmative action does something, or it does not. If it has no effect on anyone's hiring, promotion, or firing practices at all, then the entire issue is moot. In that case, an awful lot of people are being seriously fooled here, and an awful lot of people and money are being wasted for an illusionary policy.

Alternatively, it DOES have an affect on hiring, promotion, or firing. There is only ONLY WAY it could have any such effect, which is to cause some people to be hired, fired, or promoted INSTEAD of someone else. This is ipso facto discrimination.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Affirmative action is *intended* to encourage discrimination in "proper" directions. Failure to do so is *deduced* by comparing percentages of groups handled different ways and establishing "goals" which are distinguishable from quotas only in spelling. How else could it be done?

You seem to be saying affirmative action does nothing out of one side of your mouth, and praising its effects out of the other. But all the doubletalk in the world can't hide the fact that if it accomplishes *anything at all*, then by definition it is discriminatory.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 07, 2001.

You seem to have lost sight of the forest here. Either affirmative action does something, or it does not.

Affirmative action plans do indeed do something. They are used by the EEOC to settle discrimination cases without a lengthy court battle. Because of their narrow scope and their narrow use (i.e., they must be approved by the EEOC to legally exist in the first place) they aren't very common. Many people confuse affirmative action with the EEOC and equal opportunity laws. They are not the same.

If it has no effect on anyone's hiring, promotion, or firing practices at all, then the entire issue is moot.

Once again, the only time affirmative action can affect an employers hiring ONLY IF the plan has been approved by the EEOC.

In that case, an awful lot of people are being seriously fooled here, and an awful lot of people and money are being wasted for an illusionary policy.

It's not an illusionary policy, but there is a great deal of ignorance and confusion about affirmative action and the EEOC. You yourself have referred to affirmative action quotas, which are patently illegal.

Alternatively, it DOES have an affect on hiring, promotion, or firing.

Only for companies that have legal affirmatvie action policies in place, as approved by the EEOC.

There is only ONLY WAY it could have any such effect, which is to cause some people to be hired, fired, or promoted INSTEAD of someone else. This is ipso facto discrimination.

No, that's not the case. Employers have also increased the size of training classes necessary for promotion, the size of their candidate pools

You simply cannot have it both ways. Affirmative action is *intended* to encourage discrimination in "proper" directions.

No it's not. Affirmative action programs are put into place only where current discrimination exists. Fixing this current discrimination does not require additional discrimination.

Failure to do so is *deduced* by comparing percentages of groups handled different ways and establishing "goals" which are distinguishable from quotas only in spelling.

No, they're not. Saying a company must have more women in a given department or must increase the number of black students in their intern program is nothing like a quota. It's barely a concrete goal.

You seem to be saying affirmative action does nothing out of one side of your mouth, and praising its effects out of the other.

You've mistaken your strawman for my point. Affirmative action is nothing like what you, Frank, and eve seem to think it is.

But all the doubletalk in the world can't hide the fact that if it accomplishes *anything at all*, then by definition it is discriminatory.

Adding 12 spots for interns and making an effort to reach out to black students for those spots (but only choosing the most qualified for those roles) is discriminatory? Maybe in Ken world.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 07, 2001.

Whoops! That should be Flint world.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 07, 2001.

Thanks, Lars.

Bill Russell was a co-worker years ago. Mark Russell is the political satirist on PBS. Now, can you help with that song I asked about?

-- Pam (Pam@j.o.e), January 07, 2001.

Flint:

Still waiting for your response. A dog's life is in the balance as I write.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 07, 2001.

Pam--

Sorry, I couldn't find any reference to a song "Haderman, Ehrlichman and Dean". Maybe write a letter to Woodward and Bernstein?

Interesting. Bill Russell is a common name. I will always associate that name with the dominant Boston Celtic center of the 60s.

Changinging the subject completely---here is something for Feminists to be truly grim about. Are they? HONOR KILLINGS

-- Lars will (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

(sigh)

You're better in law than you are in economics. Suppliers cannot exist for long without a demand for their product. This is why there are no current manufacturers of eight-track cassette tapes. Markets reflect the interaction of supply and demand. Without demand, the market dries up.

There is a healthy market for diversity training, lawsuit avoidance, hiring and firing advice, HR consulting, legal services, etc. It hasn't dried up like the market for Y2K survival supplies. (laughter) In fact, the link to the Fortune article shows you large firms spending large amounts of money on diversity training. The links to the HBR articles should show you that business persons spend a fair amount of time thinking about gender and race issues in hiring and firing employees. (Would like articles from Fortune, Business Week or other trade rags?)

Why do businesses spend money on HR departments, legal staff, risk management policies, personnel policies, diversity training, etc? At least some of these expenditures are meant to reduce the risk and expense of litigation. Managers do read and talk about the multi- million dollar settlements of discrimination lawsuits. ($176 million in the Texaco case).

Managers do consider the possibility of litigation in hiring and firing. Try this for your own edification... go on a few job interviews. When the ask you why you are leaving your old job, tell the interviewer you are suing your former employer for discrimination. Oh, for fun tell the interviewer this will be the third time you have sued an employer. See how many job offers you receive.

I suppose there is a management survey that talks about employer fears during hiring and firing. I'll wager litigation makes the top five list. This will have to wait for tomorrow, though... it's time to snooze.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 07, 2001.

Once again, Ken, your original point was "This threat of legal action effects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees.", not "there's a market for diversity training". If there is a market for diversity training, but the existance of this market says nothing about "the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees".

Managers do consider the possibility of litigation in hiring and firing.

This is a reiteration of your original point. Please provide proof.

Try this for your own edification... go on a few job interviews. When the ask you why you are leaving your old job, tell the interviewer you are suing your former employer for discrimination.

Now you should know logic better than this and you should know hiring processes better as well. Even if I lied about suing former employers, it still wouldn't be definitive proof that I personally didn't get the job because of a lawsuit. Without any conrete proof, I would never know if I didn't get the job because I was involved in a few lawsuits or if there was a more qualified candidate. This lack of concrete proof is part of what makes it so difficult for a non- employee to sue for disccrimination in the hiring process. And quite frankly, you can't generalize one employer's practices to the practices of every employer in the US.

But you knew that, right?

I suppose there is a management survey that talks about employer fears during hiring and firing. I'll wager litigation makes the top five list.

No offense, Ken, but this STILL doesn't address your original point, which was that the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining, and firing is "effected" by fear of litigation, not that fear of litigation exists. Heck, I fear litigation everytime my neighbor's teenager cuts my lawn, but it doesn't mean I don't give him a crack at my yardwork.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 08, 2001.

Tarzan,

Say what?! Did I read you right? Did you intend to state that under Affirmative Action plans, "...you must hire the most qualified person, even if that person is white..."? This is the first time I've ever heard it put this way, so I'm double-checking to see if you really meant to say this.

Regarding the confict between Title VII and Affirmative Action, you said, "Laws are often changed to include exceptions." Where was the statute (law) changed? Affirmative Action came through an executive order. Are you implying that executive orders have the status of laws? Further, don't executive orders (and court decisions, for that matter) have to comport with -- not contradict or create exceptions to -- the law? Wouldn't the executive order in this case be illegal?

Then you said,

"The court cases I cited have to do with how Title VII is enforced..."

Well, if Title VII says you can't use race as a factor, but Bakke says you can...isn't that legislating from the bench? And isn't that a direct contradiction of the statute?

You said,

"My opinion on your hypothetical situation would depend on the specifics of the situation."

What about just assuming the specifics I gave you? What say you then?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 08, 2001.

Are you familiar with the concept of inductive reasoning? Have you ever worked as a manager? Do you understand marginal utility and marginal costs? I get the distinct impression we are wasting one another's time.

Let's use your example of the neighbor kid doing your yard work. In the morning paper you read about a multi-million lawsuit won by a teen who was injured mowing a neighbor's lawn. You open the mail and find a sales brochure about protecting yourself from "neighbor kid" lawsuits. You get a call from your personal attorney asking you if you'd like some info on the recent "neighor kid" litigation. Then the neighbor kid rolls over and asks you if you can do your yardwork for $20.

While you are thinking, hundreds of thousands of other home owners are making the same internal COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS with their neighbor kids. While the fear of litigation may not impact your final decision, it will enter into the decision making process... of every homeowner that reads the paper or the mail.

Employers make this same type of analysis every day concerning hiring and firing. In economics, I don't have to prove what an individual person is thinking at a precise moment in time. All I have to do is demonstrate following:

Businesses generally act in a rational, self-interested manner.

Businesses exist to maximize profits, which is to say, to maximize revenues and minimize costs.

Employees, by definition, are paid, and therefore a cost to any firm. Employees are hired to perform tasks that will increase revenues. It is in the employers to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of labor.

For a firm to remain profitable, the revenues added by employees must outweigh the costs. If they do not, the firm will eventually go out of business. The same is true for firing employees.

Since businesses are rational and self-interested, businesses will analyze the known costs and benefits of personnel decisions like hiring, promoting, discipling and firing. Labor costs are often the largest single business expense. A failure to successfully analyze the costs and benefits or adding or reducing employees will result in lower profits.

Employee litigation is a potential cost of personnel actions. Employers KNOW this. Therefore, these costs will be considered with respect to the perceived probability and amount of the cost.

The fact that businesses spend money to reduce the risk of litigation proves that they are a) aware of the risk b) find the risk significant enough to spend money reducing the risk. If you refuse to agree that businesses are rational, self-interested and exist to make a profit, than my argument has no weight. If businesses are what I (and most economists) say they are... then the purchase of labor in the marketplace is an activity governed by the analysis of costs and benefits. I argue that businesses are aware of the potential cost of employee litigation. If businesses are aware of the cost, then it must figure into the cost-benefit analysis of personnel decisions.

Economists do not predict what an individual business will do, but how businesses react to incentive and disincentives... the marginal benefit and utility of labor. It doesn't matter what you will or will not pay your neighbor kid to do... what matters is how the market for yard work is impacted by the threat of litigation. If litigation against homeowners for employing neighbor kids became a national issue... the marginal costs would change.

By the way, I love how you tell me I can't generalize the actions of one employer to the whole U.S. and then use a personal example about you and the neighbor kid. Nice ironic touch.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 08, 2001.

"First, I am not convinced people were 'disenfranchised' or 'cheated' in Florida. Elections are messy. I have heard accusations from both sides about "cheating." From my perspective, I find it difficult to believe one political party is more (or less) guilty than the other."

Sure, Ken.

Inside Republican America: A Blacklist Burning for Bush

The more you look the more disbarred and 'disappeared' Gore voters you find. You'd almost think it was deliberate by Gregory Palast Hey, Al, take a look at this. Every time I cut open another alligator, I find the bones of more Gore voters. This week, I was hacking my way through the Florida swampland known as the Office of Secretary of State Katherine Harris and found a couple thousand more names of voters electronically 'disappeared' from the vote rolls. About half of those named are African-Americans. They had the right to vote, but they never made it to the balloting booths. When we left off our Florida story two weeks ago, The Observer discovered that Harris's office had ordered the elimination of 8,000 Florida voters on the grounds that they had committed felonies in other states. None had. Harris bought the bum list from a company called ChoicePoint, a firm whose Atlanta executive suite and boardroom are filled with Republican funders. ChoicePoint, we have learned, picked up the list of faux felons from state officials in - ahem - Texas. In fact, it was a roster of people who, like their Governor, George W, had committed nothing more than misdemeanours.

For Harris, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother, the Texas blacklist was a mistake made in Heaven. Most of those targeted to have their names 'scrubbed' from the voter roles were African- Americans, Hispanics and poor white folk, likely voters for Vice- President Gore. We don't know how many voters lost their citizenship rights before the error was discovered by a few sceptical county officials, before ChoicePoint, which has gamely 'fessed-up to the Texas-sized error, produced a new list of 58,000 felons. In May, Harris sent on the new, improved scrub sheets to the county election boards. Maybe it's my bad attitude, but I thought it worthwhile to check out the new list. Sleuthing around county offices with a team of researchers from internet newspaper Salon.com, we discovered that the 'correct' list wasn't so correct.

One elections supervisor, Linda Howell of Madison County, was so upset by the errors that she refused to use the Harris/ChoicePoint list. How could she be so sure the new list identified innocent people as felons? Because her own name was on it, 'and I assure you, I am not a felon'.

Our 10-county review suggests a minimum 15 per cent misidentification rate. That makes another 7,000 innocent people accused of crimes and stripped of their citizenship rights in the run-up to the presidential race. And not just any 7,000 people. Hillsborough (Tampa) county statisticians found that 54 per cent of the names on the scrub list belonged to African-Americans, who voted 93 per cent for Gore.

Now our team, diving deeper into the swamps, has discovered yet a third group whose voting rights were stripped. The ChoicePoint- generated list includes 1,704 names of people who, earlier in their lives, were convicted of felonies in Illinois and Ohio. Like most American states, these two restore citizenship rights to people who have served their time in prison and then remained on the good side of the law.

Florida strips those convicted in its own courts of voting rights for life. But Harris's office concedes, and county officials concur, that the state of Florida has no right to impose this penalty on people who have moved in from these other states. (Only 13 states, most in the Old Confederacy, bar reformed criminals from voting.)

Going deeper into the Harris lists, we find hundreds more convicts from the 35 other states which restored their rights at the end of sentences served. If they have the right to vote, why were these citizens barred from the polls? Harris didn't return my calls. But Alan Dershowitz did. The Harvard law professor, a renowned authority on legal process, said: 'What's emerging is a pattern of reducing the total number of voters in Florida, which they know will reduce the Democratic vote.'

How could Florida's Republican rulers know how these people would vote? I put the question to David Bositis, America's top expert on voting demographics. Once he stopped laughing, he said the way Florida used the lists from a private firm was, 'an obvious technique to discriminate against black voters'. In a darker mood, Bositis, of Washington's Center for Political and Economic Studies, said the sad truth of American justice is that 46 per cent of those convicted of felony are African-American. In Florida, a record number of black folk, over 80 per cent of those registered to vote, packed the polling booths on November 7. Behind the curtains, nine out of 10 black people voted Gore.

Mark Mauer of the Sentencing Project, Washington, pointed out that the 'white' half of the purge list would be peopled overwhelmingly by the poor, also solid Democratic voters.

Add it up. The dead-wrong Texas list, the uncorrected 'corrected' list, plus the out-of-state ex-con list. By golly, it's enough to swing a presidential election. I bet the busy Harris, simultaneously in charge of both Florida's voter rolls and George Bush's presidential campaign, never thought of that.

But enough is never enough, it seems. We have discovered a fourth group of Gore voters also barred from the polls.

It was Thursday, 2am. On the other end of the line, heavy breathing, then a torrent too fast for me to catch it all. 'Vile... lying... inaccurate... pack of nonsense... riddled with errors'... click! This was not a ChoicePoint whistleblower telling me about the company's notorious list. It was ChoicePoint's own media communications representative, Marty Fagan, communicating with me about my, 'sleazy disgusting journalism' in reporting on it.

I was curious about this company that appears - although never say never in this game - to have chosen the next President for America's voters. Its board dazzles with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone and Home Depot tycoon Bernard Marcus, big Republican funders.

Florida is the only state to hire an outside firm to suggest who should lose citizenship rights. That may change. 'Given a new President, and what we accomplished in Florida, we expect to roll across the nation,' ChoicePoint told me ominously.

They have quite a pedigree for this solemn task. The company's Florida subsidiary, Database Technologies (now DBT Online), was founded by one Hank Asher. When US law enforcement agencies alleged that he may have been associated with Bahamian drug dealers - although no charges were brought - the company lost its data management contract with the FBI. Hank and his friends left last year and so, in Florida's eyes, the past is forgiven.

Thursday, 3am. (I should say both calls were at my request). A new, gentler voice giving me ChoicePoint's upbeat spin. 'You say we got over 15 per cent wrong - we like to look at that as up to 85 per cent right!' That's 7,000 votes-plus - the bulk Democrats, not to mention the thousands on the Texas list. Gore may lose by 500 votes.

I contacted San Francisco-based expert Mark Swedlund. 'It's just fundamental industry practice that you don't roll out the list statewide until you have tested it and tested it again,' he said. 'Dershowitz is right: they had to know that this jeopardised thousands of people's registrations. And they would also know the [racial] profile of those voters.'

'They' is Florida state, not ChoicePoint. Let's not get confused where the blame lies. Harris's crew lit this database fuse, then acted surprised when it blew up. Swedlund says ChoicePoint had a professional responsibility to tell the state to test the list; ChoicePoint says the state should not have used its 'raw' data.

Until Florida privatised its Big Brother powers, laws kept the process out in the open. This year, when one county asked to see ChoicePoint's formulas and back-up for blacklisting voters, they refused - these were commercial secrets. So we'll never know how America's president was chosen.

ChoicePoint complains that I said Harris signed their contract. It was a Beth Emory. I'm still more than 85 per cent accurate.

-- Ken's "Free Market" Justice (GOP@thug.tactics), January 08, 2001.

I was curious about this company that appears - although never say never in this game - to have chosen the next President for America's voters. Its board dazzles with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone and Home Depot tycoon Bernard Marcus, big Republican funders.

Florida is the only state to hire an outside firm to suggest who should lose citizenship rights. That may change. 'Given a new President, and what we accomplished in Florida, we expect to roll across the nation,' ChoicePoint told me ominously.

-- WAKE UP People! (democracy@in.jeopardy), January 08, 2001.

Say what?! Did I read you right? Did you intend to state that under Affirmative Action plans, "...you must hire the most qualified person, even if that person is white..."? This is the first time I've ever heard it put this way, so I'm double-checking to see if you really meant to say this.

Yep. A promotion or hire based SOLELY on race (or another characteristic) and not on qulifications and abilities would be illegal.

Regarding the confict between Title VII and Affirmative Action, you said, "Laws are often changed to include exceptions." Where was the statute (law) changed?

There is no conflict.

Affirmative Action came through an executive order. Are you implying that executive orders have the status of laws?

Are you saying they don't?

Further, don't executive orders (and court decisions, for that matter) have to comport with -- not contradict or create exceptions to -- the law? Wouldn't the executive order in this case be illegal?

It would if there was a conflict with the law.

Well, if Title VII says you can't use race as a factor, but Bakke says you can...isn't that legislating from the bench?

Title VII, as amended by affirmative action, says you can use race as a factor under very narrow and specific situations.

And isn't that a direct contradiction of the statute?

No.

What about just assuming the specifics I gave you? What say you then?

I would say the same. I don't have enough information to make a decision. What you're doing is the verbal equivalent of handing me a photograph and asking me to decide whether the picture is true or not. Whafu?

I can tell you this however. If someone came to me and said, "I didn't get hired but someone of another race did and I think it's discrimination," my response would be "Prove it,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 08, 2001.

Just a rumor---if Dems sink Ashcroft, Bush will nominate Katherine Hairyass to be Attorney General.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 08, 2001.

Tarzan,

Just a "for what it's worth". A good friend of mine is a deputy district attorney for L.A. county. He says that "officially" every case is treated the same, whether it's in South Central or Beverly Hills (I've used these regions as examples, as they should be recognized outside of L.A.). From an unofficial, not to be discussed publically perspective however, he ALSO says that the D.A.'s office is much more likely to accept a plea in South Central where the public doesn't trust the police, and it's very hard to get a conviction of any sort than in Beverly Hills where they are more likely to convict.

The point I'm trying to make, is that as you say, the law is the law. It's actual *effects* on business, and the people IN business may very widely depending on the local population. What may not be a problem in one locality may be a BIG problem for someone else.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 08, 2001.

Are you familiar with the concept of inductive reasoning?

Yes.

Have you ever worked as a manager?

Yes.

Do you understand marginal utility and marginal costs?

Yes.

I get the distinct impression we are wasting one another's time.

And I get the distinct impression that you are unable to provide any quantifiable, direct evidence to support your original point, which was "This threat of legal action effects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining or firing employees."

The rest of your post is full of sound and fury, signifying that you made a claim you can't back up with the direct, quantifiable evidence I intially requested. I wish you had said so in the first place, it would have saved some time. There's no shame in admitting that, especially after the fight you've put up, trying to dance your way out of the question at hand. Next time, however, you might want to temper your statement with "Evidence shows that..." or "From my point of view..." etc. Good luck next time!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 08, 2001.

I simply can not believe how fucking serious all this has became.

The crack about the dog and the gasoline was uncalled for.

Flint, you are a hipocrit on one hand you chide Future Shock and on the other hand you do the same thing. Shame on you and your intellectual fucking wannabe bud Dicker.

-- annonymous (annon@ymous.net), January 08, 2001.

No, Tarzan, you do not apparently understand inductive reasoning nor do you grasp marginal utility. I have made a clear argument proving the influence of litigation on hiring and firing without a pocket full of statistical data. You simply refuse to accept inductive reasoning... instead, you want numbers. Thus far, I have been lazy. The weather is miserable and I have no desire to stomp over to the nearest research library and digging out data I know full well exists.

But you've been smug enough to make me dig out my overcoat. I'll start a few new threads for your amusement.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 08, 2001.

Tarzan:

You are starting to look very silly. Ken provided a whole farking *industry* as evidence, and you deny it. In court, he could provide a confession, a videotape of the crime being committed, and a hundred witnesses, and you'd sit there and say "yeah, but where's your evidence?" And you expect us not to laugh at you?

Having provided ample evidence, Ken went on to provide demonstration, analysis, understanding, and perspective. He explained why this industry exists, what it does, whom it serves, why it's cost effective. What more do you want? Would millions of managers testifying that the threat of legal action influenced their personnel decisions satisfy you? Apparently not, because that's what the industry *IS* that Ken spoke of.

Tarzan, have you ever considered a military career? A military denyer can look you straight in the eye and deny he's ever seen you in his life, and the polygraph will back him up. You seem to have a natural gift for this specialty.

annon:

Are you Cherri without her spell checker? If not, good parody of her!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 2001.

No, Tarzan, you do not apparently understand inductive reasoning nor do you grasp marginal utility.

And YOU don't understand the definition of definitive and quantifiable proof. I think it's rather sad that you are not only incapable of providing me the data I asked for but that you continue to offer other data and insist that it is something it is not.

I have made a clear argument proving the influence of litigation on hiring and firing without a pocket full of statistical data.

And yet you completely missed the fact that a pocket full of statistical data is exactly what I asked for. Definitive and quantifiable data to back up your claim. If you didn't want to or are incapable of providing that data, be an adult and admit it. Don't continue whining about how clear and reasoned your arguments are. Even if your arguments were perfect, they would STILL not provide what I asked me.

You simply refuse to accept inductive reasoning...instead, you want numbers.

NOW you get it! And only twenty-four hours and four pitiful attempts later. Geez, is there some kind of Decker Daylight Savings that the rest of the world doesn't know about?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 08, 2001.

You are starting to look very silly. Ken provided a whole farking *industry* as evidence, and you deny it.

Ken failed to provide definitive quantifiable evidence of his original point, which was what I asked for in the first place. I don't know what he finds so difficult about that. If you make a claim involving hard data (i.e., cost-benefits analysis) then you should be able to back up that claim with hard data.

In court, he could provide a confession, a videotape of the crime being committed, and a hundred witnesses, and you'd sit there and say "yeah, but where's your evidence?" And you expect us not to laugh at you?

And yet, that's not what he's provided here. While his smoke and mirrors show may have fooled the slow-witted, it is not quantifiable and definitive proof. Instead of your confession, videotape and eyewitnesses, he has provdided a bunch of people who say, "I'm certain a crime has been committed," No judge in his right mind would consider that evidence.

Having provided ample evidence, Ken went on to provide demonstration, analysis, understanding, and perspective.

Ken provided evidence of SOMETHING else.

He explained why this industry exists, what it does, whom it serves, why it's cost effective.

But he failed to provide definitive, quantifiable evidence. I have asked for one thing and he has attempted to provide another and call it what I asked for. Why should I accept it, because it agrees with your viewpoint?

What more do you want?

Definitive, quantifiable proof of Ken's original claim. It's what I've always asked for. My standards haven't changed. And yet, Ken seems incapable of either understanding that need or providing that evidence. Strange.

Would millions of managers testifying that the threat of legal action influenced their personnel decisions satisfy you?

Actually, millions of managers saying that affirmative action affects the cost-benefit analysis of hiring, disciplining, and firing employees would be definitive and quantifiable proof. Isn't it odd that you've managed to accidentally hit the nail on the head while Ken has missed it so often?

Tarzan, have you ever considered a military career? A military denyer can look you straight in the eye and deny he's ever seen you in his life, and the polygraph will back him up. You seem to have a natural gift for this specialty.

Oh my poor country mouse. You are indeed in over your head. You may be excused from the discussion. Please come back when you gain the ability to see your hand in front of your face.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 08, 2001.

White House Executive Order 11246 of 1965 (AKA ‘Affirmative Action’)

This was but one of LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ legislation’s and like the whole package did not turn out too well. Of course, to be opposed to continuing this farce will bring forth cry’s of ‘racist’ from the liberal left. Tough shit.

Affirmative action is guilty of robbing the very soul from those it supposes to benefit. They spend the rest of their lives knowing that they were not ‘good’ enough to secure the job position or university acceptance on their own merits. Only the intervention of the government allowed them to be ‘selected’. Of course, for each of ‘them’ a more qualified individual was denied, simply because ‘they’ were not of the proper race or sex. Sure makes for a harmonious attitude towards the minorities, aye? Lyndon Johnson was a criminal scumbag if ever there was, and a democrat to boot. For his own personal political gain, he sold our country down the sewer and we must now reverse his actions and heal the wounds.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 08, 2001.

Tarzan:

I LOVE it! A free home demonstration of exactly what I pointed out. You DO have the gift. Now, let's see you deny something else equally obvious, OK? You're on a roll.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 2001.

Pam, I recall once hearing a song "Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean." Could that be the one you heard.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 08, 2001.

Tarzan,

Ok...so, under Affirmative Action, according to you -- in your own words, "...you must hire the most qualified person, even if that person is white..."

Than I assume you'd agree with the following: On a 100 point scale, the white gets 95 for his job-related qualifications (e.g., experience, education, etc. but NOT race, e.g.) and the black gets 94. Under Affirmative Action, you'd have to hire the white. Agree? If not, why not? And please reconcile your response with your statement I've quoted in the first paragraph.

If you agree with my interpretative example, could you quote me an authoritative source on this position? It militates against everything I've ever heard about Affirmative Action's preference programs.

You seemed to imply that executive orders had the status of laws. When I took you to task on this, you avoided a direct response. In any case, if I could show that if an executive order conflicts with a law, it's illegal, and that THIS executive order (AA) contradicts the law (Title VII), and is therefore illegal, would this cause you to consider abandoning your support for the program? If not, why not?

Apparently you see the statements "race cannot be a factor" (Title VII) vs. "race must be a factor" (Affirmative Action) as being in no conflict whatsoever. Right? (the quotes are paraphrases to highlight the contrast)

Regarding my hypothetical from several posts above that I've been practically begging you repeatedly to comment on...

You said that you "...don't have enough information to make a decision..."

Well, what other information would you need? I'll happily supply it for you.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 08, 2001.

eve:

While you're doing free research [grin], I have a request. As I recall, sometime early in 1989 there was a scandal surrounding a standardized government test. Seems all Federal applicants were required to take this test (kind of like an SAT), and get a score. Initially, the test was color blind, due to the *definition* that race was irrelevant -- that blacks and whites would score competitively. The idea was that companies and agencies would hire based on score, *without knowning* the race of the applicant. This would neatly eliminate discrimination.

The problem was, the races did NOT score competitively. White applicants got FAR higher scores. So this standard test, intended to get blacks hired equally with whites, was actually serving to lock blacks out of the workplace. This was a terrible dilemma -- they had to do *something* to get blacks hired equally *without* exposing these scoring trends.

So what they decided to do was have TWO scales, but not tell anyone about it. There was the "overall" scale, used for whites. Then there was the "blacks only" scale, used for blacks. A black who scored 40% on the overall scale scored 90% on the black scale. But both the black and white applicant were *billed* as having scored at 90%!

Of course, this didn't stay a secret very long (nothing in government ever does), so there was a scandal when the truth came out. And the response was to drop the entire testing program and return to the quotas Tarzan denies ever existed.

As a footnote, I saw a TV documentary not long ago about (I think) "Title IX" students in colleges. These were the students admitted under quota systems rather than on merit. Many colleges had entire "Title IX" curricula, largely remedial high school, yet the actual degrees conferred were identical.

And black students were at odds with one another. The ones admitted on merit and taking the normal curriculum resented everyone assuming they were quota cases or that their degree was bogus. And the quota cases defended the system on the grounds that without it, they could never have attended college or furthered their education at all. The fact that the quota cases often got a financial free ride that the merit cases did not, didn't help either. The whole subject was a bit disturbing. Genuine inequality cannot be disguised no matter how ingenious, or complex, or determined the pretense otherwise.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 2001.

Than I assume you'd agree with the following: On a 100 point scale, the white gets 95 for his job-related qualifications (e.g., experience, education, etc. but NOT race, e.g.) and the black gets 94. Under Affirmative Action, you'd have to hire the white. Agree?

According to the EEOC you would have to consider qualifications first, other characteristics second, and ONLY if there was an approved affirmative action plan in place.

If you agree with my interpretative example, could you quote me an authoritative source on this position? It militates against everything I've ever heard about Affirmative Action's preference programs.

From the Code of Federal Regulations on Labor, Section 1607.17:

The goal of any affirmative action plan should be achievement of genuine equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons. Selection under such plans will be based upon the ability of the applicant(s) to do the work. Such plans will not require the selection of the unqualified, or the unneeded, nor will they require the selection of persons on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

You seemed to imply that executive orders had the status of laws. When I took you to task on this, you avoided a direct response. In any case, if I could show that if an executive order conflicts with a law, it's illegal, and that THIS executive order (AA) contradicts the law (Title VII), and is therefore illegal, would this cause you to consider abandoning your support for the program? If not, why not?

Affirmative action does not violate the EEOC, plain and simple, it is simply a method of remedying current discrimination and as such is allowed under Title VII.

Well, what other information would you need? I'll happily supply it for you.

This is an exercise in futility. I suspect that I am going to tell you what I would consider, and you will alter your hypothetical situation to fit the criteria I ask for in a manner so as to either force me to admit the white person was discriminated against or to say that I consider it acceptable to hire a less-qualified minority over a more-qualified white person. Anyway, if I were confronted with this situation in real life, here is how I would proceed.

Since hiring decisions are never as (pardon the pun) black and white as you have laid out, the first thing I would look for is the basis for the decision. I would speak with the hiring manager and ask him his or her reason, then I would look at the office and see for myself whether this makes sense. I would examine the job specifications and the resumes of the candidates in question as well as the interviewer notes. I would look to see if each interview was conducted in a roughly equal manner (for instance, did the white person see the same people the black person saw?) I would also look at the cultural make- up of the company and the department. For instance, if the company has a very up-tight atmosphere and the white candidate is extremely casual but the black person had a "big five" manner, that would support a decision made on the basis of "team cohesion". I would look at the how much money the job was paying and the salary requirements of the job. Which candidate wanted more money? How much was the job paying? I would also look for nepotism, i.e., was there any connection between the black candidate and the hiring manager? Are they related in any way? Do they have associations in common?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 08, 2001.

Tarzan-

Wonderful fight. They are not going to get it. I believe you have won this debate-but of course I could not possibly be objective. Good job jungle man.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 09, 2001.

Tarzan,

My original comments are in brackets; your responses are in quotes.

[Then I assume you'd agree with the following: On a 100 point scale, the white gets 95 for his job-related qualifications (e.g., experience, education, etc. but NOT race, e.g.) and the black gets 94. Under Affirmative Action, you'd have to hire the white. Agree?]

“According to the EEOC you would have to consider qualifications first, other characteristics second, and ONLY if there was an approved affirmative action plan in place.”

Would you please simply answer the question? Agree or disagree?

[You seemed to imply that executive orders had the status of laws. When I took you to task on this, you avoided a direct response. In any case, if I could show that if an executive order conflicts with a law, it's illegal, and that THIS executive order (AA) contradicts the law (Title VII), and is therefore illegal, would this cause you to consider abandoning your support for the program? If not, why not?]

“Affirmative action does not violate the EEOC, plain and simple, it is simply a method of remedying current discrimination and as such is allowed under Title VII.”

Would you please simply answer the questions as I’ve posed them?

[Well, what other information would you need? I'll happily supply it for you.]

“I suspect that I am going to tell you what I would consider, and you will alter your hypothetical situation to fit the criteria I ask for in a manner so as to either force me to admit the white person was discriminated against or to say that I consider it acceptable to hire a less-qualified minority over a more-qualified white person.”

That’s precisely part of my aim. More specifically, the reasons for my method are to eliminate all possible opportunities for evasion and equivocation. And to clarify for all whether or not Affirmative Action condones or requires racial discrimination. If you feel that the program you support can withstand this type of scrutiny, you shouldn’t be worried about this; in fact you should welcome it.

“Anyway, if I were confronted with this situation in real life, here is how I would proceed…Since hiring decisions are never as (pardon the pun) black and white as you have laid out, the first thing I would look for is the basis for the decision. I would speak with the hiring manager and ask him his or her reason, then I would look at the office and see for myself whether this makes sense. I would examine the job specifications and the resumes of the candidates in question as well as the interviewer notes. I would look to see if each interview was conducted in a roughly equal manner (for instance, did the white person see the same people the black person saw?) I would also look at the cultural make- up of the company and the department. For instance, if the company has a very up-tight atmosphere and the white candidate is extremely casual but the black person had a "big five" manner, that would support a decision made on the basis of "team cohesion". I would look at the how much money the job was paying and the salary requirements of the job. Which candidate wanted more money? How much was the job paying? I would also look for nepotism, i.e., was there any connection between the black candidate and the hiring manager? Are they related in any way? Do they have associations in common?”

Assume the resumes, interview results, “corporate culture” and “team cohesion” issues, and salary requirements, are roughly equal. And that nepotism or other connections are not issues. If I’ve missed anything, let me know, and I’ll fill in the blanks for you.

Flint,

I’m not clear on exactly how you’d like me to help you. Would a news article be enough?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), January 09, 2001.