Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you don't even know if it was a train accident, how can you be so sure it wasn't a terrorist attack?

if train not attack: if not train attack

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Haven't seen much reaction in the media to Tuesday's announcement of the selection of Chalabi's nephew as the head of the Saddam tribunal.

Someday historians may refer to this period of Iraq's history as the Chalabi Special Olympics.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if train not attack: if not train attack

If train, could be hijacked/sabotaged or tracks sabotaged/booby-trapped by terrorists. Me fringe. You dumb today.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
No, you need to reread Club's post to which you were responding:

Oh, sorry. Then he's an asshole for changing my hypo. But my answer made it entirely clear I was talking about sex.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Conservatives:

(1) Believe that the academy's major failing is that it permits consequence-free experimental thought that would get "no traction" in the real world

No, that's the failing of the liberal arts.

Conservatives:
(2) Trust that unregulated free markets always produce things that enough people want, except there are inexplicably no first-rate colleges or universities with majority conservative tenured faculty, and no significant mass media with conservative voices.

You are SUCH a liberal arts chauvanist. MIT, Caltech, and Coopers union each have a lot of libertarian faculty, maybe a plurality.

You are SUCH a general news chauvanist. WSJ, Economist, AM radio, Plated's greedy politics.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


Because I can't see how a man would serve a meal any differently than a woman (unless the service involves running the food across genitals and then lasciviously sliding it into the mouth of the customer or what have you) I will think he's silly.

Why would a properly trained doctor be any different in his/her treatment of you depending on his gender or race?

As for ncs's earlier proposal (you can choose, but your insurer can't be forced to provide you what you want) doesn't stand up. It means that insurers/doctors have to hire a bunch of people to sit around because no one wants them. Like forcing hooters to hire male waiters--what's the point, to require them to pay people to do nothing?

The reason i raised this tangential issue is principally curiousity, provoked by two things: Sidd's jury experience and my and club's law school experience. I started almost the exact same discussion in a law school sex discrim. class. To wit, we all agreed that a restaurant could not hire only whites to serve its patrons, even if the patrons wanted white waiters. Next step, true for women too? Of course, and the same legal test should apply--no exceptions. So, what about doctors/personal care I asked? What, huh, I should be forced to have a male gyno? Bullshit. Why, I persisted. Didn't last very long before the accusations flew and the answers stopped. I'm not quite sure why--perhaps when confronted with an inconsistency (equal rights and non-discrimination is great until it personnally affects me) folks clammed up. I'm genuinely heartened to see that on an anonymous board that didn't happen. I think, other than fringey's slights.

FWIW, I tend to agree with fringe's (i think) contention that this exception to general views that non-discrimination is good is justified by a privacy "right" or interest of some sort.

Of course, I'm hard pressed to find that exception in Title VII or in the constitution. Anyone? Hank?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would a properly trained doctor be any different in his/her treatment of you depending on his gender or race?

As for ncs's earlier proposal (you can choose, but your insurer can't be forced to provide you what you want) doesn't stand up. It means that insurers/doctors have to hire a bunch of people to sit around because no one wants them. Like forcing hooters to hire male waiters--what's the point, to require them to pay people to do nothing?

The reason i raised this tangential issue is principally curiousity, provoked by two things: Sidd's jury experience and my and club's law school experience. I started almost the exact same discussion in a law school sex discrim. class. To wit, we all agreed that a restaurant could not hire only whites to serve its patrons, even if the patrons wanted white waiters. Next step, true for women too? Of course, and the same legal test should apply--no exceptions. So, what about doctors/personal care I asked? What, huh, I should be forced to have a male gyno? Bullshit. Why, I persisted. Didn't last very long before the accusations flew and the answers stopped. I'm not quite sure why--perhaps when confronted with an inconsistency (equal rights and non-discrimination is great until it personnally affects me) folks clammed up. I'm genuinely heartened to see that on an anonymous board that didn't happen. I think, other than fringey's slights.

FWIW, I tend to agree with fringe's (i think) contention that this exception to general views that non-discrimination is good is justified by a privacy "right" or interest of some sort.

Of course, I'm hard pressed to find that exception in Title VII or in the constitution. Anyone? Hank?

I don't think the doctor will behave differently. I do think that the chances of getting a male doctor who gets his jollies by shoving specula up women is higher than getting a female doctor who feels the same, as I mentioned. And I am probably irrational that I feel more vulnerable/violated by a relatively strange male messing around with my privates. I think pretty much anything involving nudity and/or something that could be characterized as groping but for the intent, having a preference for a particular sex is understandable. Race, no.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Of course, I'm hard pressed to find that exception in Title VII or in the constitution. Anyone? Hank?

stop bothering me. i'm working on my new persona- ole Hank's going to be a female, and my science degree? Ob/Gyn! i'm hoping fringey will Pm me questions about her privates!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would a properly trained doctor be any different in his/her treatment of you depending on his gender or race?

As for ncs's earlier proposal (you can choose, but your insurer can't be forced to provide you what you want) doesn't stand up. It means that insurers/doctors have to hire a bunch of people to sit around because no one wants them. Like forcing hooters to hire male waiters--what's the point, to require them to pay people to do nothing?

The reason i raised this tangential issue is principally curiousity, provoked by two things: Sidd's jury experience and my and club's law school experience. I started almost the exact same discussion in a law school sex discrim. class. To wit, we all agreed that a restaurant could not hire only whites to serve its patrons, even if the patrons wanted white waiters. Next step, true for women too? Of course, and the same legal test should apply--no exceptions. So, what about doctors/personal care I asked? What, huh, I should be forced to have a male gyno? Bullshit. Why, I persisted. Didn't last very long before the accusations flew and the answers stopped. I'm not quite sure why--perhaps when confronted with an inconsistency (equal rights and non-discrimination is great until it personnally affects me) folks clammed up. I'm genuinely heartened to see that on an anonymous board that didn't happen. I think, other than fringey's slights.

FWIW, I tend to agree with fringe's (i think) contention that this exception to general views that non-discrimination is good is justified by a privacy "right" or interest of some sort.

Of course, I'm hard pressed to find that exception in Title VII or in the constitution. Anyone? Hank?

I haven't been following to close. But there is, still, freedom to K. Fringe can pick a doctor. she can choose not to go to a male, or an arab or a black.
I can choose not to eat at a Thai restaurant with Ty as the head chef.
If bilmore goes to the emergency room with his kid and the doc seems swishy, b can choose to go to the private clinic down the road "just to be safe."

i think the question is can the hospital not hire? the answer is no, and even Tony Soprano has overcome his distrust of non-white Docs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I do think that the chances of getting a male doctor who gets his jollies by shoving specula up women is higher than getting a female doctor who feels the same

I think the chances that the black man approaching me on the street will mug me are greater than the white man on the other side. Shall I cross the street?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think the chances that the black man approaching me on the street will mug me are greater than the white man on the other side. Shall I cross the street?

There is nothing to stop you. If the white guy looks like he reeks and/or obviously has a gun stuck in his pants that are sagging down showing his anal crack, and the black guy looks like TM on his way to work in an obviously expensive and tasteful outfit, I think you are an idiot. Also a lot depends on the neighborhood, and whether you have a weapon of your own. It's kinda a facts and circumstances thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There is nothing to stop you. If the white guy looks like he reeks and/or obviously has a gun stuck in his pants that are sagging down showing his anal crack, and the black guy looks like TM on his way to work in an obviously expensive and tasteful outfit, I think you are an idiot. Also a lot depends on the neighborhood, and whether you have a weapon of your own. It's kinda a facts and circumstances thing.

I agree with fringey- chicks think alike! by the way burger something just like fringey was saying happened to me during my ob/gyn residency- small world!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I think Burger's doctor hypo is an interesting one. (If it's not Burger's, sorry.) The best I can do to explain the different reaction there is to say that one's choice of doctor is based, in part, on a sort of comfort level that is almost necessarily irrational. People have all sorts of issues about medical care that they will (or should) admit are not necessarily logical. We tolerate this in the selection of a doctor because the bond between a patient and doctor is so important, even if the reasons are not the sort we'd accept elsewhere.

Anyway, that's a stab at it. Not sure how far this gets you.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not sure. I would say no automatically, but if a person living in an insular ethnic community feels the need to have a doctor of her own ethnicity to see on immensely personal, private medical issues, should she have that right?

My thought was, if a person suffered from some ailment that is exclusive to their race, wouldn't there be a vaild basis to go only to a doctor of that race?

Leading to, of course, the idea that we can race-select, but only for the "right" reasons. And the selection of the definition of "right" really leads to problems.

Leading, of course, to my belief that we need to completely stop considering race, that being the only way to de-mystify and de-emphasize the whole subject.

And I'll stop there, without going into AA, for that might be divisive.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
[Plus, you will have the chance to mold a young mind! Mwaahahahahaaa!]

Your experience is obviously different than mine.

I'm the one getting molded.