Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts

Friday, September 9, 2011

Gender Equality Elusive at Top?

That was the headline at yesterday's Los Angeles Times business page, although I've added the question mark.

See: "Women on Wall Street: Small group at the top gets smaller."
"While the ouster of a number of top Wall Street women cannot necessarily be tied directly to the glass ceiling or sexism per se, the numbers aren't good," said Deborah Ancona, a professor of organization studies at the MIT's Sloan School of Management. "Women fill a minority of top leadership positions in corporate America."
But RTWT.

Actually, I don't think we'll ever have exact equality in that department, and I don't know if it was God's plan to do so, in any case. As James Taranto has written:
Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.
That said, see Patricia Sellers, at Fortune, "Carol Bartz exclusive: Yahoo "f---ed me over..." (At Memeorandum.)

Sunday, August 28, 2011

'I Have a Dream'

Today's the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, speech:

I'll try to put something up on this later, but check USA today, "Prayer service pays tribute to Rev. Martin Luther King."



And check Linda Valdez, at Arizona Republic, for just how screwed up the left's vision of Dr. King is today: "Today's Dems, progressives would disappoint Rev. King."



The dream is alive. Blacks have squandered much of it, IMHO. Not all of them, but an awful lot have no clue on how much equality they enjoy today. But more later ...

Friday, August 19, 2011

Black Flash Mobs

Some news agencies refuse to report the racial identity of those committing flash mob violence around the country, and political correctness prohibits a frank discussion of the issue among civic leaders and national policy makers. Seriously. Roland Martin on CNN's bumbling and blathering about "no matter if it's black or white," blah, blah. Freakin' asshat black criminal apologist. These are black mobs dick! Yet another example of how progressivism is kicking this country to the curb. See Ward Connerly, "Flash Mob Racism":

Earlier this year, the Justice Department of the Obama administration announced its objective to aggressively monitor the police departments of major urban cities. The purpose of this effort is to determine whether such departments are involved in racial profiling of blacks and Latinos and whether they are engaged in police brutality. Since that announcement, events have unfolded in some of those cities that reveal how misplaced that policy initiative actually is.



In Chicago, the District of Columbia, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, a group of “flash mobs” have unmercifully terrorized residents of those communities – attacking citizens, breaking windows of business establishments and stealing merchandise, and committing other random acts of violence. In each instance, the mobs have been overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, black youth. This fact has accounted for the failure of most of the news media to report either the events themselves or the racial background of the perpetrators. Several news sources have readily admitted that it is their practice not to mention the racial identity of those involved in criminal activity. Jim Stingl, a columnist for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, recently wrote, “This newspaper normally avoids mentioning the race of people involved in crimes, unless it’s part of a description to help apprehend someone at large.”



Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter is not afflicted with the same disease of political correctness as many in the media. In a recent 30-minute sermon delivered from the pulpit of his Baptist church, Nutter confronted the culture that many of us believe drives the behavior of these individuals when he said, “You have damaged your own race…Take those God-darn hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt ‘cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.’’



“If you walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ‘cause you look like you’re crazy,” the mayor said.



Mayor Nutter is correct. When we have young people burglarizing stores and neighborhoods and beating up bystanders without provocation, there is obviously a widespread cultural problem in the group committing these acts. That reality must be faced and the thugs responsible for these acts should not be ignored or coddled. They and their parents, if there are parents in the households, should be held accountable for their behavior.
It's racist violence. Black racist mobs attacking whites. See, "Teen girl gang assaults woman in brazen daylight attack outside Philadelphia City Hall." (At Memeorandum.) And also, "More flash mob mayhem for DC-area as band of female looters storms convenience store."

Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right

Well, the gay extremists have Tony Perkins in the crosshairs. Bunch of ASFLs.



Turns out that the Family Research Council issued a press release hammering the Obama White House for promoting childhood homosexuality. I especially like the point about Dan Savage, who is identified as "a homosexual extremist who built a career on hatred of Christians and our values." Word.



And see this from FRC, "Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right":

Because of our national shame at the historic legacy of racial discrimination against blacks, many people have come to think of “discrimination” as inherently evil. However, the basic meaning of “discriminate” is simply “to make a distinction.” To compare and evaluate candidates based on their education, experience, intelligence, and competence is inherently “discrimination.” The question, therefore, is not whether “discrimination” will take place—it can, it will and it must. The question for public policy is: which forms of “discrimination” are so profoundly offensive to the national conscience that they justify government action that interferes with the rights of employers and other private entities and gives special protections to certain classes of people?



In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress answered that question by including only five categories of protection. As noted above, those categories were: “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” For instance, a banker could deny an applicant a loan because the applicant was not credit-worthy, but not because he or she was Jewish or black. What do these protected categories have in common?



While there is no definitive legal answer, the most logical answer would seem to be that the case for granting legal protection against “discrimination” is strongest when based on a personal characteristic that is:



* Inborn, involuntary, and immutable (like race and color);

* Innocuous (because it does no harm to the employer, to the individual, or to society as a whole); and/or

* In the Constitution.



Is “sexual orientation,” like race and sex, a characteristic that is inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution? Is it, like religion (which is not inborn, involuntary, immutable, or necessarily innocuous, but is in the Constitution), a characteristic that meets even one of these criteria?



The only truthful answer is no.
RTWT.



PREVIOUSLY: "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."

Friday, June 10, 2011

The First Step to Unconditional Equal Rights

On June 1st, 2011, gender common couples in Illinois obtained the legal right to enter into civil unions. As of today it seems that the numbers of civil union licences have far exceed the expected amount.


I wish each of these couples well.


I wish to focus my comments on the fact that civil unions are not equal to civil marriage and those gender common couples who sincerely wish to obtain the same, full and equal rights which comes with marriage cannot and must not settle for civil unions as "the best we can get."


It is my hope and prayer that unconditional civil rights are provided for all members of our local and national families.


Let this work continue.