I mean unless the employer says or puts in writing "We're terminating you because we don't like X" or whatever then everyone, minority or not has the same protections against termination which is to say none.
But lets be real. In the modern day everyone, gay, straight, white black or purple is terminated with some kind reason given and usually a document trail to support that story. The business world knows how it works.
Yeah personally I think class emphasizing assistance is most likely the what we're going to end up with. I don't think race based programs have a very bright future.
Far as I know gays, minorities and women can and are arbitrarily fired routinely. The US is an at will employment country*. I mean if they are arbitrarily fired I supposed they could claim they were fired because of their minority status, but you could equally claim sexual harassment or whatever. Or is there some actual rule you're thinking about?
*and I reluctantly suspect that is better than the alternative in terms of employment but meh, nothing to be happy about.
I doubt it'd happen personally. If dissatisfaction with the Monarchy reached the level where it'd effect actual change I doubt that the outcome would be two Monarchies.
The fishery that generations of my family made a (hard) living on and that was sputtering out when I was a lad is now gone. My ancestral home is virtually abandoned and if I visited it I'd find it all falling down (but still beautiful, heart achingly brutally beautiful).
I'll never be able to truly accept that. Despite having literally just typed it out my heart is telling me with absolute confidence that the Island is still there, the old timers are still fishing and I could go back to visit any time. My Grandmother is still there too, waiting to give me a baked haddock and some homemade bread.
Personally I think it bears repeating, loudly, that there are children, -other- than the children of anti vaccination advocates, who are directly harmed by this irrational snake oiling.
There is a not insignificant population of children who are for various empirical reasons (allergies or compromised immune systems off the top of my head), cannot be vaccinated. They are directly vulnerable through no choice of their own or their parents and have been protected indirectly by vaccination through herd immunity.
Now I'm pretty pissy about parents irrationally sentencing their own little darlings to horrible suffering and potential death and disfigurement but it is when I factor in that their little bio-bombs are potentially taking out innocent by standing children when they pick up an olde fasion plague or two that I want to break out the torches and pitchforks.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that government should be parachuting into each household to mandate vaccination I would say that government should at least be making proof of vaccination mandatory before children can enjoy use any public services that puts them into a massed child population.
Lord I think Russel and I would find plenty of reasons to watch wrestling without the musical dancing, albeit rather base reasons. Wrestlers have amazing physiques.
Cynical alternative opinion: were it not for the extraordinary outside interest in this particular conflict the Israeli's probably would have run the Palestinians out of most of the former mandate back during one of their wars and what little they hadn't seized would have vanished into Jordan and Egypt.
Israel is a modern western country Bob. If they were ever to stoop to that kind of strategy for "defeating their enemy" then they would have truly lost their war with the savages around them and become everything they hated about their old oppressors. Having ceased to be a modern western country and being a small isolated economy entirely dependant on the modern west for support (which would end when they went mad) they would whither and sink into the social morass of their neighbors.
It could certainly work though I doubt the US would be willing to put their soldiers in harms way like that. I agree 100% that Israel in the grand scheme of things benefits by separation even without any quid pro quo. Their possession of the territories is slowly killing them. Some people argue that the Arabs and Palestinians are so recaltrant on peace primarily because they can see that in the very long view they're winning with things as they are. I continue to hold out hope that the Israeli center and the left is going to recover their bearings and force their country to take their medicine and extricate themselves from that predicament.
I generally agree with you Chris on most of your analysis. I disagree, though, on the idea of this interim Palestinian quasi-state. I don’t think it goes far enough. Personally I favor the idea of simply withdrawing unilaterally.
The issue of course is that the Israelis are in a catch 22. Withdrawal from the west bank will be fractious and painful (and letting their right wing nutbars put down more roots doesn’t help). A lot of subsidies built into the government structure will need to be rooted out (imagine the US Agricultural subsidies but worse). A lot of Israelis will need to be pretty much evicted with the spectacle of soldiers pretty much dragging women and children kicking and screaming out of their houses. Were the Palestinians anything approaching civilized and were the settlers anything approaching sane; Israel could simply leave them there under Palestinian rule but we all know that would simply result in an internal war and a slaughter that no Israeli government would be able to sit by and watch.
So the Israeli government that withdraws will have to do some painful expensive unpopular stuff. The only way in their parliamentary system that they can do this is if they are getting something in return. If the PM can say “Yes it’s horrible and painful but they’re right wing settlers and in exchange for removing them we don’t have to worry about our busses and pizza parlors getting bombed or our kindergartens rocketed.” Then the country will be willing to do it. But if they’re doing it and getting nothing but abuse in return the government will fall and the process will stop. That brings us to our catch 22. In order to withdraw and give the Pals a country the Israeli’s need to make a deal with that country but they can’t make a deal with the country until it exists and they can’t make it exist unless they can make a deal with it.
The Israeli idealist peace camp was pretty much killed by Palestinian rejectionism, failure and violence that made it look like the “peacenicks” were willing to trade Jewish lives for Palestinian freedom. They were succeeded by the more pragmatic get the hell out team who were knocked out by the Palestinian rockets attacked which led to the Gazan invasion. I’m hopeful that with Bibi clowning around like a Hebrew George W. Bush that the left and maybe even far left camps will shortly revive and resume the unpleasant process of extricating themselves from the West Bank. The one thing you can say about these settlements; in theory you can always drag the people out and give them away.
I'm surprised at your surprise myself. The only kind of ex-gay you would tolerate; one who doesn't project their personal experience onto the gay population and use it as a cudgel against gays who do not share their religious beliefs is exceedingly rare (or is by nature quiet and thus invisible). Your average gay person would have little to no objection to a person who is ex-gay. Their issue would be with the person who declares to the world that they are EX-GAY (Prayse Jaysussss!!!!) and all that the other gays should be too!
Monogamy isn't necessarily involved; as our heterosexual brethren have very aptly demonstrated. That a man who’s attracted to a blond and marries her can then routinely goes out to nail a man for instance is not a basis for forbidding heterosexuals from marriage. I see no reason why a man who marries another man and then routinely goes out to nail a woman would be an argument against homosexual marriage.
I'm with Matthew, I don't see how being attracted to both sexes inevitable leads to a requirement for plural marriage. Many straight men are attracted to Angelina Jolie. Is this an argument for plural marriage so that Angelina Jolie can be forced to marry all the men attracted to her? No, (setting aside of course what Angelina Jolie might think on the matter) because there are many other women to whom men are attracted to, maybe to lesser degrees, who they can marry. Homosexual people can marry no one that they would be inclined to marry at the moment.
Very interesting indeed. I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the indespensible Bruce Bartlett has a post up explaining in elegant detail the relationship between the Chinese and American economies and currencies. I think a lot of the leagues economicly interested peeps would find it interesting.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/11/treasury-securities-national-debt-china-trade-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett_2.html
Thanks Mark. Scott, for clarification if you could cite some WWII examples like the CIA torture err enhanced interogation manuals described in detail here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/09/waterboarding_for_dummies/index.html
Then I'll be willing to reconsider my high high opinion of the greatest generation.
On “Linky Friday: Feed Kill Chain”
So... no then?
I mean unless the employer says or puts in writing "We're terminating you because we don't like X" or whatever then everyone, minority or not has the same protections against termination which is to say none.
But lets be real. In the modern day everyone, gay, straight, white black or purple is terminated with some kind reason given and usually a document trail to support that story. The business world knows how it works.
"
I'd say that's a pretty good summary of it.
"
Yeah personally I think class emphasizing assistance is most likely the what we're going to end up with. I don't think race based programs have a very bright future.
"
Has there been a rash of white-redlining or something?
"
Far as I know gays, minorities and women can and are arbitrarily fired routinely. The US is an at will employment country*. I mean if they are arbitrarily fired I supposed they could claim they were fired because of their minority status, but you could equally claim sexual harassment or whatever. Or is there some actual rule you're thinking about?
*and I reluctantly suspect that is better than the alternative in terms of employment but meh, nothing to be happy about.
On “Two attacks on the Monarchy”
I doubt it'd happen personally. If dissatisfaction with the Monarchy reached the level where it'd effect actual change I doubt that the outcome would be two Monarchies.
"
The way the two countries have been governing themselves the last decade or two I'd submit it should be the other way around.
On “Stupid Tuesday questions, Whiskey Blue edition”
The fishery that generations of my family made a (hard) living on and that was sputtering out when I was a lad is now gone. My ancestral home is virtually abandoned and if I visited it I'd find it all falling down (but still beautiful, heart achingly brutally beautiful).
I'll never be able to truly accept that. Despite having literally just typed it out my heart is telling me with absolute confidence that the Island is still there, the old timers are still fishing and I could go back to visit any time. My Grandmother is still there too, waiting to give me a baked haddock and some homemade bread.
On “On Jenny McCarthy, “The View” and snake oil — a dialogue”
Personally I think it bears repeating, loudly, that there are children, -other- than the children of anti vaccination advocates, who are directly harmed by this irrational snake oiling.
There is a not insignificant population of children who are for various empirical reasons (allergies or compromised immune systems off the top of my head), cannot be vaccinated. They are directly vulnerable through no choice of their own or their parents and have been protected indirectly by vaccination through herd immunity.
Now I'm pretty pissy about parents irrationally sentencing their own little darlings to horrible suffering and potential death and disfigurement but it is when I factor in that their little bio-bombs are potentially taking out innocent by standing children when they pick up an olde fasion plague or two that I want to break out the torches and pitchforks.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that government should be parachuting into each household to mandate vaccination I would say that government should at least be making proof of vaccination mandatory before children can enjoy use any public services that puts them into a massed child population.
On “The Border Fence: A Big-Government Program Conservatives Happen to Love”
I laughed, a lot, at this. Well done.
On “Welcome to Ordinary Times”
Yes it seems to have sorted itself out. The ol' globe is back.
On “I Went to a Wrestling Match and a Broadway Musical Broke Out”
Lord I think Russel and I would find plenty of reasons to watch wrestling without the musical dancing, albeit rather base reasons. Wrestlers have amazing physiques.
On “There is No Plan B for Mideast Peace (and Why We Need One)”
Cynical alternative opinion: were it not for the extraordinary outside interest in this particular conflict the Israeli's probably would have run the Palestinians out of most of the former mandate back during one of their wars and what little they hadn't seized would have vanished into Jordan and Egypt.
"
Israel is a modern western country Bob. If they were ever to stoop to that kind of strategy for "defeating their enemy" then they would have truly lost their war with the savages around them and become everything they hated about their old oppressors. Having ceased to be a modern western country and being a small isolated economy entirely dependant on the modern west for support (which would end when they went mad) they would whither and sink into the social morass of their neighbors.
"
It could certainly work though I doubt the US would be willing to put their soldiers in harms way like that. I agree 100% that Israel in the grand scheme of things benefits by separation even without any quid pro quo. Their possession of the territories is slowly killing them. Some people argue that the Arabs and Palestinians are so recaltrant on peace primarily because they can see that in the very long view they're winning with things as they are. I continue to hold out hope that the Israeli center and the left is going to recover their bearings and force their country to take their medicine and extricate themselves from that predicament.
On “Truth Without Falsification”
Wouldn't it be called a furry?
On “There is No Plan B for Mideast Peace (and Why We Need One)”
I generally agree with you Chris on most of your analysis. I disagree, though, on the idea of this interim Palestinian quasi-state. I don’t think it goes far enough. Personally I favor the idea of simply withdrawing unilaterally.
The issue of course is that the Israelis are in a catch 22. Withdrawal from the west bank will be fractious and painful (and letting their right wing nutbars put down more roots doesn’t help). A lot of subsidies built into the government structure will need to be rooted out (imagine the US Agricultural subsidies but worse). A lot of Israelis will need to be pretty much evicted with the spectacle of soldiers pretty much dragging women and children kicking and screaming out of their houses. Were the Palestinians anything approaching civilized and were the settlers anything approaching sane; Israel could simply leave them there under Palestinian rule but we all know that would simply result in an internal war and a slaughter that no Israeli government would be able to sit by and watch.
So the Israeli government that withdraws will have to do some painful expensive unpopular stuff. The only way in their parliamentary system that they can do this is if they are getting something in return. If the PM can say “Yes it’s horrible and painful but they’re right wing settlers and in exchange for removing them we don’t have to worry about our busses and pizza parlors getting bombed or our kindergartens rocketed.” Then the country will be willing to do it. But if they’re doing it and getting nothing but abuse in return the government will fall and the process will stop. That brings us to our catch 22. In order to withdraw and give the Pals a country the Israeli’s need to make a deal with that country but they can’t make a deal with the country until it exists and they can’t make it exist unless they can make a deal with it.
The Israeli idealist peace camp was pretty much killed by Palestinian rejectionism, failure and violence that made it look like the “peacenicks” were willing to trade Jewish lives for Palestinian freedom. They were succeeded by the more pragmatic get the hell out team who were knocked out by the Palestinian rockets attacked which led to the Gazan invasion. I’m hopeful that with Bibi clowning around like a Hebrew George W. Bush that the left and maybe even far left camps will shortly revive and resume the unpleasant process of extricating themselves from the West Bank. The one thing you can say about these settlements; in theory you can always drag the people out and give them away.
On “Truth Without Falsification”
I'm surprised at your surprise myself. The only kind of ex-gay you would tolerate; one who doesn't project their personal experience onto the gay population and use it as a cudgel against gays who do not share their religious beliefs is exceedingly rare (or is by nature quiet and thus invisible). Your average gay person would have little to no objection to a person who is ex-gay. Their issue would be with the person who declares to the world that they are EX-GAY (Prayse Jaysussss!!!!) and all that the other gays should be too!
"
Monogamy isn't necessarily involved; as our heterosexual brethren have very aptly demonstrated. That a man who’s attracted to a blond and marries her can then routinely goes out to nail a man for instance is not a basis for forbidding heterosexuals from marriage. I see no reason why a man who marries another man and then routinely goes out to nail a woman would be an argument against homosexual marriage.
"
I'm with Matthew, I don't see how being attracted to both sexes inevitable leads to a requirement for plural marriage. Many straight men are attracted to Angelina Jolie. Is this an argument for plural marriage so that Angelina Jolie can be forced to marry all the men attracted to her? No, (setting aside of course what Angelina Jolie might think on the matter) because there are many other women to whom men are attracted to, maybe to lesser degrees, who they can marry. Homosexual people can marry no one that they would be inclined to marry at the moment.
On “The Befuddling Wilson”
Mild liberal, never thought Wilson was worth a damn. Very surprising to discover that I liked him.
On “Walmart is not the culprit, it is the symptom”
No arguement there.
"
Maybe, but they remain the technical authority who puts them in place. These codes aren't typically being imposed by state or federal agencies.
On “The Tea Party-Social Conservative Split”
Very interesting indeed. I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the indespensible Bruce Bartlett has a post up explaining in elegant detail the relationship between the Chinese and American economies and currencies. I think a lot of the leagues economicly interested peeps would find it interesting.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/11/treasury-securities-national-debt-china-trade-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett_2.html
On “Compare and Contrast”
Thanks Mark. Scott, for clarification if you could cite some WWII examples like the CIA torture err enhanced interogation manuals described in detail here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/09/waterboarding_for_dummies/index.html
Then I'll be willing to reconsider my high high opinion of the greatest generation.