Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
2003 June
2003 May
My Links
DRAMA's Blog
Librarianguish's Blog
Hhunter's Blog
Dragonbait22's Blog
Anniebananie's Blog
Whoisjohngalt's Blog
Polling Report
Savage Love
...including Tod Holton, Super Green Beret!
The defunct but awesome Inexplicable Object of the Week
Hybridanglo's Blog
MisterNiceGuy's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
SamAdams's Blog
Sulkbrarian's Blog
ISpork's Blog
Luthar's Blog
Whynot's Blog
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
| traveling |
| 12.30.03 (7:52 pm) [edit] |
I've been traveling for a while - hence, the absence. I feel like I've been living in a news blackout.
I hope you all have a fantastic new year!
|
|
|
| |
| In case you think job discrimination is dead |
| 12.16.03 (10:37 pm) [edit] |
From a press release on a new study done by [url=http://www.impactfund.org/drc...]The Impact Fund[/url] :
[i]By ratios of 4-1 in Los Angeles and more than 2-1 in San Francisco, [temporary] agencies favored white job applicants over slightly higher qualified African American applicants. “African Americans seeking temporary work received less consideration in the form of fewer offers and less desirable jobs,” said John Trasviña, Director of the DRC.
The results come from 64 tests of San Francisco and Los Angeles temporary employment agencies conducted between May and November, 2003 involving specially matched pairs of white and African American job applicants. They follow similar results from DRC’s 1999 study of the same industry. “We found consistent preference—more in Los Angeles than in San Francisco—for white applicants. While it may be subtle or unconscious, this preference blocks the path of equal employment opportunity for African Americans. Despite some improvement in San Francisco’s record since our 1999 study, vigorous action must be taken by the industry and by civil rights law enforcement agencies in order to bring African Americans closer to a level playing field in the temporary employment industry,” continued Trasviña.
Among the key findings of the DRC investigation:
White applicants were preferred 42% of the time by San Francisco temporary employment agencies over African American applicants who had greater relevant job experience and comparable education, interview and computer skills. African American job applicants were preferred in only 17% of the paired tests.
White applicants were preferred 57% of the time by Los Angeles temporary employment agencies over their matched African American test counterparts. African Americans were preferred only 13% of the time.
Examples of preference for white job applicants include:
The white applicant is offered a temporary or permanent job while the African American partner tester is not.
The white applicant is granted an interview while the African American is not.
The white applicant is offered a job with a higher salary or for a longer duration.
The white applicant is offered a job more quickly than the African American applicant.
The white applicant is not required to follow the agency’s standard application procedure and thus has access to job opportunities that the African American applicant does not.
The white applicant is offered coaching on how to present herself or improve her resume that is not afforded to the African American applicant.[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Florida Democratic convention/John Edwards |
| 12.12.03 (7:58 pm) [edit] |
The other day I was watching the Florida Democratic convention. It had been a while since I had listened to any of the candidates and I wanted to see if there was anything new.
Needless to say, I didn't watch all of them. But I did see John Edwards address a crowd for the first time that wasn't in a debate setting. Politically, he's not my favorite candidate, but I was really impressed with the warmth he showed when he interacted with the crowd. A few of the other Democrats might learn from him.
I don't think I'm being shallow about this. Look at what happened to Al Gore. He was a smart, capable, funny political leader, but for some reason he couldn't convey that on TV.
What pointers would you give our fine candidates this primary season?
|
|
|
| |
| new header |
| 12.10.03 (1:44 pm) [edit] |
The photo in my new header is one I took of a lake near my house. Pretty, eh?
Well, don't be fooled. It was only a few degrees above freezing that day. And it was May. I love Minnesota.
|
|
|
| |
| Liebernotes |
| 12.08.03 (6:38 pm) [edit] |
Since Joe is sending me unsolicited email, I thought I'd share some things with you from his email publication, "Liebernotes":
[i]New polls released today show that Joe has vaulted into the lead in Oklahoma and is one of only 3 candidates who are rising in New Hampshire. Your support, contributions, and belief are starting to have a real effect on this election!
A poll released in Oklahoma today shows Joe leading the field there, with 10 percent (Daily Oklahoman). Lieberman has jumped from third to first place leap-frogging both Clark and Dean.
In the first primary state of New Hampshire, a new Zogby poll released today shows that Lieberman is one of only three candidates who are actually increasing their support. Joe's message of independence helped him grab 4 additional percentage points, the biggest upswing of any candidate.[/i]
This, my friends, is what we call spin.
If you read the news sources on his own website, you'll learn that in Oklahoma (Oklahoma!), Lieberman, with 10% of the respondents' support, leads Dean and Clark by 1%. Apparently, survey margins of error don't exist in Lieberworld. More importantly, 27% are still undecided.
As for the 2nd piece of news news, Dean is currently polling 1st in New Hampshire, with 42% of the intended vote, compared to Kerry, who is in 2nd place with 12% (Lieberman is in 4th place with 7%). And that amazing 4% upswing? Well, it's within the 4.5% margin of error for the survey.
OK, I'm done picking on Lieberman for now. I wonder how he'll react when Gore endorses Dean.
|
|
|
| |
| Lieberman spam |
| 12.07.03 (12:43 pm) [edit] |
All of a sudden I've started getting email from the Lieberman campaign that seems to pretend that I've actually expressed interest in his campaign. In your dreams, Joe!
Anybody else here getting unsolicited Lieberman spam or am I just lucky?
|
|
|
| |
| Shopping with Santorum |
| 12.05.03 (11:53 pm) [edit] |
Hey kids, do you like to shop at Urban Outfitters? Hey women who feel somewhat too grownup for Urban Outfitters, are you a fan of Anthropologie?
If so, this may make you change your mind. From the [url=http://www.brainsoap.com/arch...]Philadelphia Weekly[/url] a while back:
[i]In fiscal year 2003, a year when most retailers' bottom lines crapped out, Urban Outfitters opened 13 new stores and posted a company record of $423 million in sales--with net profits jumping up a whopping 83 percent over the previous year to $27.4 million.
But the difference between stage-crafted storefront image and corporate reality doesn't end there. It extends all the way to the top, to the man who built the company from scratch--Richard Hayne, Urban Outfitters' president and founder.
While the typical Urban Outfitters shopper is likely to be liberal-minded--as is the province and privilege of youth--the fiftysomething Hayne is mom-and-apple-pie conservative. He and his wife Margaret have contributed $13,150 to the campaign coffers of Paleolithic right-wing Republican Sen. Rick Santorum and his Political Action Committee over the years. [/i]
Now, I'm not naive. I'm fully aware that a good portion of the clothing I wear was made in sweatshops owned by corporations with CEO's deeply intimate with the Republican Party. But I don't want to help line the pockets of the man who said:
[i]"We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws, and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue, yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold - Griswold was the contraceptive case - and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you - this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: That society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever, to my knowledge, included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality - [/i]
Of course, the best part was when the poor AP reporter doing the interview said:
[i]"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out."[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| paranoia |
| 12.04.03 (8:44 pm) [edit] |
[i]"We don't think it's necessary to have that kind of paper receipt," said Ron Labasky, a lobbyist for the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections. "We don't think they really serve any purpose other than eliminate people's paranoia."[/i] [url=http://www.bradenton.com/mld/...]link[/url]
It stuns me that there is so much resistance to providing a simple paper trail for voting. And what's so wrong exactly with eliminating people's paranoia about elections?
Consider the evidence presented [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...]here[/url] .
|
|
|
| |
|
|
