Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Of course if a person cares about his/her doctor's race then race would be an appropriate factor for that person. No one should be going to a doctor with whom they are uncomfortable. Whatever factors a person uses are the appropriate factors for doctor selection (whether on plan, gender, religion, race, whatever). That said, a person does not have any sort of right to have doctors of a certain race, gender or religion covered by his/her health plan. And all of us would likely agree that a person who turns down a good specialist based on race is foolish. But it is his/her right to do so.

No one is talking about whether you have a right to do it or not. What we are talking about is whether it is racist to do it.

What if you pick your lawyer by race? Is that racist?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was giving an example to make a point.

What was your point then? That a woman living in an insular ethnic community would not be racist if she chose a doctor based on race?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


I'm seeing . . . I dunno . . . it seems like there's a distinction between a preference as to who is sticking their hands up my cooter* and a hiring policy.

So if the hospital/health care group is simply meeting the desires of consumers, it's not okay, even though those desires are okay?

we're not talking about all businesses, just service industries. What if I want my gumbo served by a man (yes, I will go to Gallitoires)?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Thanks.

When you have a minute, look up "rhetorical question" in the dictionary.

was bilmore's question rhetorical? if so why did we have different answers?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So if the hospital/health care group is simply meeting the desires of consumers, it's not okay, even though those desires are okay?

we're not talking about all businesses, just service industries. What if I want my gumbo served by a man (yes, I will go to Gallitoires)?

I think it is a illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in hiring except for things like hiring an actor to play a character that is a particular race. It would be OK to only hire whites to play Churchill.

Although illegal, I don't think it would necessarily be racist if a business owner hired on the basis of race. It would depend on the owner's intent. If the owner did it ONLY to satisfy customer demand and harbored no racist thoughts him/herself, than it would not be racist. It would be an illegal business decision, but not racist.

If the owner did it because he or she hates blacks, then it would be racist and illegal.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So if the hospital/health care group is simply meeting the desires of consumers, it's not okay, even though those desires are okay?

we're not talking about all businesses, just service industries. What if I want my gumbo served by a man (yes, I will go to Gallitoires)?

Read what ncs said. I can pick my own personal doctor based on whatever I want. The health plan can't limit the doctors it will contract with based on gender or race. If I feel incredibly strongly about the gender thing, and the only ob/gyns on my health plan who are in town and accepting new patients at the particular time I want an appt are female, I'm going to have to weigh my desire to have my appt covered by my health plan against my desire to have a male dr against my desire to go to the dr (i.e., can it wait)

WTF is with you? You are pulling together just ridiculously unrelated things here. Not like you. Is there some weird internet rabid fluness going around?

If you want your chicken wings served by a woman, I suggest you go to Hooters. I don't get how they get around hiring men; obviously there are some gender carve-outs. I have been to restaurants that have predominantly if not exclusively male waitstaffs.

Hey, speaking of race, did anyone else see the article about an entire county in VA that closed its schools ENTIRELY for like 6 years to avoid integration? The white people got together and set up a private school (somehow using some public money) and white kids who couldn't afford the tuition (which I'm sure was really, really low, if not nominal, but they probably wouldn't give you a "scholarship" if your parents weren't good god-fearing Christians etc.) or who were black either went without school or had to move. This was in the late 40s/early 50s or late 50s/early 60s. There was a thing with some guy who never learned to read until he was an adult because he was old enough to be out of school (7th grade or whatever) by the time they started having schools again. Nifty cool markets in action.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Read what ncs said. I can pick my own personal doctor based on whatever I want. The health plan can't limit the doctors it will contract with based on gender or race. If I feel incredibly strongly about the gender thing, and the only ob/gyns on my health plan who are in town and accepting new patients at the particular time I want an appt are female, I'm going to have to weigh my desire to have my appt covered by my health plan against my desire to have a male dr against my desire to go to the dr (i.e., can it wait)

Duh. Why are you even talking about whether you have the right to do this? That isn't the issue. The issue is is it racist or in this case sexist for you to do it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Duh. Why are you even talking about whether you have the right to do this? That isn't the issue. The issue is is it racist or in this case sexist for you to do it.

Yes, my slight preference for a female ob/gyn doctor is sexist. It's a pretty narrow area of sexism, though, and deals with very personal stuff. I am also sexist in that I don't want to fuck a woman. And I'm ageist in that I don't want to fuck children and don't want them to run the rides at an amusement park (at least until they're, like, 12).

Edited to note that the sex cutoff is more like 17ish. 12 is for running the machinery at the park.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
WTF is with you? You are pulling together just ridiculously unrelated things here. Not like you. Is there some weird internet rabid fluness going around?

What is with you? He is just pointing out the consequences that stem from your hypo.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, my slight preference for a female ob/gyn doctor is sexist. It's a pretty narrow area of sexism, though, and deals with very personal stuff.

I don't think it is sexist. If anything, it is that you are victim of sexism and subject to cultural influences on the appropriateness of discussing sex or being seen naked by members of the opposite sex, particularly those you don't know.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am also sexist in that I don't want to fuck a woman.

That isn't sexist, either. That is your sexual orientation, which is an immutable characteristic.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And I'm ageist in that I don't want to fuck children and don't want them to run the rides at an amusement park (at least until they're, like, 12).

Again, no.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
was bilmore's question rhetorical? if so why did we have different answers?

Are those rhetorical questions?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What is with you? He is just pointing out the consequences that stem from your hypo.

He's extending the hypo incredibly far; it's even one of those "if you change the facts of the hypo, you change the outcome." See, e.g., inherent sexism in my strong preference for sex with males and not females.

ETA you are being stupidly argumentative. You really should see a therapist about the PTSD you seem to be suffering from the law school incident.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't think it is sexist. If anything, it is that you are victim of sexism and subject to cultural influences on the appropriateness of discussing sex or being seen naked by members of the opposite sex, particularly those you don't know.

It can't be a discussing sex or being seen naked thing because of my preference for sex with men (and I discuss sex and am seen naked by people I have sex with). I get a little more creeped out by a strange male sticking his hands up me and rubbing my breasts than I do a strange woman doing the same thing. It's kinda rational though: people are apparently much more likely to be straight than gay, so the creepy sexual aspect is much more likely to be a factor with a man.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He's extending the hypo incredibly far; it's even one of those "if you change the facts of the hypo, you change the outcome." See, e.g., inherent sexism in my strong preference for sex with males and not females.

ETA you are being stupidly argumentative. You really should see a therapist about the PTSD you seem to be suffering from the law school incident.

Well educate me. Why is it OK to make a decision based on race in choosing a doctor but not in choosing where to eat a meal?

[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. Here is an article I found interesting, although I realize that it only quotes one guy from Human Rights Watch and so of course does not represent the full kaleidoscope of views on these sorts of things.

Three points:

• - It seems like the US is certainly taking a gamble by not assigning the job to lawyers experienced in this kind of thing. I'm not saying the Iraqis can't do the job, I'm just saying that there certainly is a CYA aspect to appointing at least a few people who have done this before. The prosecution of SH is a Big Deal, and other war crimes tribunals in similarly clear this-guy-is-a-bad-guy situations have proven more difficult than expected.
  
  - Such a move reflects a commendable desire to let/make the Iraqi people themselves "own" the tribunal process. But the announcement of the appointment of S. Chalabi through the INC definitely undercuts that objective.
  
  - About a year ago I was talking to my best (OK, only) friend about A Chalabi and he said he had worked with Chalabi's nephew at a firm in NYC when SC was a senior associate and my friend paralegaled for a year before law school. Friend said SC pretty much kept to himself but seemed rather standoffish whenever someone interacted with him. Friend also said his cubemate at the time worked for SC a lot and repeatedly vowed to make enough money to be able to quit the job and beat Mr. Chalabi like a rented stepchild because he (SC) was such an asshole. Yesterday Friend emailed me again to express his incredulity that this was the guy running the tribunal. I realize this is sixthhand info you guys are reading on an internet chat board so I'm not putting it forward to prove that SC is actually an asshole. I merely mention it because I personally am enjoying envisioning the SH tribunal process being run by one of the many aloof assholes I met during my law firm past. Perhaps you will too.

If today was supposed to be a PC "theme day" I apologize for breaking up the flow. As penance I'm happy to let any of you bully me into submission based on my political incorrectness.