I wonder where these people went to school and whether they think critically…

Let me first make a few points I have made before…

1. I think there is ONE race…the Human Race; and
2. Color and Appearance are just a descriptions that may be applied to a person and may not indicate anything except “color” and “appearance.”

The Associated Press has a posting that states

The Obama administration should direct the government’s civil rights agencies to offer guidance on the ruling, said Shirley Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action.

“In the meantime, we’re scratching our heads,” she said. “We’re concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate … and it’s not clear how to do that.”

Let me state some of the facts in the case:

1. The City of New Haven gave the “test” to 77 candidates to Lieutenant and 41 candidates for Captain. Of those 77, fifty-six passed the exams (41 “whites,” nine “blacks” and six “Hispanics”). However, the article states that “only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion.”
2. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCotUS) Blog has a post summarizing the case and states that 7 Captain spots and 8 Lieutenant slots were trying to be filled.
3. The City of New Haven decided to NOT use the exam results to determine promotions. because the City might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a “disparate impact” on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
4. The AP article does not clearly state why only 17 “whites” and 2 “hispanics” (out of the 41 “whites, 9 “blacks,” and 6 “hispanics” who passed the exam) could expect promotions even though more people “passed” the exam.

The Judgment

The SCotUS BLog states it well

While the Court seems to have said that, if an employer – public or private – conducts hiring or promotion tests that are legally sound, those who score highest and meet other selection factors cannot be denied a job or a promotion because of race, the decision does not say that the employer has any duty to avoid closing off jobs or the promotions so that no one is chosen (so long as it does not do so for racial reasons).
. . .
First, the Court ruled that the tests used for firefighter promotions in New Haven were legally valid. Second, it ruled that city officials there had failed to show that there were any alternative tests that could have had less of a negative impact on minority test-takers. Third, it ruled that the city had not shown that it had a genuine fear of being sued by minority firefighters if it gave most of the promotions off the 2003 tests to whites. And, fourth, it appeared to rule that, even if the city goes ahead and uses the test results to promote whites for most or all of any open slots, minority firefighters will have no legal complaint that they were victims of discrimination because the city can claim that it had to make promotions to avoid violating Title VII’s protection for the whites who scored best.

You see, New Haven decided to invalidate the results of the exam and “start from scratch” because, according to the AP, the City

eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a “disparate impact” on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So, a municipality can not halt promotions due to a fear over lawsuits by anyone who might sue under the Civil Rights Act of 1964–regardless of whether they are “white,” “black,” “hispanic,” etc…

Something to “chew on” if you think the SCotUS was wrong…

The AP article states Justice Ginsburg said

… the court should have assessed “the starkly disparate results” of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city’s 21 fire captains was African-American.

I agree the numbers seem “fishy.” However, I have posted before on the difference between coincidence and correlation. Just because 15 of 5 “whites” failed the exam does not mean the exam is geard to eliminate “whites” from passing the exam. Rather, we need to see how and why the exam discriminates against those who do not pass.

Secondly, any alleged “past practice” that may have resulted in “disparate results” may not be ongoing, and to assume that any such discriminatory practice is ongoing might be based on bad assumptions. Remember what the investment analysts tell us, “Past performance does not guarantee future performance…”

Let me give an example…

I take 15 “white” guys and 15 “other” guys to take a test an subject “A.” Lets say that the “whites” think they have it all “wrapped up” while the “other” guys figure they will have to “work for it.” The “others” study while the “whites” don’t. The results of the test say 2 of the 15 “whites” passed and 14 of the 15 “others” passed. The “starkly disparate results” may simply mean the “others” were more prepared for the exam, and the results might not mean anything about being qualified for the position, mind you…

Should I say that the exam discriminates?

Assume now that this is what happens next in New Haven… Can the whites sue with more success if the “blacks” and “hispanics” now all pass while the “white” exam takers do not pass the exam? Can I say that the past failure to promote “white” test takers who passed the exam and the results of this exam (where the “white” test-takers did not pass) can mean there is an “ongoing inequality” in the department?

Not convinced?

Imagine if the “whites” in this case were “black”…. Think the outcome would be justified when the court supports the “minority?” If so, how do you come up with a different result due to the plaintiff’s “color?”

Summary

Figuring out when discrimination occurs is a necessity. We have to “figure it out.” However, we are not supposed to “assume guilt” in this country–regardless of “your color,” “your social status,” …

We should find the discriminatory practice, if it exists, and eliminate any such practice.

As I have often said, there should be one law that provides every citizen with the same protection from discrimination. I think that any law that protects one group more than “other groups” is discrimination.

Of course, I welcome that you may have a difference of opinion. I just don’t see how you rationalize your position. Let me know?

We live in interesting times…

Deaths in the entertainment field always seem to make people think about death. Why people don’t realize that people die from the same causes every day is something I will never understand…

Why does a famous person have to die for us to “see” what is right in front of us all?

I would love for you all to ask that of yourselves. It does take Critical Thinking…

As to the string of recent deaths (in June 2009), I’ll say the most troublesome statement made regarding these deaths may be the following

“When the autopsy comes, all hell’s going to break loose, so thank God we’re celebrating him (Michael Jackson, ed.) now,” Liza Minnelli told CBS’ “The Early Show” by telephone.

Indeed… What does she know?

I have a few people talk to me about my posting about the form of government that we have in the United States of America (USA).

Most tell me that the “republic” is really a democracy…

They are well-intentioned, but they are wrong.

James Madison was a great thinker, the creator (if you will) of our Bill of Rights, and our 4th President… He stated

… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Don’t believe he said that? Go read Federalist Paper #10…

So I ask you, do you support the Bill of Rights?

If you say you do, do you allow those who you “despise” exert their rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? If you want to take away someone’s rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, you do not support the Bill of Rights. Rather, you would use the government to infringe on the minorities rights to further your own and are one of those “interests” the founders of this nation were referring to when they said

The great desideratum in Government is such a modification of the Sovereignty as will render it sufficiently neutral between the different interests and factions, to control one part of Society from invading the rights of another, and sufficiently controuled (sic) itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the whole Society.

For your Critical-Thinking pleasure, I present the text of the Federalist Paper #10

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS
(written by James Madison)

Who? Me?

Like honey, I find you
warm, sticky, and sweet.
Stuck on me, you woo
with words, deeds, and heat.

Your smile grins, eyes glow.
Your hug pulls me in.
Eyes, leading me in tow,
my heart, you win.

Your touch, a desire.
Me - Teased within.
You - Lighting a fire.
Or is it me, from within?

The American Heritage Dictionary states an Ideology is

NOUN:
pl. i·de·ol·o·gies

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

So what? You ask.

Linda Basch, the president of the National Council for Research on Women (in the United States), has an opinion piece at the Christian Science Monitor that states

As has been pointed out with increasing frequency, a certain groupthink has been widely blamed for the economic crisis we find ourselves in today.

Barnard College president Deborah Spar dubbed our predicament a “one gender crash,” and The New York Times’s Nicholas Kristof wonders if we might all have been better off had it been “Lehman Brothers and Sisters.”

Studies indicate that women are more comprehensive thinkers and less attracted to excessive risk than are their male peers. It seems we have reached a fairly broad consensus on the meltdown: Guys were the ones flying too close to the sun.

Now that we’ve landed back on earth with a mighty thud – a little humbler and a whole lot poorer – it’s time to deal with the most important question of the day: How do we get more women into the good-old-boys network at the highest levels of the financial sector?

Generalizations kill…

A few points before I give you my opinion…

1. Perhaps the financial sector teaches/preaches a certain mind-set–sort of like medical or law school; and
2. Generalizations are always wrong and support Ideologies.

My opinion

Ms. Basch, with all due respect, is making a statement that I think is aimed at “prodding the pig” to get publicity for an upcoming publication–Women in Fund Management: A Road Map for Achieving Critical Mass and Why it Matters.

Makes you want to say, Hmmmm.

I want a diversified employee base, but to think that the people making up the employees define what goes on “in the sector” might be putting the cart before the horse…

The push in finance is to make a profit. Promotions and “fame” are handed out to those that make profit for the firm–arguably for the clients, but I don’t think that is necessary for them…

Good lawyers will tell you law school altered the way they look at the world. So to, I would expect, does most “jobs.” Meaning, police often have opinions based on their experience that does not, in my opinion, spread out to apply to everyone “similar” to those of which they have opinions about… Yes, read that again…

I’d like her to go look at women in finance and see what the “successful” women have been doing. Let me see…

1. Bodil Nyboe Andersen, governor of Denmark’s Nationalbank;
2. Ana Patricia Botin, the CEO of Coverlink, Spain’s largest Internet consulting company;
3. Abby Joseph Cohen, Partner and Chief Strategist at Goldman Sachs;
4. Dina Dublon, Chief Financial Officer, Chase Manhattan Bank; and
5. Patricia Dunn, Chairman at Barclays Global Investors.

Forbes said, in 2005, that Ms. Cohen was

Cohen has been a partner at this white-shoe investment bank since 1998, and CNBC and Reuters have cited her equity market forecasts as being the most accurate projections provided by any of the major firms in 2003 and 2004, though in recent years she has been dinged for being a wee bit too bullish on the stock market.

I doubt she would have been “dinged” if she wasn’t taking risks…

I would argue that most of them feel like Ms. Dunn who, in an year 2000 article about the most powerful women in finance, said

[T]he great financial services companies of the future will be those that deliver the greatest value for money to their customers.

“I know gender has posed fairness issues for many women, but I have never felt limited by being a woman. If the signals were there, I guess I ignored them.”

My guess is that companies do take risks to return the greatest value. Of course, I could be wrong…

Thoughts

Whether you look at Amelia Earhart, Henry “Industrial Revolution” Ford, or anyone else, taking a risk is exactly what is at the center of someone getting out and doing something that will “break them out of their mold.”

Without taking a risk, how would you ever do something that had not been done before? Whether you call it analysis, leap of faith, or risk, you take a step without knowing the outcome. To think that anyone moves forward without the analysis is, I think, the mistake.

So, I think Ms. Basch is wrong. It isn’t “men” that caused the financial meltdown. Rather, it is people in finance, their regulators, and the investing public (private companies, individuals, etc.) that got greedy and wanted “profit.” This “need for greed” is what drives the risk, calculated as it may be.

So before you go pointing the finger at “men,” think. I certainly could, using her argument, make many statements about “insert your group here.” The problem with any of those statements would be that the statement would be based on a generalization. Just because someone can point to some coincidence and make a statement does not make the statement true.

Drunk drivers get into wrecks. However, not everyone who drinks ends up driving. To say that men should not drink but that women should drink would be the wrong thing to say just because, in general, more men end up crashing while driving while intoxicated. One outcome does not mean the other is true. Rather, nobody should drive while drunk…

Of course, you won’t believe me…

I refer you to The hormone replacement - coronary heart disease conundrum: is this the death of observational epidemiology? by Lawlor DA, Smith GD & Ebrahim S as published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2004 (Vol 33, pages 464-467).

Let me explain. No, there is too much. I will sum up…

The study cited above concludes

[N]umerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small and significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups (ABC1), with better than average diet and exercise regimes. The two were coincident effects of a common cause, rather than cause and effect as had been supposed.

One is cause-and-effect, the other is correlation. As well stated on Wikipedia

[C]orrelation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

Think…Critically.

The New York Times has a post about Federal protection (i.e., law) to prevent the discrimination of transgendered federal workers…

Lawyers for President Obama are quietly drafting first-of-their kind guidelines barring workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees, officials said Tuesday.

Go read the article… I’ll wait…

What is my problem with this proposed law?

How could I not want protection for transgendered federal employees?

I do. However, I also want protection for transgendered non-federal employees. I want protection for …  everyone.  If you are giving one group legal protection, why not give it to everyone? Shouldn’t we all have the same protections?

Declaration of Independence states

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Yes, wow. Go read that again…

Let me point this part out again…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Government is founded by Men (Men and Women, obviously…) to secure those unalienable Rights that include, but are not limited to, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I do not see the right to health care, a large flat-screen television, or any other “entitlement.” Perhaps, you say, they are some of those “unlisted” Rights?

No. I think the “Rights” referred to are those described and protected by the Constitution and its “Bill of Rights.”

I certainly could be wrong…

Back to the story. Or, Why do they keep doing this?

So the Federal Government is proposing to protect a very small segment of our population that deserves to be protected while not protecting everyone to the same degree…

I don’t get the reasoning. I think Obama and his administration are “playing” catch-up since Obama did not support the overturning of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy/Law. He is facing some concern from the, and I hope I get this right, Gay, Lesbian, Transgendreed, and “other” groups. Don’t realize this? Go search on Yahoo, Google, or other search engine for “Gay,” “Obama,” and “support.”

What I suggest…

Pass one law that protects … wait for it … everyone.

Who can argue that protecting everyone from discrimination is unfair? If they do, how do they look?

Read the following a few times…

If we protect a group more than others, are we not making the same error made by those who protected themselves more than the “minority?” The issue is that “we are all created equal” not that “we have all been treated equally.”

I think providing any portion of the population with more legal rights than other citizens is not what the United States of America represents. In fact, I think the law should recognize the that “We are all created equal” and provide for fairness by making sure “We are all treated equally.”

Rant…you can skip this if you want…

As to why we feel a need to “label” ourselves as “African-American,” “Homosexual,” or “Protestant,” I am not sure. I think it is part of that which Stan Lee has called some condition of our population where most people must be critical of others who are different.

The San Fransisco Chronicle had an article as reported by USA Today

The thing I had in mind was to make it a story against bigotry of all sorts, because here were people who were certainly different than everybody else, but they were good, they were trying to do the right thing,” Lee tells the San Francisco Chronicle in Sunday’s editions.

“But as so often happens in real life, if you have a different religion, a different country, a different sexual orientation, whatever the difference is, people — not all people, but it happens — are going to dislike you, distrust you, fear you.”

I think people, Man, is critical of those who are “different” rather than seeing “different” as a good thing.

If we could eliminate that “dislike of difference,” we all would be better off…

In Summary

The Obama Administration could do what previous administrations have failed to do…  Guarantee the same right to all citizens rather than giving some citizens more rights or protections than others…

It just doesn’t look like they will…

What say you?

Finger’s Smile

Being happy is a choice I make
not a choice made for me.
A choice I make when I awake.
From others it sets me free.

I keep a smile upon my face
because I choose to wear it.
I don’t let others or their pace
remove it or confuse it.

My smile is mine, and a zinger
I’m happy to share with you,
placed on my face by my father’s finger
To stop me from feeling blue.

I find it worthwhile to create a smile
whether it be on me or you.
Created with honesty or beguile
It makes for a better view.

1. Government-Run Health Care

Go ask the veterans how they like the VA System — Government-Run Health Care for Veterans. Do you think the non-veteran system will be different? If so, how?

2. Government and Religion

Perhaps the separation of Church and State means the State shall not be run by the Church and not that the State will not allow “Church”… Why don’t they consider “agnostic” a religion?

3. Realize your sphere of influcence

You control… You. You may influence your kids and your immediate family (and a few others). Other than that, you irritate. Don’t believe me? Think about those outside your immediate family–those drivers on the road, those commentators on the web and on television, etc. How many of them influence you vs. irritate you? Therefore, ignore those whose opinion irritates you–you won’t change their opinion any more than they will change yours…

4. Life is short.

The world goes on without you, and you should take time to enjoy life. Your job is just your job–if you are single with no family, have at it… Otherwise, smell your kids and your significant other.

5. If you don’t like something about you, change it.

6. If you don’t like something about someone else, learn to live with it or don’t associate with them. Unless you want someone changing you to fit their needs, why does everyone need to agree with you?

7. Have a good day…

Everyone has read about the Iranian elections…

We have all heard, from news media around the USA, that the voting appears to have been rigged…

What we haven’t heard is that prior to the vote, independent pollsters found Ahmadinejad had a 2 to 1 lead…

Radio Free Europe has an article referencing an article in The Washington Post

“While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent…our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead,” the pollsters said.

Thirty-four percent of those polled said they would vote for Ahmadinejad while 14 percent preferred Musavi and 27 percent were undecided.

The poll was conducted by their nonprofit organizations — Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion and the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation — from May 11 to 20 and funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

It was the third in a series of polls over the past two years and consisted of 1,001 telephone interviews in Persian from a neighboring country, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.

Hear that…

Accept that…

Just because you WANT something doesn’t make it happen. Just because you can’t see how anyone else can accept it, want it, think that way, or vote that way doesn’t mean their views should not be just as protected as yours…

Story

When I entered graduate school, the University had a philosophy professor come talk to us. The professor told a hypothetical situation:

A small island in the Pacific was recently discovered, and inhabitants were found to live there. These inhabitants, called “New Pacificers,” were observed worshiping the “god of the volcano.” The New Pacificers believed that the volcano would not erupt if they sacrificed a young woman every year.

The professor then asked

Should we stop them, using force, from “sacrificing any more young women to “appease” the volcano god?

I was the only person in the group who said

No.

The professor could not believe that anyone would say “no.”

I stated I would start to educate the islanders in schools, but I would be sensitive to their cultural beliefs. Remember, “we” once believed the world was flat, that Earth was at the center of the Universe, and many other “silly” notions. It took us time to become educated to change our beliefs…

Forcing a change does not force the “belief” held by those forced to act differently. Rather, give them tools so that the pursuit of truth can lead them to finding facts. This way, the New Pacificers could change their culture without violence or hate.

The professor said, “There is always one in every class…” However, here is the professor’s mistake…

He assumes that stopping the action saves a life and it the “right” thing to do. He said because it is “the right thing to do,” we should do it and not be “swayed” by uneducated islanders who’s faulty beliefs are killing innocent people.

However, the islanders believe differently.

While I do not think killing or sacrificing anyone will stop a volcano from erupting, trying to force anyone to think like “I” think is doomed to failure.

Think Bush and Iraq. Think Roe v. Wade. Think about any other contentious issue where “opposing” sides take widely divergent views. Strict vegans v. omnivores. Taking it further, think of a fruitans–those who only eat fruit since it is already dead and fallen from the tree…

Beliefs are not black and white (nice reference, huh?), and the “truth” is often relative depending on where you stand (yes, nice reference to physics…).

When has anyone beat you up over a belief or an opinion? Did you then say, “They are right…” and believe they were right just because they could force you to do something or not do something?

War in the Middle East… Force will not solve the issue. Rather, force will make it worse.

The Solution

Give people hope, something to protect–stability (financial and otherwise).

Make a middle class the majority, and any “extremists” will be on the … extreme limits of the population–under the tail ends of the bell curve if you will.

We won’t ever get rid of “extremists.” However, we don’t have to sink to their level. We can accept differences of opinion between similar and/or different people. We can agree to disagree.

Think about it… How many of your “close” friends agree with you on ever “serious” issue facing our world today? Yet, you are “close” friends with them and, likely, accept their viewpoint even if you don’t agree with that view…

Understanding. Empathy.

Remember, your belief may also contrary what someone else believes. “They” are thinking you are “wrong” just as you are thinking “they” are “wrong.” Rather than wrong, see it as different. It could be that you are both wrong and that I am right…

Remember, we opine rather than lay claim to the “truth.” Certainly you don’t think Hitler thought he was “wrong” to kill all those people do you?

Iran

Iran has voted. There may have been election irregularities, and there may not have been irregularities. What I am suggesting is that we don’t listen to “one” side and “believe” what they are “selling.” If we do, we might be “buying” stuff that does us no good–or may actually harm us.

Look for the issue. Research the “sides,” and I think you will see more clearly and get closer to “the truth” than you could by staying in your corner, listening to those people who just voice your same opinion.

It is good to question.

I have often talked about crime and laws that regulate and/or “protect” a group, generally considered a minority, within a larger society.

For instance, there are anti-discrimination laws in the USA that protect “you” if “you” are a member of a “protected class“- “race” (which really isn’t race but color or ethnic origin isn’t it?), sex (which is really gender), age, …

The new Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Eric Holder, is proposing modifications to the Hate Laws to make it easier to prosecute those guilty of “hate crimes.”

I have a problem with this…

I want to stop violence–against everyone. I don’t like the laws that give a killer more “punishment” if they kill a police officer than if they kill an “average joe” citizen. Why? Why should killing a police officer be “worse” than killing a citizen? It isn’t WHO you kill that matters, rather, it is THAT you kill…

Isn’t it?

Not really…

Even the federal government, through congress, has stepped into the mess to suggest that killing a police officer and fleeing the USA become a federal crime.

My questions is why are police officers “protected” more than anyone else? Isn’t it that we want the full force of the federal government behind the request to obtain justice for ANYONE killed by someone who flees the country?

Back to the Hate Crime modification…

I hope it is clear that I am against violent crime. I fully support self defense, but it has to be “in defense” …

I suggest we pass legislation to simply make the violent attack of another person the federal offense and NOT just “protect” one class of citizens.

Isn’t the issue about discrimination about those that were not given the full protection of the law? If so, why are we making the same mistake again? Does the “shoe is on the other foot now” make any difference as to whether the protection of “one group but not the other” is wrong?

Should a minority be protected while people in the majority are not? What happens when the Hispanics or the African-Americans become the “majority?” Will we have to, once again, modify the law to cover changing circumstances and demographics?

Why not just protect people from violent crime–equally? This way, everyone gets protected, those guilty get punished, and nobody can argue that “it isn’t fair.”

Chime in… If you think the discrimination laws and hate laws protect those that are subject to “more” hate, what happens when the demographic shifts?

Mr. Holder states what I have stated:

“We will not tolerate murder, or the threat of violence, masquerading as political activism,” he said. “So let me be clear. The Justice Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect the rights ensured under our Constitution.”

However, I can’t mesh the above statement with the following two statements:

Holder said that to stop such violence, Congress should pass an updated version of hate crimes legislation in order to more effectively prosecute those who commit violent attacks based on gender, disability or sexual orientation.

The growing number of hate crimes against Latinos also shows the need for tougher laws, Holder said.

I urge everyone to think about how “fair” protecting some groups is while “other” groups are not protected to the same extent. Think about whether we are making different crime if the “act” is committed against a color, a gender, or an “orientation” a law rather than “another person not so protected.” Isn’t it the act of violence that should be illegal? Why should the punishment be worse because the victim was the member of any “protected class?”

Think of whether you were not given the same protection or benefit as others. If it is not fair to “protect some more than others,” how do you support these types of legislation?

I think making the act the crime is the only fair way to go. The victim is the victim, why should it matter if the victim is white, black, latino, gay, straight, or a hermaphrodite?

I think one person should be given the same treatment and protection as any other…

What say you?

Almost everyone I ask says, “A democracy.”

Well, no kind of…  We are a Republic.  Specifically, we are a Presidential Republic.

Let me explain.  No, there is too much.  Let me sum up…

A Democracy is not well defined by political experts, but two central themes emerge.  Wikipedia states that in a democracy, “all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power,  and” … “all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.^“

When I think of a democracy, I think that the majority rules–meaning if the majority of the citizens voted for Candidate A, then Candidate A would be President (Leader).

The United States of America has had several elections where the Candidate that got “the most votes” did NOT win the election…  The USA uses an Electoral College (System).

Yes, it gets complicated…

Why the “Republic” and not a “Democracy?”

James Madison stated in his Federalist Paper #10 a Democracy gets weaker as it gets larger due to the effect of groups becoming factions that argue against other “factions” where as a Republic gets stronger as it gets bigger because the structure of the Republic does not let factions form as easily.  Some might argue this means factions are marginalized while others say that it creates a greater “whole.”

Does it work?

Recently, I’d argue that we are more factionalized than ever.  Is that because we are growing fast or because we have more vocal factions?

I think we have people who, for some reason, are less happy withe accepting that people have differences–that we will not all agree.  The strength of our Nation is that we are all different but support the ideas of our Republic.

Could Madison have thought about what has gone on in the USA in the past 20 years?  My guess is yes.

The issues, I think, isn’t whether a Republic is form of Democracy–it is.  The issue is as described by Ben Franklin when asked what the Founding Fathers created.  The story is told, on Wikipedia,as follows:

As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma’am, if you can keep it

What we need to remember is that the Republic will fall if people will not accept that we, everyone, does not think the same, want the same, can be different.  A full democracy supports the majority while our Republic was formed to support all who are different–majority and minorities.  It doesn’t matter if “they” become the majority, our government was formed to support the liberties of us all.

Now, we need to see if we can “keep it.”  To do so, we need to accept that we are all different, that there is no “one right way” to do anything.  We need to realize that we all bring something to the table, and that our Table, while loud and mixed, is the best table around.  Why else would people still come here for “freedom?”

We can not exclude others because we don’t “like what they say.” Rather, we need to let everyone have a say.

So, stop thinking “they” are wrong and must conform.  Rather, get excited that so many who are different are here to live in our Republic.  Get to know those who are “different.”  You might be amazed at “how alike” we all are…

In closing, I ask that we remember that the Constitution is a shield to protect everyone’s rights rather than a sword to protect your rights by eliminating the rights of everyone else…

Ronald Reagan is supposed to have said that…

I think the original quote was something like, “Accept (what you are told), but question (it to find out if it is true).”

People who “question” the government are often given a “label” that identifies them as a “problem.”  Often, these people are called “unamerican.”  However, the Constitution allows us to question the government and has retained many rights to the States and to the People.

I think Ms. Clinton and Ms. Pelosi were called “unamerican” or were criticized for complaining about Bush’s policies…

Why do Governments “crack down” on those that question governmental action that “those in power” support?

Look at Venezuela.  Hugo Chavez is an admitted Socialist.  He wants to give “to the people” and eliminate “capitalist” control of the money in that country.  People should be allowed whatever government they want, but that government should have to follow the law.  The Washington Post states that Mr. Chavez has may be inclined to shut down the only “news organization,” in Venezuela, that is not “controlled” by the government.

Granted, Globovision is an anti-government television news station that broadcasts 24/7.  However, those using a magnifying glass and critical of “those in power” may keep “those in power” from misusing their power–generally given by the People…

How is this relevant to Reagan, you ask?

The Washington Post reports that President Obama has removed the Inspector General of AmeriCorps–the “service” arm that supports many non-profit educational organizations for children in the USA.  Why?  The Washington Post states

“It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General,” Obama said in a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. “That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General.”

So, what did he do?

The Post continues

The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney’s office, which said the IG’s conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.

It appears as if some paperwork needed to be reviewed and some work needed to be done to determine if anything actually happened. However, the Post notes that

Kevin Hiestand, chairman of the board of St. HOPE Academy, said in a statement it was “about time” Walpin was removed. “Mr. Walpin’s allegations were meritless and clearly motivated by matters beyond an honest assessment of our program.”

However, …

The U.S. attorney’s office reached a settlement in the matter. Brown cited press accounts that said Johnson and the nonprofit would repay half of nearly $850,000 in grants it received.

Say what?!

I have to admit that if there was “no wrong-doing,” I would not settle and “pay back” the government $850k. Perhaps the non-profit, St. HOPE Academy, had not spent the money and had it in an account. I have no idea…

I still don’t understand why a non-profit with that much cash on-hand would settle “the accusation” when it would lose $850k IF there was no wrongdoing. Secondly, I don’t think the Attorney General would be IN settlement negotiations unless there was something going on…

So, the AG wasn’t going to file criminal charges but did enter into negotiations re: a civil penalty/settlement. Again, would the AG enter into those negotiations if St. HOPE Academy did nothing wrong?

The information leading to the settlement may not be made public, but I wonder if anyone is seeking those documents. Does the settlement give any evidence that the IG was, in fact, correct and should not be replaced? I don’t know, and I don’t know that we ever will.

However, this is why news organizations, whatever their political slant, should be able to look into and be a part of the news media and review/question governmental action/policy.

Just as Bush might have been better off not removing AGs based, allegedly, on their political position, Presidents should be careful when removing staff whose statements seem to contain at least some truth.  Instead, we need to find out, and publish, the “facts” so that governmental action is known to be “fair.”  This is called transparency.

The lack of transparency is confusing and disturbing, in my opinion.  Quoting Mr. Arsenio Hall, “Makes you want to say, Hmmmmm.”

No.

I follow an interseting blog called afrospear (http://afrospear.wordpress.com), and I like the perspective I get there.  As in most “contentious” discussions about politics, social issues, and even technology, sometimes opinions get heated.  Everyone has an opinion (as we should).

What I like to see is critical thinking.  There is a lot of it at that sight (in my opinion), but sometimes I think we, humans, might be giving in to those that “hate”–whether pro-white, pro-black, or pro-anything.

Let me explain.  No, there is too much…  Let me sum up…

I think there is one race.

Human.

If you were thinking any particular “race” as currently used, I ask you, “Why?”  Do you know my “color?”  Does my “color” matter?  If you think my “color” matters, I ask you why?  Can’t anyone be rational or think critically?

On afrospear, there was a post and some discussion about the how many times “white” people blame “black” people for crimes–like the false allegation made by Ms. Sweeten that two “black” men kidnapped her and her daughter.

I think the police need to investigate any such claim, and I commented that the speaker, Ms. Sweeten, is saying something about herself and not anything about any “black men.”

People who speak in terms of prejudice and hate and use those “unmentionable words” are telling everyone, through the use of said words, that they, the speaker, is ignorant and that they, the speaker, prejudge people.  The speaker is not saying anything about anyone else.

If someone says “You are stupid!” I doubt we, all of a sudden, become “stupid.”  Rather, we think the person speaking needs to work on their social skills because they obviously have some feelings of inadequacy (or something else) and don’t know how to constructively deal with the feeling and/or the situation in which they find themselves…

The afrospear blog has a post about an African American with a swastika tattoo and/or branding (I can’t really tell which it is from the photograph) on his lower back.

I don’t know if the tattoo was intentional or forced on the man.  I don’t know what the man is thinking about the tattoo or the symbol.  I do know that different people can use the same symbol in different ways.  Just because I might think a symbol means something, I don’t think everyone has to think like I do…

A commentator named asabagna stated

Sure the swastika is originally a eastern religious symbol, but it certainly isn’t considered that now. First impressions are what counts! It’s like trying to convince Black people that they should consider a noose as a symbol of a boy scout knot and not an object of murder or intimidation. This guy may have a deeper meaning in mind but his whole image/deal is a hot mess!

I disagree while I understand he/she feels the way he/she does.

My reply was

I understand that most people “here” don’t think of the swastika in the way it was originally used (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika)–at least people in the “western” world…

Sort of like the “white” man telling “another” man to not use a symbol, say “Black Panther,” due to some crazy notion of a “militant”/terrorist organization…

Why let a “hater” hijack a word or symbol from its original meaning? Why give the “hater” power over the words or symbols we use? Why let the hater use any symbol for their “purposes”-whatever they may be–instead of the purpose it had been used for in the past?

Instead, perhaps we could reclaim the original meaning… This removes the power “they” have over our language and the power over how we talk.

Perhaps we could educate ourselves to know what the “truth” of a word/symbol might be so that we can take the “high road” instead of letting them take a symbol that meant something opposite to what they intend to use it for AND make us adopt their view… We should not adopt their view…

Hate the swastika on a white circle in a red rectangle, but I might suggest that many people use symbols within other flags to which we don’t have an immediate reaction because we don’t associate the symbol with a meaning that they are trying to force on the rest of the world.

When you see a star on a flag, you don’t think “racist” do you? How about when you see the flag of the United Kingdom–the Union Jack? Do you think “racist” because there is an “X” on the Union Jack?

Rather than let the symbol be the Nazi, realize the Nazi is the Nazi and the symbol is … just a symbol. Who cares what the Nazi’s think it means? Take the power away from their meaning by giving it the original meaning it had in the “east.”

That way, the educated fold with empathy, intelligence, and love win..

Education. Sort of like realizing the Civil War of the United States of America was not about Slavery–if it was, why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free some/most of the slaves in the states that LEFT the Union? The EP did NOT free slaves in any state that stayed IN the union (if slavery was legal in that state) or in any of the Border States–thus the need for the 13th Amendment…

The EP was great, but lets be honest about what it was… Similarly, lets realize how the Nazi’s and current “pro-white haters” use the swastika symbol without letting them control how we think or react. We, I think, are better.

A commentator named LifeNarts agreed with my general comment about not letting a “hater” alter the definition of a symbol, changing the way everyone sees something so that everyone sees what the “hater” sees.

As I mentioned, we shouldn’t be “seeing” what the “haters” see.  Should we?

I think we are/should be better than that…

We are better than the naming convention used by Chevy when it came to their Nova–a nice inexpensive “muscle car.”  When they marketed the car in Latin America, Chevy was surprised that it did not sell well…  If you know Spanish, you know why.

You see, “No va” means “It doesn’t go…”

Just because one person thinks it “doesn’t go” doesn’t mean it doesn’t go.  My point, of course, is that different people will have different interpretations to a single symbol or word.  We should be able to empathize–set aside our own feelings to see how “that person” is thinking.  If we can’t set aside our own feelings, how do we ever see clearly?  Our own feelings may be “getting in the way” of progress…

Lets not make the same mistakes as those that came before us–whether they were “like” us or not.

I’ve changed hosts, and I am in the process of restoring the old data to the site…

Hopefully, this “restore” will go smoothly.

Counsel