- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Posted:to everyone but especially to the Americans, what de f*ck is Bush doeing? and most of all why? why only Iraq? China also has massdestruction weapons, USA also has nuclear weapons, haven't they? please give your opinion
erik
erik
Delete Topic
Posted:Hmm very true, though I would like to see more of what you were talking about with the following
"So now we have government sanctioned discrimination against white males (which is currently under review by the supream court) in order to try and "make up" for the wrongs minorities suffered under decades of white oppresion.
"
I am not calling you a liar, I just have knowlege of what you are talking about.
"So now we have government sanctioned discrimination against white males (which is currently under review by the supream court) in order to try and "make up" for the wrongs minorities suffered under decades of white oppresion.
"
I am not calling you a liar, I just have knowlege of what you are talking about.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
DeletePosted:Ray
I think that he is talking about "affirmative action". There are 2 University of Michigan cases going through the Supreme court that deal with affirmative action.
Here is a site that basically explains what affirmative action is in case you don't know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm#how
I think that he is talking about "affirmative action". There are 2 University of Michigan cases going through the Supreme court that deal with affirmative action.
Here is a site that basically explains what affirmative action is in case you don't know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm#how
Delete
Posted:Ya, I saw something on TV about that the other night.
Heck thats another topic entirely.
Heck I feel that nobody should be given anything just because of the color of their skin. This is an imperfect world and it doesnt seem to work that way, and that is a crime in itself.
Heck thats another topic entirely.
Heck I feel that nobody should be given anything just because of the color of their skin. This is an imperfect world and it doesnt seem to work that way, and that is a crime in itself.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
DeleteRozi
SILVER Member since Jan 2002
100 characters max...
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Total posts: 2996
SILVER Member since Jan 2002
100 characters max...
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Total posts: 2996
Posted:Yes, I am going to begin this post with a really awful phrase:
As a woman I am in two minds about affirmative action. On the one hand, I have always wanted my efforts to be recognised for their true worth. This even goes back to me in high school, who when she recognised a mistake in the teachers marking which was in her favour, pointed it out and had the marks removed.
On the other hand, the reality is that there is still a lot of discrimination. It doesn't fall into the easy obvious categories it used to, name calling, out and out racism or sexism, put downs, violence, instead it is more insidious. People without thinking favour those who are like them. Hence the glass and the crystal ceiling effect. When two equally qualified people go forward for a job, it is highly likely that the recruiter will hire the one they feel more comfortable with, most likely the one they have most in common with. It is nigh on impossible for someone to say "you just hired them because they are a man / am white and from a certain background", when the conscious reason that the recruiter will state is that it is just that the selected person fits in more. This can happen time and time again in individual cases, and unless someone points out the pattern, it will never be realised that there is a problem. In order to break it, affirmative action may be necessary.
There is also a more serious factor. A lot of positions outside the government sector are never advertised, they are filled through networking. There is a whole league of male company executives who just move from one high-powered company to another, on the strength of who they know. This is incredibly hard to break down and break into.
It is still not a level playing field. It is slightly tilted. This can in fact be worse when it was dramatically tilted, because people can turn around and say "what are you talking about? It is barely noticeable"
And then back to Iraq...
As a woman I am in two minds about affirmative action. On the one hand, I have always wanted my efforts to be recognised for their true worth. This even goes back to me in high school, who when she recognised a mistake in the teachers marking which was in her favour, pointed it out and had the marks removed.
On the other hand, the reality is that there is still a lot of discrimination. It doesn't fall into the easy obvious categories it used to, name calling, out and out racism or sexism, put downs, violence, instead it is more insidious. People without thinking favour those who are like them. Hence the glass and the crystal ceiling effect. When two equally qualified people go forward for a job, it is highly likely that the recruiter will hire the one they feel more comfortable with, most likely the one they have most in common with. It is nigh on impossible for someone to say "you just hired them because they are a man / am white and from a certain background", when the conscious reason that the recruiter will state is that it is just that the selected person fits in more. This can happen time and time again in individual cases, and unless someone points out the pattern, it will never be realised that there is a problem. In order to break it, affirmative action may be necessary.
There is also a more serious factor. A lot of positions outside the government sector are never advertised, they are filled through networking. There is a whole league of male company executives who just move from one high-powered company to another, on the strength of who they know. This is incredibly hard to break down and break into.
It is still not a level playing field. It is slightly tilted. This can in fact be worse when it was dramatically tilted, because people can turn around and say "what are you talking about? It is barely noticeable"
And then back to Iraq...
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
Posted:I think people should be hired based on their skills and abilities, not the color of their skin or their gender. "affirmative action" AKA "sanctioned discrimination" forces employers to hired people based on their gender and the color of their skin. Not on their merits, but based on something they were born with. When I mentioned "descrimination against white males" that is not all it does, I just said it that way because I am a white male. Affirmative action can work against anybody, regardless of race or gender.
Example? Lets say two people apply for a job in a company with 25% black employees. The White guy is a total looser and has horrible job histories, and the black guy just graduated top of his class. Because of "affirmative action" is the more qualified person going to get the job? See, it can work both ways.
I thought we as a society had decided to not make life altering choices based on superficial characteristics...I thought we had moved beyond our petty differences. I guess i was wrong.
As to the "hiring people based on if they are similar to yourself" I am sure everybody does that, and it is not neccisarily a bad thing. What realy matters is if "similar to yourself" is related to personality, competence, and hard working, or if "similar" means "hey, were both the same race and gender, your hired!"
I think anybody who would do the latter is a fool. Do you hire somebody to do a job, or do you hire them so you can hang out and swap fishing stories at the local kkk meeting???
anyways....back to Iraq.
Example? Lets say two people apply for a job in a company with 25% black employees. The White guy is a total looser and has horrible job histories, and the black guy just graduated top of his class. Because of "affirmative action" is the more qualified person going to get the job? See, it can work both ways.
I thought we as a society had decided to not make life altering choices based on superficial characteristics...I thought we had moved beyond our petty differences. I guess i was wrong.
As to the "hiring people based on if they are similar to yourself" I am sure everybody does that, and it is not neccisarily a bad thing. What realy matters is if "similar to yourself" is related to personality, competence, and hard working, or if "similar" means "hey, were both the same race and gender, your hired!"
I think anybody who would do the latter is a fool. Do you hire somebody to do a job, or do you hire them so you can hang out and swap fishing stories at the local kkk meeting???
anyways....back to Iraq.
we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!
DeletePosted:I was talking with Rozi last night, and she explained to me the actual reason for AA.
Okay, on an individual case level, yes it is extreamly unfair. That is no lie, however when you look at the big picture
ACME has in the past 20 years hired 50,000 new empoyies for varius jobs. Of those 50,000 38,000 were white males between the ages of 18 and 30.
In that scenario there are only 12,000 people who were not in the that groupe who got a job.
Now the goal of AA is to bring that 12,000 up. It is not fair when you look at the big picture for 76% of the work force to be white males 18 to 30. All AA does is make the working enviroment more diversified.
It is trying to get rid of the "Good ole boys" club that happens in most companies especially in the higher ranks.
Like I said before on a case by case level it is unfair, but when you look at the big picture it makes sence and is fair.
Roz could explain it better if needed.
Okay, on an individual case level, yes it is extreamly unfair. That is no lie, however when you look at the big picture
ACME has in the past 20 years hired 50,000 new empoyies for varius jobs. Of those 50,000 38,000 were white males between the ages of 18 and 30.
In that scenario there are only 12,000 people who were not in the that groupe who got a job.
Now the goal of AA is to bring that 12,000 up. It is not fair when you look at the big picture for 76% of the work force to be white males 18 to 30. All AA does is make the working enviroment more diversified.
It is trying to get rid of the "Good ole boys" club that happens in most companies especially in the higher ranks.
Like I said before on a case by case level it is unfair, but when you look at the big picture it makes sence and is fair.
Roz could explain it better if needed.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
DeletePosted:Also I don't think that affirmative action goes as far as hiring a total loser because he/she is the right race/gender. I think that you still need to meet the qualification of the company.
Delete
Rozi
SILVER Member since Jan 2002
100 characters max...
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Total posts: 2996
SILVER Member since Jan 2002
100 characters max...
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Total posts: 2996
Posted:Its also important to make a distinction between Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Most countries have anti-discrimination laws in place, these laws support the ideals of equal opportunity. Most organisations have Equal Opportunity policies in place, these policies state that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, or sexual preference. (this also means that no one will be advantaged on this basis either).
Affirmative action on the other hand is a policy that aims to increase the numbers of a gender or race in the profession (either by a quota, or other methods I will go into later). I am not aware of any countries that have laws in place that force organisations to have affirmative action policies in place (although please correct me).
Organisations may voluntarily decide to have an affirmative action policy. It may be that they have looked at their hiring trends over time and discovered that the figures show they are not hiring many new employees of a particular gender or racial background. They will probably have also analysed whether this is affecting the operation of their organisation (hence moves by some law-enforcement agencies to hire people of different ethnic backgrounds, so as to increase communication with certain ethnic communities). At an individual level, the person hired will be no more or less effective than the person not hired. However at an organisational level they bring something new to the organisation to shape it into the future.
Affirmative action policies may take the form of a quota. My personal belief is that quotas are not particularly affective. They create a feeling of alienation in the existing workforce, and the also encourage companies to do "only what is necessary". Could you imagine going for a job where you are equally qualified to another candidate, and yet the recruiter says "we have filled our quota so we are going to take the man this time".
What I believe is more effective is the education of the people doing the recruiting. Firstly, most recruiters are not aware of the overall pattern of whom they recruit. They are simply aware that in each case they chose the best qualified, or if there were equal candidates, the one they felt most comfortable with. However this means that they are likely to "replicate", hiring people who are like themselves. It is not deliberate prejudice, just something that is present in most human beings. You need to begin by being open with those doing the recruiting about the pattern of recruitment over time, and the effect that it is having.
By explaining to recruiters the direction in which you want the company to go, they will be alot more aware in their recruitment decisions. You can also support them by helping them analyse their own individual recruitment decisions. There are tools you can use to do this (I have trained a couple of recruitment agents in my time, and trust me, they do help ).
This way the recruiters hire not only the best person for the job, but the best person for the company.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, most positions at a high level in private organisations are not filled through advertising, they are filled through networking. In this way the strong networks that still exist amongst older males of certain backgrounds perpetuate themselves. They bring in newer blood through the offspring of their friends and associates. Affirmative Action aims to redress this balance by exposing new people to the knowledge and networks that exist, breaking the glass and crystal ceilings. This applies to men not of that background (maybe you didn't go to the right university ) as well as women.
[ 18. December 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: Rozi ]
Affirmative action on the other hand is a policy that aims to increase the numbers of a gender or race in the profession (either by a quota, or other methods I will go into later). I am not aware of any countries that have laws in place that force organisations to have affirmative action policies in place (although please correct me).
Organisations may voluntarily decide to have an affirmative action policy. It may be that they have looked at their hiring trends over time and discovered that the figures show they are not hiring many new employees of a particular gender or racial background. They will probably have also analysed whether this is affecting the operation of their organisation (hence moves by some law-enforcement agencies to hire people of different ethnic backgrounds, so as to increase communication with certain ethnic communities). At an individual level, the person hired will be no more or less effective than the person not hired. However at an organisational level they bring something new to the organisation to shape it into the future.
Affirmative action policies may take the form of a quota. My personal belief is that quotas are not particularly affective. They create a feeling of alienation in the existing workforce, and the also encourage companies to do "only what is necessary". Could you imagine going for a job where you are equally qualified to another candidate, and yet the recruiter says "we have filled our quota so we are going to take the man this time".
What I believe is more effective is the education of the people doing the recruiting. Firstly, most recruiters are not aware of the overall pattern of whom they recruit. They are simply aware that in each case they chose the best qualified, or if there were equal candidates, the one they felt most comfortable with. However this means that they are likely to "replicate", hiring people who are like themselves. It is not deliberate prejudice, just something that is present in most human beings. You need to begin by being open with those doing the recruiting about the pattern of recruitment over time, and the effect that it is having.
By explaining to recruiters the direction in which you want the company to go, they will be alot more aware in their recruitment decisions. You can also support them by helping them analyse their own individual recruitment decisions. There are tools you can use to do this (I have trained a couple of recruitment agents in my time, and trust me, they do help ).
This way the recruiters hire not only the best person for the job, but the best person for the company.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, most positions at a high level in private organisations are not filled through advertising, they are filled through networking. In this way the strong networks that still exist amongst older males of certain backgrounds perpetuate themselves. They bring in newer blood through the offspring of their friends and associates. Affirmative Action aims to redress this balance by exposing new people to the knowledge and networks that exist, breaking the glass and crystal ceilings. This applies to men not of that background (maybe you didn't go to the right university ) as well as women.
[ 18. December 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: Rozi ]
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
Posted:quote:Originally posted by Raphael96:
What really point out how badly the current administration is running things happened a few days ago when a ship was stopped on its way from North Korea to Yemen with a cargo of 15 scud missiles.
Now, since Yemen has been a staunch supporter of the US in the region it was decided to allow them to get the shipment.
So weapons of mass destruction are not permitted in Iraq, but they are permitted in Yemen.
How nice.
I love the US and I can't wait to vote this jackass out of office in 2004.
RaphaelActually, Scuds aren't considered weapons of mass destruction. Yemen paid for them, and while unpleasant to those who currently have a monopoly of military force, there's nothing illegal about the sale of missle technology or the missiles themselves. The fact that Yemen is buying them is kind of irrelevant, its more that the US government is royally pissed off at N Korea, and them exporting missile tech all over the world is a large reason why.
I have more of a problem with Israel having something like dozens of nukes. Picture if you will Iraq sending some biochemical love towards Tel Aviv and them responding with a nuke. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
What really point out how badly the current administration is running things happened a few days ago when a ship was stopped on its way from North Korea to Yemen with a cargo of 15 scud missiles.
Now, since Yemen has been a staunch supporter of the US in the region it was decided to allow them to get the shipment.
So weapons of mass destruction are not permitted in Iraq, but they are permitted in Yemen.
How nice.
I love the US and I can't wait to vote this jackass out of office in 2004.
RaphaelActually, Scuds aren't considered weapons of mass destruction. Yemen paid for them, and while unpleasant to those who currently have a monopoly of military force, there's nothing illegal about the sale of missle technology or the missiles themselves. The fact that Yemen is buying them is kind of irrelevant, its more that the US government is royally pissed off at N Korea, and them exporting missile tech all over the world is a large reason why.
I have more of a problem with Israel having something like dozens of nukes. Picture if you will Iraq sending some biochemical love towards Tel Aviv and them responding with a nuke. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Is that all life comes down to? To be lying face down with an overenthusiastic guy in pink pin-striped pants sitting on top of you and grunting? -- Random MusingsSex, Drugs and Psytrance.
DeletePosted:quote:Originally posted by santanatwo:
something else.
FACT
Most middle eastern countries with goverments that hate the USA, have a majority of citizens who love the USA.
FACT
Most middle eastern countries with governments that are allied to the USA, have a majority of citizens who hate the USA.
Why is this?
Because most middle eastern countries have governments that are brutal and opressive to their citizens. If their government likes the USA, then the people see us as allied with their oppressors. If their government hates the USA, then the people see the USA as a symbol of hope.
Again WHY???
Because a hundred years ago the middle eastern KINGS were kings of a thousand camels and a hundred wives. They had no ablity to "oppress" their people even when they wanted to. Now, thanks to the west's greed for oil, we have given them billions upon billions of dollars, which has allowed them to become kings of armies and tanks and planes and bombs, but along with all that power came few responsabilities to their people.Its actually a lot more complicated than that. Especially because you can't really lump up the middle east that easily. The general attitude towards americans in the middle east varies dramatically with social class and region. I can say one thing, you might be surprised at the depth of animosity towards the US and all things associated with it these days. Every time I hear people talk about encouraging democracy in the middle east I have to laugh.
Very few of the governments in the middle east actually dislike the US, quite the opposite, they're essentially Washington's bitches. That is the main source of discontent....
something else.
FACT
Most middle eastern countries with goverments that hate the USA, have a majority of citizens who love the USA.
FACT
Most middle eastern countries with governments that are allied to the USA, have a majority of citizens who hate the USA.
Why is this?
Because most middle eastern countries have governments that are brutal and opressive to their citizens. If their government likes the USA, then the people see us as allied with their oppressors. If their government hates the USA, then the people see the USA as a symbol of hope.
Again WHY???
Because a hundred years ago the middle eastern KINGS were kings of a thousand camels and a hundred wives. They had no ablity to "oppress" their people even when they wanted to. Now, thanks to the west's greed for oil, we have given them billions upon billions of dollars, which has allowed them to become kings of armies and tanks and planes and bombs, but along with all that power came few responsabilities to their people.Its actually a lot more complicated than that. Especially because you can't really lump up the middle east that easily. The general attitude towards americans in the middle east varies dramatically with social class and region. I can say one thing, you might be surprised at the depth of animosity towards the US and all things associated with it these days. Every time I hear people talk about encouraging democracy in the middle east I have to laugh.
Very few of the governments in the middle east actually dislike the US, quite the opposite, they're essentially Washington's bitches. That is the main source of discontent....
Is that all life comes down to? To be lying face down with an overenthusiastic guy in pink pin-striped pants sitting on top of you and grunting? -- Random MusingsSex, Drugs and Psytrance.
Delete
Posted:All I'm going to say on the matter is that I am getting really nervous about all this shit.
I man I met once when I was about 12 explained to me that the world was going to end in 2005 but and I promise you I'm not making this up he said that a sequence of events would be initiated in April 2003 that would lead to this.
He also said the anti-christ was a german politician, so I can't see how he figures in this scenario. Dunno I was pretty young I spose.
I man I met once when I was about 12 explained to me that the world was going to end in 2005 but and I promise you I'm not making this up he said that a sequence of events would be initiated in April 2003 that would lead to this.
He also said the anti-christ was a german politician, so I can't see how he figures in this scenario. Dunno I was pretty young I spose.
I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
DeleteSimilar Topics
Using the keywords [iraq] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > US to take Iraq out of OPEC? [2 replies]
2. Forums > Iraq now more or less of a terrorist haven? [62 replies]
3. Forums > Another death in Iraq [19 replies]
4. Forums > If you're happy and you know it... [7 replies]
5. Forums > Iraq and 9/11 [37 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.