Home / discrimination
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
The Obama administration doesn't believe in letting consentual adults live their sexual lives the way they want

The Obama administration doesn't believe in letting consentual adults live their sexual lives the way they want

Let me get this right.  The Obama administration does everything that they can to push gay marriage and gay rights, but somehow they want to go after polygamists and make their lives difficult.  What is the difference whether consenting adults are homosexuals or polygamists?  Over much more of human history polygamy was many, many, many more times the normal state for humans.  Would the Obama administration have ever brought such a suit against a town filled with a lot of homosexuals?  From the Associated Press:
The U.S. Justice Department has sued two polygamous towns along the Utah-Arizona border, claiming religious discrimination against non-sect members.
The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed Thursday against the towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.
Most residents in both towns are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, run by the group's jailed leader Warren Jeffs. . . .
The lawsuit comes after Legislatures in Utah and Arizona failed to pass bills to abolish the local police department for the communities. . . .
Eric Holder defends Photo IDs to get into Federal Court Houses, but sees problem with requiring Photo IDs to vote

Eric Holder defends Photo IDs to get into Federal Court Houses, but sees problem with requiring Photo IDs to vote

So if requiring a photo ID is discriminatory, is it OK to make it difficult for people to have their day in court?  What if they are a witness or involved in a civil case or supposed to serve on a jury?  Isn't Mr. Holder worried that Photo ID requirements will bias the legal system?  Josh Gerstein has this at Politico:



. . . At a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing Thursday, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) asked Holder about the practice, which has been standard procedure at most, if not all, federal courthouses for the last decade or so.
“If I were to go to the federal courthouse here in D.C., either as a party or as an attorney, wouldn’t I have to show a government-issued photo ID?” Lungren asked.
“That’s not been my experience, here in DC. I don’t — you know,” Holder replied.
“Some federal courts — are you aware that’s required in some federal courts in this land?” Lungren said.
“I don’t know,” Holder replied.
“Is your Justice Department investigating the discriminatory effect of those laws?” Lungren asked, after citing other places where one is told to show ID, like the airport and even when visiting the Justice Department itself.
Holder said Lungren’s comparison was off the mark, because the right to vote is the “most fundamental constitutional right.” . . .
The attorney general also insisted that visitors do not need photo ID to enter Justice Department headquarters. (You’ll certainly be asked for it. Trust me.)
“That’s not true in the government. That’s not true with the Justice Department,” Holder told Lungren. “if you were to show up at the Justice Department somebody could vouch for you and you could come in to the department and we could have a very civil, I’m sure, conversation.”
“Is that right? I havent tried that with TSA. That doesn’t work very well,” Lungren shot back. . . .
Meanwhile in Chicago, "New Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Some Drain Cleaners."  Apparently, just don't buy drain cleaners at hardware stores.
 A new state law requires those who buy industrial drain cleaners and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a log.The law does not apply to most drain cleaners that consumers typically buy at grocery stores, but only to high-grade industrial cleaners that are normally only sold at hardware stores. . . .
Senate Democrats get burned in pay for workers debate

Senate Democrats get burned in pay for workers debate

This whole issue of underpaying female workers is nuts.  The very fact that Democratic politicians are paying their female staff less than their male staff makes it hard to believe that there is anything other than supply and demand going on here.  I don't believe that female Democratic Senators don't appreciate women workers.  From the Free Beacon (it is a long article):

A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.
Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.
Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent. . . .
A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s. . . .
The employee gender pay gap among Senate Democrats was not limited to Murray, Boxer, and Feinstein. Of the 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus examined in the analysis, 37 senators paid their female staffers less than male staffers. . . .
Discrimination against black congressmen?

Discrimination against black congressmen?

Is the fact that black congressmen are being charged with ethical violations evidence of discrimination or something else? The black officials think that the disproportionate rate that they are being charge evidence of discrimination. But they need a lot more evidence than just saying that there are differential rates that they are charged, such as the underlying rate that the black and other congressmen really do commit ethical violations. From The Atlantic:

. . . "I think," Cleaver said, "the facts speak for themselves."

The facts say this: African-Americans make up 10 percent of the House, but as of the end of February, five of the sitting six named lawmakers under review by the House Ethics Committee are black. The pattern isn't new. At one point in late 2009, seven lawmakers were known to be involved in formal House ethics inquiries; all were members of the Congressional Black Caucus. An eighth caucus member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, had also been under investigation, but his probe was halted temporarily while the Justice Department undertook an inquiry of its own.

All told, about one-third of sitting black lawmakers have been named in an ethics probe during their careers, according to a National Journal review.

Only two members of Congress have been formally charged with ethics violations in recent years and have faced the specter of public trials -- Reps. Charles Rangel of New York (censured) and Maxine Waters of California (investigation ongoing). Both are black. There are no African-Americans in the Senate. Remember the most recent black senator, Roland Burris of Illinois? Reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 2009.

Those are the facts, as Cleaver said. The question is why so many African-American members have been in the ethics spotlight.

In interviews with more than a dozen members of the CBC, an unsettling thread emerges: They feel targeted. . . .
High IQ individuals can be barred from being Police

High IQ individuals can be barred from being Police

From ABC News:

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test. . . .

the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover. . . .
Obama administration's sexist language?

Obama administration's sexist language?

Apparently, women are much better at solving conflicts than men are, at least that is what Secretary of State Clinton claims. From Reuters:

The United States hopes to prevent and defuse conflicts by getting more women seated at negotiating tables around the world, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday.

Clinton said a new U.S. plan, signed by President Barack Obama, would help train and give more voice to female community members who often have a strong sense of how to address dangers and strains in conflict zones. . . .

Women are "too often excluded" from talks that bring an end to conflict and from the military, police and other institutions tasked with maintaining order, she said, also suggesting they could provide useful insights on how to make peace stick.

"Women are bellwethers of society and, in fact, sometimes they do play the role of canary in the coal mine. They know when communities are fraying and when citizens fear for their safety," she told a Georgetown University event. . . . .
A real cost of female employees (in at least one area?)?

A real cost of female employees (in at least one area?)?

Should women who are just as good as men get the same wage if they are more costly to employ? I would assume not. In the UK they are having to recognize a real cost of female employees. If you need to give workers more flexibility for sudden changes in their schedules, you have to hire more employees to cover possible gap times that might arise. Of course, government is the last place that would actually recognize different costs from hiring different types of employees. From the BBC:

The NHS should make flexible working more available in order to respond to the increasing number of female doctors, a medical group has said.

The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (RCPE) said the move was necessary to maintain patient care.

It said the number of female doctors in the UK had risen by 37% since 2001.

But the RCPE warned there was a "real threat" that women may be unable to continue in their chosen career once they had young children.

The Royal College said 42% of all doctors were women - 28% of hospital consultants and 47% of GPs.

It said that traditionally a higher percentage of women doctors had worked as GPs, due to the more flexible working arrangements available.

But there were now 46% more female doctors registered in their foundation year training in 2010 than males.

The RCPE said this could have significant implications for the NHS if greater emphasis was not placed on adjusting working patterns and career structures. . . .
Where is the consistency in the NAACP strongly opposing school choice but then taking this legal case?

Where is the consistency in the NAACP strongly opposing school choice but then taking this legal case?

The NAACP "vigorously opposed" the pilot voucher program for DC. Fighting against it as recently as this past March. The NAACP has condemned Charter Schools. Now the NAACP is taking what could best be called a school choice case. The only difference that I can see to vouchers is that this case involves government schools. I can't really see the difference with charter schools. The problem is that the NAACP will never see the logic here.

Tanya McDowell, 33, was arrested April 15 and charged with first degree grand larceny for allegedly stealing $15,686 in educational services from Norwalk Public Schools. Her 6-year-old son was enrolled in Brookside Elementary School in Norwalk, Conn., from September of last year until January of this year.

"The NAACP doesn't like that they're trying to attack somebody whose poor and doesn't have a good support system," said Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut State Conference of the NAACP. "This is discrimination."

McDowell claims that she's homeless and was floating between a homeless shelter, a friend's apartment in Norwalk and a home in Bridgeport when she registered her son for school. McDowell registered her son under her babysitter's address in Norwalk. McDowell told The Daily Norwalk that she simply wanted the best education for her son. . . .

Authorities were alerted to the alleged illegal enrollment when McDowell testified at an eviction hearing for her babysitter, Ana Rebecca Marquez, in January.

"This particular tenant, Ms. Marquez, was accused of allowing Ms. McDowell and her son to live with her," said Donna Lattarulo, an attorney for the Norwalk Housing Authority. "During that hearing, Ms. McDowell testified under oath that she did not reside at the premises where Ms. Marquez lived, but she resided in Bridgeport... She never testified that she was homeless."

Lattarulo said that she told the Norwalk Prosecutor's Office about Marquez's testimony, but did not file a criminal complaint. Officials from Norwalk Public Schools said that they did not initiate the eviction hearing or file a criminal complaint against McDowell. . . .

"We think that this is a major case of abuse of power by the mayor. We just found out that his daughter is head prosecutor in the case. There's also some foul play with police officers in town of Norwalk," said Esdaile from the NAACP. . .
.
On Earnings for Women and Men

On Earnings for Women and Men

The wage gaps for women and men that are normally discussed ignore the difference in jobs, differences in how hard people work, and differences in career length.

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. . . .
Too many men top officers in the military?: The Obama administration independent panel seems to think so

Too many men top officers in the military?: The Obama administration independent panel seems to think so

I am sure that this will shock most people about the concern over too many males. Do women enjoy being in the military as much as men? Are they willing to make it their career as much as men?

The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.” . . .
Bias in academia

Bias in academia

As the article says, these types of numbers don't come about by randomness. I have a discussion of this bias in my book Freedomnomics.

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three. . . .
“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.” . . .
Lame Duck Session passes reparations for discrimination without any evidence that discrimination occurred

Lame Duck Session passes reparations for discrimination without any evidence that discrimination occurred

Those getting compensation also don't even need to show that they applied for a loan and got turned down. Farmers who got loans or who never applied are eligible compensation. Nor is there any evidence that loans were given out at different rates to the different types of farmers.

The congressional approval of a whopping $4.6 billion settlement for black and Native American farmers who claimed they were discriminated against has cleared the way for a similar pair of costly lawsuits -- drawing complaints that the government may be buckling to pressure and rewarding dubious claims.

The so-called "Pigford" case involving black farmers who allege the Agriculture Department cheated them for decades drew to a close Tuesday when the House joined the Senate in approving the second settlement in the case to date. But the lawsuits don't end there. Though Pigford has attracted the most attention, a separate set of cases filed by Hispanic and female farmers has been working its way through the courts since shortly after Pigford was filed more than a decade ago.

Those cases are set for a hearing in federal District Court in the nation's capital on Friday, and once again a large pot of taxpayer money is on the line. The farmers were offered a $1.3 billion settlement back in May, but the plaintiffs have since then pushed for more. Some Democratic lawmakers argue they deserve it. . . .
Proof on gender discrimination on the job

Proof on gender discrimination on the job

A large and significant salary difference exists between unmarried men and women in their 20s. I hope that the government will do what is necessary to quickly eliminate this horrid discrimination. This wage differential can obviously only exist due to discrimination.

Single, childless women in their twenties are finding success in the city: They're out-earning their male counterparts in the USA's biggest metropolitan areas.
Women ages 22 to 30 with no husband and no kids earn a median $27,000 a year, 8% more than comparable men in the top 366 metropolitan areas, according to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau data crunched by the New York research firm Reach Advisors and released Wednesday. The women out-earn men in 39 of the 50 biggest cities and match them in another eight. The disparity is greatest in Atlanta, where young, childless single women earn 21% more than male counterparts.
The shift in earnings power started showing up in a few big cities a few years ago and has become widespread. It isn't true for all women in their 20s working full time — overall, they earn 90% of what all men in their 20s make — just for those who don't marry or have kids.
Education is the key: "Young women are going to college in droves," Reach Advisors reports. "Nearly three-quarters of girls who graduate from high school head to college, vs. two-thirds of the boys. But they don't stop there. Women are now 1.5 times more likely than men to graduate from college or earn advanced degrees." Armed with degrees, young women command higher salaries. . . .
Graduate student seeking degree in school counseling told that she has inappropriate views on homosexuality and told that she must change them

Graduate student seeking degree in school counseling told that she has inappropriate views on homosexuality and told that she must change them

If true, I won't be surprised, though I still find this disturbing. No matter what one's views are on the issue of homosexuality, getting a degree shouldn't be contingent on those views. In fact, I am amazed that someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral can make it through a graduate program where the issue is discussed.

A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.

The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," according to a civil complaint filed last week.

"[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the 43-page lawsuit reads. . . .


What looks to be a very similar case in Michigan was just decided. It looks as if students at public universities who are taking classes to be counselors must first agree to counsel homosexual and then must believe that homosexuality is good or they can't be allowed to be counselors. It seems to me that they should be able to at least recuse themselves from counseling certain people.
Why shouldn't war zone pregnancies be punished?

Why shouldn't war zone pregnancies be punished?

I had a number of years ago that 15 percent of women on naval craft in war zones after 9/11 became pregnant. If getting pregnant allows women to get out of service that they have gotten tired of doing, it really gives them a perverse incentive to get pregnant. I am willing to bet a significant amount of money that women serving in war zones get pregnant at higher rates than women of the same age and education level.

A recent military policy that added pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier could be disciplined in a war zone will be rescinded by a new order drafted by the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Gen. Raymond Odierno drafted a broad new policy for the U.S. forces in Iraq that will take effect Jan. 1, and that order will not include a controversial pregnancy provision that one of his subordinate commanders enacted last month, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

Odierno's order comes about a week after the pregnancy policy issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo triggered a storm of criticism. Cucolo had issued a policy that would allow soldiers who become pregnant and their sexual partners to be punished.

The order listed a variety of offenses, and the punishments for them could range from minor discipline to a court-martial. But in a conference call with reporters earlier this week, Cucolo said he would never actually seek to jail someone over the pregnancy provision.

And he said the policy was intended to emphasize the problems created when pregnant soldiers go home and leave behind a weaker unit. . . .
Zogby Poll on some recent positions of the Obama administration

Zogby Poll on some recent positions of the Obama administration

The most disappointing thing to me here is that the percentage gaps are bigger than they are.

1. The Obama administration recently declared that the White House would treat the Fox News Channel as an 'opponent,' and declared that Fox News is not a 'legitimate news organization.' Do you agree or disagree that this is an attempt by the Obama administration to silence dissent?
Support 53 percent
Oppose 40 percent

2. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently condemned the health insurance industry for releasing an unflattering analysis on the Obama administration's proposal to create a government-run 'public option' health insurance plan. Pelosi also threatened to revoke the industry's anti-trust exemption which has been in place since 1945. Do you agree or disagree that Pelosi is using the power of congress to try to limit the free speech of private corporations?
Support 53 percent
Oppose 39 percent

3. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a 'Hate Crimes' bill that would make assault based on sexual orientation or perceived gender identity a felony. As it is currently the written, the bill would also allow the prosecution of people whose speech allegedly influences others to commit hate crimes. Some experts believe this could lead to serious infringements on free speech, as well as the prosecution of religious preachers, talk show hosts or political activists who speak against homosexuality or transsexuals. Others say the bill is an effort to try and stop people from committing such crimes in the future. Do you agree or disagree with the Hate Crimes bill?
Support 38 percent
Oppose 47 percent

4. Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?
Support 51 percent
Oppose 31 percent

5. The Obama administration recently supported and helped pass a United Nations resolution that suggests nations exclude certain criticisms of religion from free speech protection. Do you support or oppose an international law that protects religions from criticism?
Support 21 percent
Oppose 59 percent

6. Recently, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn revealed that during the presidential campaign, President Obama's strategy was to limit his actual exposure to the press by only communicating through pre-taped videos and press releases. According to Dunn, 'Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control.' Do you think the Obama campaign's strategy is good or bad for free speech?
Support 20 percent
Oppose 52 percent
Mark Lloyd, the Diversity Officer at the FCC

Mark Lloyd, the Diversity Officer at the FCC

A version of Mark Lloyd's Diversity Metric Formula

The Lloyd and Napoli simple equation (2007) was applied to both the Hispanic television and radio industries in these two specific cities.

(A) x (B) x (C) / N = D

∑ of D’s = M

A = Outlet (value = 1)

B = Potential audience reach (i.e. percentage of Hispanics in the market)

C = Content (provision of local news = 1; non provision of local news = 0)

N = Number of outlets owned by the owner

D = Diversity contribution of owner

M = Diversity metric for market


This equation seems extremely arbitrary to me. There is really no explanation that I can find for the form that it takes, but the bottom line is that it seems driven to make the measured level of diversity as low as possible. Here is a brief discussion of what this equation means:

Take variable C. No weight is give to stations if they do not produce local and original news content or public affairs programming. They are given a weight of one if they produce any local and original news content or public affairs programming. In other words, the station could have hours of talk radio or make political comments between songs and they wouldn't be given any weight. Also network news for Univision Radio and Border Media Partners presumably at least occasionally carries local news stories that are of interest to local Hispanics (for example, something big might effect Hispanics in Texas and it gets covered), but the weight given to that news coverage is still zero.

The written discussion indicates that weight is only given to stations that are apparently 100 percent owned by people of Spanish heritage (Hispanics, Mexicans, Venezuelans, etc.). No weight is given to non-Spanish stations where the news director or the reporters are Hispanic. Presumably Hispanics own stock in Citadel or Westwood One or Disney, but those ownership shares do not count at all. I assume that this is what variable A stands for.

Take variable B. This is very strange because if there are no Hispanics in a market, the market cannot be diverse. You could have all the radio and TV stations owned by Hispanics and producing local news, but without any Hispanics in the area the variable B would equal zero and zero time anything else is still zero, so there would be no diversity.

Finally, even if you have 10 Hispanic stations that provided local news and were completely owned by Hispanics, if you had two companies owning five companies each, that would only count as two stations. This dramatically reduces any measure of diversity. In theory, some radio stations might have talk aimed at liberals and some at conservatives, but that wouldn't matter in terms of diversity.

The bottom line is that this definition of diversity dramatically underestimates the news and information provided by Hispanics to other Hispanics. Presumably the definition was chosen precisely to make diversity look as low as possible.


Lloyd's original report with Phil Napoli is available here.

Here is Mark Lloyd's view on Hugo Chavez.

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

"And we've had complaints about this ever since."


So this is the "democratic" country that Chavez is trying to create.

CARACAS, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Venezuela will pull the plug on 29 more radio stations, a top official in President Hugo Chavez's government said on Saturday, just weeks after dozens of other outlets were closed in a media clampdown.

Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello closed 34 radio stations in July, saying the government was "democratizing" media ownership. Critics say the move limits freedom of expression and has taken critical voices off the airwaves.

The powerful Chavez ally has threatened to close over 100 stations in total, part of a long-term campaign against private media that the government says are biased against Chavez's government.

"Another 29 will be gone before long," he told thousands of Chavez supporters at a political rally, without giving details which stations would be closed or when.

Cabello also said he was launching a new legal case against Globovision, the country's most prominent anti-government television network, accusing it of inciting a coup against Chavez. . . .


The Politico has this discussion:

Conservatives have accused Lloyd, appointed by the Federal Communications Commission as the agency’s Chief Diversity officer in late July, of secretly wanting to reinstate the controversial Fairness Doctrine — a regulation the FCC abolished in 1987 that required broadcasters to present contrasting views on important and controversial issues. Conservatives radio hosts have said Obama wants to reinstate it, and that it would push them off the air.

In right-wing media, where Lloyd has been christened Obama’s "diversity czar," pundits rail against the former vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Massachusetts Institute of Technology law professor. . . . .

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley has picked up the call. "Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means," he wrote in an August letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski.

But in a 2007 report for the liberal Center for American Progress, where he was a senior fellow, Lloyd noted that conservative shows dominate the airways — but did not endorse the Fairness Doctrine.

"We call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary," he wrote in a July article about the paper. "But we do not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine."
Very activist Justice Department coming from the Obama Administration

Very activist Justice Department coming from the Obama Administration

Look for a lot of cases that will claim that discrimination exists wherever there a differential outcomes for blacks and whites. The NY Times has this story (very difficult to read with all the biased political claims in this "news story"):

Seven months after taking office, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is reshaping the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division by pushing it back into some of the most important areas of American political life, including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending practices and redistricting after the 2010 census. . . .


Something to think about:

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)