Military service is not quite equivalent to skin color. Further, the military is made up of many races. Military service can gain one valuable experience. The color of one's skin is simply the color of their skin, nothing more. It is more equivalent to hair color or height than it is to life/work experience. Skin color says nothing of your work ethic, life experience, ability to work in a team, to make decisions, to keep commitments, to have discipline, etc...

Military service is another preference awarded to job seekers. Presumably Katherine, and you, would be opposed to a job awarded on that basis. Same as a job awarded based on race. Which happens where, exactly?

Garry, just to be clear, you are equating military service with skin color. You see no difference between skin color and military service, correct? You do realize that the military is made up of many races right?

Nowhere did I say that I disagreed with military service being a preference. Read what I wrote agin if you need to.

Perhaps you are a little too infatuated with skin color. Your problem, not mine.

No, I am doing no such thing. And I know of no other way to explain that some employers, the federal government, I think, will score an applicant higher for being a veteran. My question to Katherine, and you, was, is she also against this non-duties-related preference, as well?

It is related to duties, having served your country is certainly something that should count, especially for a government job ( as you suggest in your example). I am fairly certain after re-reading Katherine's post that she was referring to race based affirmative action. Got any other straw men or non-sequiturs? Do you think there should be racial preferences? Do you agree with preferences based on something as superficial as skin color?

No. Having served does not directly correlate to any particular job requirements.

I could also ask about other "ptreferences" like set-asides, MBEs, etc. But I don't think you or Kathleen are prepared to comment on such matters.

I would agree that military service doesn't gaurntee any of those things. I would simply suggest that it is a far better indicator than race is.

As far as commenting on MBEs or other set-asides and your assertion that I am unprepared to discuss either, be careful, you know not who you are communicating with. You know nothing of me, my background, or experience. You make many assumptions based on very little knowledge, that can be quite dangerous.

As far as set-asides and MBEs, I will restate, I care not about the color of one's skin, it is not a hang-up for me. It may be for you, and if so, your problem and not mine.

People disagree with her because they actually have IQs above 40 and can see through her rants.

If I recall corrctly, the various non-discrimintion laws protect the different minoritis. The AA portion is a "remedy" to more speedily level the playing field for past practices.

Name me some of some of today's employers who discriminate against the groups you mention and name me some people who were discriminated against.

I would just like to get some first-hand knowledge and you must have some.

Here's one from today's paper:

"Dillards pays $2 million to settle discrimination claims"

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/12/dillards_pays_2_million_to_set.html#incart_river_default

Understand, thanks for the history lesson. Like many similar programs, this started with good intentions, and looks so good on paper, but fails in practice.

I am reminded of a local fire department that had no women because none that applied could pass the testing (very physical in nature). This certainly does no mean that no woman could pass the test, just none that actually applied. Rather than moving on with an all male fire department, they lowered the standards. I am not sure I would want a fire fighter not capable of carrying me out of a burning building coming to my rescue. In addition, there are countless examples of law schools that have preferential admissions to get into the school. These race based admissions to make the numbers look good don't serve the underqualified very well and they have extremely high drop out rates.

In addition, like many similar programs, once started, never end. Has affirmative action worked. There is a good argument that it has. If it has, why do we still need it? If the goal has not been met yet, than I would ask specifically what is the goal, and what are the measures so we as a society can measure progress (or lack thereof) and ideally end the program when the goals are met.

You can use whatever measures of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation you want to hire people, I'll continue to hire the most capable regardless of race, gender, creed or any other non-performance related category.

There you go. It's not a "preferences" thing you have a problem with.

It's "which" preferences.

Garry, you are correct. I think that preferences based on the color of one's skin are foolish. I just don't think skin color is that important. It is your right to fixate on skin color all you like. I just thought that as a society we were getting passed that point.

Kit - We are not condemning Kathleen for speaking of education, or the topic of education itself. She actually proved her own article wrong in the title alone.

"Education and a Strong Work Ethic Has no Color". It seems to me that Kathleen's central theme is that people with no or little education and no or little work ethic get preferential treatment in job selection over people who are qualified and actually possess those qualities. I think it is really funny and insulting that Kathleen cannot even post a construct a correct sentence about education, when education is the central theme. Since she seems uneducated, and in fact does not have a job I think the topic of her blog proved her blog wrong. Let me see if I can be more concise in my analysis.

Kathleen says that uneducated people with no work ethic are getting jobs easier than people like her, who in her view should be more eligible. Yet she does not realize that she is the one who is uneducated and jobless. In my view the system is working perfectly and the topic needs no more discussion.

P.s - did you hear she is divorced!!! I think it was a big scandal

Nicely done Kathleen's Ex. A perfect example of attacking the messenger rather than attacking the message. Uncle Saul would be proud!

I don't see where Kathleen blamed society's woes on minorites. Please educate me as to where you think she implied that in her blog. Thanks.

No interest in a debate, but I do not find your historical rendition accurate.

Yes, racism does still exist...in most cases, when it is convienent. I am white and have many black friends that admit using the "race card" to get ahead. In fact, one of my colleagues got a free education from Cleveland State based on the color of his skin. FACT. I agree with Kathleen on many of her points. She is speaking the truth and her main point was that people who work hard and have a good work ethic, values, respect, etc. deserve jobs-regardless of the color of their skin.

"I am white and have many black friends that admit using the "race card" to get ahead" That is not "getting ahead" as you claim, that is "pulling even" (which is the point of affirmative action).

Mainly the slavery v secession thing.

"What I do know is that South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas has seceded before Lincoln had taken office." - NB

From Wikipedia:
"... South Carolina (seceded December 20, 1860), Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee (seceded June 8, 1861)."

Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, presumable elected in November, 1860. So every state acted subsequent to Lincoln's election, and only one seceded prior to his taking office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Confederate_States_of_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

If we're not careful, some learning might take place.

I know nothing about this Kathleen and I might totally disagree with her on other issues, but she hit the nail smack on the head with this one.

We do have freedom of speech but some of the Avonites can't manage to be civil in their comments. Makes me glad to live in Kent.

Kathleen's post advocates for not giving anyone special privilege. But now you're advocating to give her special treatment here for what reason?

Your argument is fully counter to the original one expressed in the article.

"your comments/ attitudes are why this world is in the messed up place is it. Insulting women and belittling them IN PUBLIC with your names... is outrageous. "

Yeah, because of OUR comments. That's the reason. The world didn't start going down the toilet until us men starting posting here bashing the usually-ignorant Kathleen.

Would you like some more cheese with your WHINE, whiner?

Oh, and all of that coming from someone whose last name starts with a "K." Stifle it, hypocrite.

I agree Teresa K ,that is what I read also (BUT the government is your mommy and daddies liberals are out again)

"Its interesting how many MEN are posting on here to say that the WOMAN doesnt know what she is talking about."
It's not men who are posting about a woman. It's people with IQs over 60 posting about someone who needs to take off her shoes to count to 11.

The 77 cents n the dollar number has been proven over and over to be a flawed comparison. When you compare women with men in like jobs and eliminate the impact from missed time (experience) due to pregnancies women make more. The black unemployment rate has more to do with the criminally awful public school plantations they are kept on and the lack of a quality education than anything affirmative action could help with. As far as infant mortality, not sure what that has to do with affirmative action but I'll bite. Could it have anything to do with fatherless families, drug and/or alcohol abuse? Are you suggesting that hospitals should use affirmative action during admittance? Are you suggesting that pregnant black women get turned away from hospitals more than other races? Does it have to do with a lack of health insurance? Didn't Obama already solve that one? So many questions.

Selection among unequal candidates. A still stronger form of affirmative action occurs when qualified female or minority candidates are chosen over candidates whose records are better by a substantial amount.

Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 2011).

Even though these selection procedures occasionally blend into one another (due in part to the difficulty of comparing incommensurable records), a few general observations can be made. First, of the four different procedures, the selection of women and minority members among equal or roughly comparable candidates has the greatest public support, adheres most closely to popular conceptions of fairness, and reduces the chances that affirmative action beneficiaries will be perceived as unqualified or undeserving (Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Nacoste, 1985; Turner & Pratkanis, 1994). Second, the selection of women and minority members among unequal candidates -- used routinely in college admissions -- has deeply divided the nation (with the strongest opposition coming from White males and conservative voters.) And finally, the selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action. By distinguishing among these four different selection procedures, it becomes clear that opposition to stronger selection procedures need not imply opposition to milder ones.

.

Some writers have criticized affirmative action as a superficial solution that does not address deeper societal problems by redistributing wealth and developing true educational equality. Yet affirmative action was never proposed as a cure-all solution to inequality. Rather, it was intended only to redress discrimination in hiring and academic admissions. In assessing the value of affirmative action, the central question is merely this: In the absence of sweeping societal reforms -- unlikely to take place any time soon -- does affirmative action help counteract the continuing injustice caused by discrimination? The research record suggests, unequivocally, that it does

exactly!!!

It's Patch. If you have a pulse, you thereby qualify to be a "Local Voice."

I saw that and they put it under the label of "Crazy People".

How does it feel Kathleen O'Brien-Typical-Teabagger Nutjob that even Gawker thought your ramblings were that of a crazy person. You should see the comments by readers on that site. Congratulations, you clueless right-wing hag -- you've made yourself a national joke.
But, I love you Kathleen, because I'm an ignorant right-winger like you are.

And Patch -- congrats on continuing to prove why you're a big failure. Whomever allowed that to go through must be proud. Just a professional note: if you really think you stand a chance on working for a REAL publication, you don't want to ever admit you worked for Patch.