Andy9o8

Your specific example is hard for us to evaluate in the absence of more hard, objective facts. "Lazy" I'll admit can be hard to weed-out in the face of policy pressure to consider factors other than pure merit; but of course favoritism in employment has existed ever since the cavemen. But intoxicated? All the employer would have had to do, upon suspicion of intoxication, would be to have a race-neutral policy that allowed them to blood- or urine- or hair-test a suspect employee - if he's hot, he's gone, and if he's clean, end of story. So as I said, your example is a bit hard to accept at face value.

Jim, I'm tagging this comment as a "reply" to you because I respect your clear head; but it's really directed to everyone. As I intimated up-thread, this thread has gone so far beyond the absurd, the way so many people here (even ignoring the couple of racist pigs) are firmly declaring either that A was blameless and B was doing evil, or vice-versa. This is a tragedy bred of two guys, each - that's right, each - too eager to confront, getting themselves into the ultimate dick-swinging contest. Problem was, you don't bring a swinging dick to a gunfight; and now one guy is dead, the other guy's life is ruined, and two families are ravaged. To my fellow males: We all know the kind of shit men really hate the most about women, right? Well, this - this kind of incident here - is exactly the kind of shit that women collectively hate the most about men. As a gender, we should look at this incident and hang our heads in collective shame.

Some of it? Yes, probably. All of it? More probably not. The reason is that, whether in a criminal or a civil context, TM's general "status" (?) as a thug is not relevant, at least not all of it. What is relevant is whether TM was engaging in thuggery (or intended to) at the time GZ came into contact with him. So even in a civil context, and especially with the hyper-scrutiny of this case, you can expect a judge to be very, very scrupulous about dividing the one from the other. I find it hard to predict how they'll proceed, or not, so soon. But I would predict that the final decision will be driven 80% by politics and public opinion, and 20% by legal analysis.

You're all talking past each other. It's BOTH. It IS about a woman's legal right to choose what the fuck to do with her own body without a traditionally male-dominated society dictating otherwise. It IS, at least past a certain stage of gestation (which, technologically, will always be a moving target), about the fact that a human life-in-being, which had no say in the fact or circumstances of his/her conception exists inside that woman's body. Each side tries to deny the other fact, and that is intellectual dishonesty on the part of both sides. I'm sorry this makes people uncomfortable, but: factually, it's BOTH.

He did exactly the opposite of that, as every person who's read the news this morning knows. Once again, here's OHCHUTE making shit up.

Black, Asian and Hispanic professionals formed Black, Asian and Hispanic professional associations in the post-WW2 to 1960s era for the same reasons that, for example, Irish, Jewish and Italian professionals formed their own respective ethnic professional organizations earlier in the 20th Century - because pervasive ethnic discrimination throughout the business/professional world (including, but also well beyond, employment) made that kind of banding-together a practical necessity. That's not the only reason, of course (there was the social-comfort aspect, etc.), but it was certainly a main one. (Similar to why newly-affluent Catholics and Jews used to start their own country clubs: because none of the WASPy ones would grant them membership.) This discrimination, even against non-Protestant white people, was really not all that long ago. For example, one Jewish attorney I know graduated from law school in 1967. He aspired to practice business/corporate law in the large, blue-blood law firm environment. But his mentors quietly cautioned him that he'd have trouble landing a job in that environment with his obviously Jewish-sounding name. So, while still in law school, he legally changed his name to a WASP-y sounding name, in time to have his new name on all his transcripts, diplomas and bar certificates. And he's lived the rest of his life with that name. Just as the purely economical need for Irish, Jewish or Italian professional associations has diminished, so, too, will the economic need for the more recent varieties diminish, too. But that need has simply reduced as compared to decades ago; it most certainly is not gone. Anyone who thinks that black, Asian or Hispanic professionals no longer suffer discrimination in the business/professional world is being naive - the discrimination is still there; it's just more subtle and nuanced. And the banding-together desire is not unique to ethnic minorities, either. You wouldn't have thought that the Deep South, especially prior to the big spike in regional migration in the 1970s & 80s, would ever have needed a "special organization" to protect and preserve the interests of white Protestants, would you? And yet, there it was. Last time I checked, the Knights of Columbus and the Bnai Brith still existed, and St. Patrick's Day parades down Main Street USA were still the rule and not the exception. To those who embrace that: More power to you. And to those who get all offended at a Miss Black America pageant or a Black Accountants' Association: Get the sand out of your vagina, and stop looking for stupid reasons to pick an intellectual fight.

Sure. They're an important and vital part of the world's ecosystem - just as, for example, you are. Anyhow, here are a few articles on this very subject: http://www.google.com/#q=what+place+do+mosquitoes+have+in+the+ecosystem&spell=1&sa=X&ei=clXjUdDRJ_ay4AOW8oDIDw&ved=0CCgQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.dmg&fp=43343ac3cffa9ab0&biw=1024&bih=605

For what it's worth, I know this AA captain personally. I don't know whether he is the original author of the entire "open letter" or if it has been embellished by others over the years. I do know that on 9/11 he lost one of his best friends (capt of UAL/WTC plane) in a horrific way that, at that time, was unimaginable. So, if he is the author, I'm willing to cut him some slack since this was written so very soon after that event. And we have a good friend whose kid sister was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. She's appalled and disgusted every time she sees or hears this kind of anti-Muslim vomit spewed in the name of those who died on 9/11. Now that's character. I'm with the guy up-thread: the writer(s) of that disgusting letter can go fuck himself. So can those who choose to breathe life into it.

Are you dyslexic?

I've been a trial litigator (both civil and criminal) in multiple jurisdictions for 25 years. I would predict that 90+% of trial judges anywhere in the country would have ruled most, if not all, of that inadmissible. I've generally avoided reading this thread. In the vast majority of the commentary here about the various legalities, people (on both sides) for the most part haven't known what the hell they were talking about. Peace out.

Sorry, but I have to disagree wholeheartedly. And why is that? Because I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy. That's a responsive answer, btw.

FTFY 2 wongs don't make.. well, you know.

I haven't read-thru the whole thread, and I'm probably not going to. But I'll tell you this: while I do a lot of jumping down, I cannot jump up. So there you go.

And you know this, how? Seriously?

Sorry, but I have to disagree wholeheartedly.

Hopefully she decides to quit life altogether. Wow. That's some serious hate-on. You know she's a cancer/mastectomy survivor, don't you? According to her bio, she made a speech to her party's convention just 3 weeks after her surgery; she's described the pain as so severe she couldn't stand up. She's an avid outdoors sportster; for example, she's climbed Mount Kilimanjaro. Sooooo.... I presume she's already contemplated the "quitting life altogether" option, and probably decided that, despite her career in the bulls-eye of politics, anyone who might suggest she quit life altogether can go fuck themselves.

Back in the 70s this woulda meant something else

In soviet Russia, President elects you.

The student-of-history in me is not so sure about that.

Yes, it does, and NO I won't write a film review for you. If your so lazy you cant do a search on HBO I got nothing for ya. Um, I know you are, but what am I?

Think so? He still has to choose your nursing home.

I did a search. In all fairness (even though I think he's a douche, although I like his guitar playing), while I did find some accusations that he'd had sex with underage girls, I find no reference to him even being charged with any manner of sex offense, much less being convicted of any. Do you have further specific information of him being charged and convicted of a sex offense?

Yeah, right, about as likely as weight lifters and wrestlers running for Governor.

Various feasible possibilities- 1. People in government, maybe (a) in high places (like Watergate, or the burglary of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist [look it up, folks] ), or maybe (b) rogue. 2. Anti-govt interests trying to frame-up the current government. 3. Foreign govt gathering intelligence - could be some intelligence-valuable stuff there. 4. Mercenaries looking to steal valuable information hoping to sell it to the highest bidder. 5. Something "staged" by the victims themselves, for god-knows-what agenda. I wouldn't rule out any of the above. I also wouldn't presumptively rule-in one/some more than any of the others.

Does it shed specific light on the OP topic? If so, why don't you summarize it for us.