Chipping Away At Reverse Racism

here RemoveThis @home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>Central office has 13,000 people with 52,000 elsewhere and in all
>States (down from 20,000 and 60,000 respectively in 1980).
>
>And of course you miss the point which is the overrepresentation
>nationally.

The agency is not almost certainly NOT randomly distributed
nationally. Its offices are probably primarily located primarily in
cities (unless it is the Agriculture Department) or military bases (if
it is DoD). The population of those willing and able to work for the
agency based on geography alone, is probably much higher in minority
population than society-at-large.

I don't know the racial composition in central office but
>a non-scientific observation allows me to infer 25-30%.

Which as I said is exactly in line with the population of Maryland and
probably low for the population of Baltimore and its immediate
suburbs.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism 

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:01:27 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:

>here@home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>>Central office has 13,000 people with 52,000 elsewhere and in all
>>States (down from 20,000 and 60,000 respectively in 1980).
>>
>>And of course you miss the point which is the overrepresentation
>>nationally.
>
>The agency is not almost certainly NOT randomly distributed
>nationally. Its offices are probably primarily located primarily in
>cities (unless it is the Agriculture Department) or military bases (if
>it is DoD). The population of those willing and able to work for the
>agency based on geography alone, is probably much higher in minority

Uh, yeah, in FY '04 there were 1,321 field offices including 44
resident stations to serve the US public.

And I daresay that many of them have black employee populations of
less than 25%, although Latinos are overrepresented too.

> I don't know the racial composition in central office but
>>a non-scientific observation allows me to infer 25-30%.
>
>Which as I said is exactly in line with the population of Maryland and
>probably low for the population of Baltimore and its immediate
>suburbs.

Rather irrelevant when my point was to show the degree of social
engineering, and by implication, the mindset of the agency.

I pointed out how blacks were treated in headquarters.

And then to show the agency's liberal mindset, I merely alluded to the
demographic makeup.

You, as uusal, went off on irrelevant tangents.
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism 

here RemoveThis @home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:01:27 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>here@home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>>>Central office has 13,000 people with 52,000 elsewhere and in all
>>>States (down from 20,000 and 60,000 respectively in 1980).
>>>
>>>And of course you miss the point which is the overrepresentation
>>>nationally.
>>
>>The agency is not almost certainly NOT randomly distributed
>>nationally. Its offices are probably primarily located primarily in
>>cities (unless it is the Agriculture Department) or military bases (if
>>it is DoD). The population of those willing and able to work for the
>>agency based on geography alone, is probably much higher in minority
>
>Uh, yeah, in FY '04 there were 1,321 field offices including 44
>resident stations to serve the US public.
>
>And I daresay that many of them have black employee populations of
>less than 25%, although Latinos are overrepresented too.

It of course would be necessary for some places to have black
populations less than 25% since some have more, and yet the average,
you say, is 27%.

>> I don't know the racial composition in central office but
>>>a non-scientific observation allows me to infer 25-30%.
>>
>>Which as I said is exactly in line with the population of Maryland and
>>probably low for the population of Baltimore and its immediate
>>suburbs.
>
>Rather irrelevant when my point was to show the degree of social
>engineering, and by implication, the mindset of the agency.

Your evidence of "social engineering" was to claim black
"overrepresentation". If the proportion is that same or lower than
the local population, then it is pretty poor evidence of
"overrepresentation".

You also made mention of the agency being called a "matriarchy"
because 75% of the workers were female. Since that was the era where
large sectors of the economy were extremely limited in numbers of
female workers, whereas generic desk-jockey jobs were OK for women,
the percentages do not seem at all surprising, or evidence of social
engineering. Women have been a large majority of secretarial,
administrative assistant, teaching and other jobs of low status and
not especially high pay since WW II when they started to make major
inroads into the job market due to the labor shortages during the war.

>I pointed out how blacks were treated in headquarters.

You made an unsupported claim about them. Not much can be said in
response to an unsupported claim.

I responded to what you provided real data on.

>And then to show the agency's liberal mindset, I merely alluded to the
>demographic makeup.

Which it turns out doesn't give any indication of a "liberal mindset".

Though one would tend to concede that a central office with 20% of the
agency workers located in a "blue" state like Maryland will probably
tend to have a high percentage of people who you would call "liberal".

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism 

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:44:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:

>here@home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:01:27 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>><lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>here@home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>>>>Central office has 13,000 people with 52,000 elsewhere and in all
>>>>States (down from 20,000 and 60,000 respectively in 1980).
>>>>
>>>>And of course you miss the point which is the overrepresentation
>>>>nationally.
>>>
>>>The agency is not almost certainly NOT randomly distributed
>>>nationally. Its offices are probably primarily located primarily in
>>>cities (unless it is the Agriculture Department) or military bases (if
>>>it is DoD). The population of those willing and able to work for the
>>>agency based on geography alone, is probably much higher in minority
>>
>>Uh, yeah, in FY '04 there were 1,321 field offices including 44
>>resident stations to serve the US public.
>>
>>And I daresay that many of them have black employee populations of
>>less than 25%, although Latinos are overrepresented too.

>It of course would be necessary for some places to have black
>populations less than 25% since some have more, and yet the average,
>you say, is 27%.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2005/2f1-2f3.html


>>> I don't know the racial composition in central office but
>>>>a non-scientific observation allows me to infer 25-30%.
>>>
>>>Which as I said is exactly in line with the population of Maryland and
>>>probably low for the population of Baltimore and its immediate
>>>suburbs.
>>
>>Rather irrelevant when my point was to show the degree of social
>>engineering, and by implication, the mindset of the agency.
>
>Your evidence of "social engineering" was to claim black
>"overrepresentation". If the proportion is that same or lower than
>the local population, then it is pretty poor evidence of
>"overrepresentation".

Nationally, it is overrepresented.

And offices are located nationally, in other words: "all over."

Yup.

>You also made mention of the agency being called a "matriarchy"
>because 75% of the workers were female. Since that was the era where
>large sectors of the economy were extremely limited in numbers of
>female workers, whereas generic desk-jockey jobs were OK for women,
>the percentages do not seem at all surprising, or evidence of social
>engineering. Women have been a large majority of secretarial,
>administrative assistant, teaching and other jobs of low status and
>not especially high pay since WW II when they started to make major
>inroads into the job market due to the labor shortages during the war.

In '04, they were at 70%. The 75% figure, actually 73%, was from the
1990s. They are still underrepresented in the senior exec positions,
but even there, they enjoy an advantage over that of executive females
in the pvt. sector.

My wife will acknowledge that she was a beneficiary of aff. action
when she was selected for a GS-12 back in '74. I told her not to turn
down the promotion because mgt. would just awd. the job to the next
female on the best qualified list.

>>I pointed out how blacks were treated in headquarters.
>
>You made an unsupported claim about them. Not much can be said in
>response to an unsupported claim.

Respond or don't respond .... I don't care.

>I responded to what you provided real data on.

That's nice .... but irrelevant.

>>And then to show the agency's liberal mindset, I merely alluded to the
>>demographic makeup.
>
>Which it turns out doesn't give any indication of a "liberal mindset".

Of course it does.

You won't find too many white-collar outfits wherein EEOC has
determined that blacks are overrepresented to the tune of 350% or that
has a black presence of 27%.

In other words, my experiences aren't surprising when considering that
data.

>Though one would tend to concede that a central office with 20% of the
>agency workers located in a "blue" state like Maryland will probably
>tend to have a high percentage of people who you would call "liberal".

There was no "red" or "blue" in 1937 when HQ was established.
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism 

retired10years DeleteThis @home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>>You also made mention of the agency being called a "matriarchy"
>>because 75% of the workers were female. ...
>
>In '04, they were at 70%. The 75% figure, actually 73%, was from the
>1990s. They are still underrepresented in the senior exec positions,
>but even there, they enjoy an advantage over that of executive females
>in the pvt. sector.

So the fact that they aren't as discriminated against in your agency
as in the public sector is evidence that something is wrong?

>You won't find too many white-collar outfits wherein EEOC has
>determined that blacks are overrepresented to the tune of 350% or that
>has a black presence of 27%.

I wonder how they came up with a 350% figure if the percentage is only
27% It sounds like they think that equitable representation would be
6%.

>>Though one would tend to concede that a central office with 20% of the
>>agency workers located in a "blue" state like Maryland will probably
>>tend to have a high percentage of people who you would call "liberal".
>
>There was no "red" or "blue" in 1937 when HQ was established.

There is now, and you made an assertion of a liberal mindset NOW.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism 

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:52:41 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:

>retired10years@home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>>>You also made mention of the agency being called a "matriarchy"
>>>because 75% of the workers were female. ...
>>
>>In '04, they were at 70%. The 75% figure, actually 73%, was from the
>>1990s. They are still underrepresented in the senior exec positions,
>>but even there, they enjoy an advantage over that of executive females
>>in the pvt. sector.
>
>So the fact that they aren't as discriminated against in your agency
>as in the public sector is evidence that something is wrong?

The fact that lesser qualied people were hired/promoted is wrong.

>>You won't find too many white-collar outfits wherein EEOC has
>>determined that blacks are overrepresented to the tune of 350% or that
>>has a black presence of 27%.
>
>I wonder how they came up with a 350% figure if the percentage is only
>27% It sounds like they think that equitable representation would be
>6%.

Could be.

I wonder why they don't shoot for 12-13% to match their demographic.

>>>Though one would tend to concede that a central office with 20% of the
>>>agency workers located in a "blue" state like Maryland will probably
>>>tend to have a high percentage of people who you would call "liberal".
>>
>>There was no "red" or "blue" in 1937 when HQ was established.
>
>There is now, and you made an assertion of a liberal mindset NOW.

Which they demonstrate quite well, thank you.
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism 

On Jun 30, 6:10 am, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpub....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Way Back Jack" <chill....TakeThisOut@home.net> wrote in messagenews:4683d73a.18187937@free.teranews.com...
>
>
>
> > 5-4 decision for the good guys.
>
> > As expected, the four criminal-friendly, anti-American, limousine
> > socialists voted for reverse racism to continue. Meanwhile Kennedy
> > went wishy-washy and kept the door open for reverse racism on a
> > limited basis, although he too ruled in favor of the good guys against
> > the Louisville and Seattle plans.
>
> There are few more pathetic than white people whining about being racially
> discriminated against.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

How does this level the playing field when you know that minority
means not in the majority? How does helping friend find jobs, repaying
favors to friends and aqauantices, fair to a minority???? How can
being a minority actully be a threat to any
one in America.When does the fear stop?
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism 

On Jun 30, 7:52 am, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpub....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Whites simply don't experience discrimination in the US. The right wing's
> campaign to do away with so-called "anti-white discrimination" is nothing
> more than an attempt to roll back the clock to the days of Jim Crow and
> segregation. That's because right-wingers want to be able to exercise their
> racism.
>
> By the way, I'm white.


More accurately, you're a white idiot.

There's no such thing as "reverse" discrimination.
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism 

In article <1183886674.807876.304980.RemoveThis@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
saajp5.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jun 30, 6:10 am, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpub....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Way Back Jack" <chill....RemoveThis@home.net> wrote in
> > messagenews:4683d73a.18187937@free.teranews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > 5-4 decision for the good guys.
> >
> > > As expected, the four criminal-friendly, anti-American, limousine
> > > socialists voted for reverse racism to continue. Meanwhile Kennedy
> > > went wishy-washy and kept the door open for reverse racism on a
> > > limited basis, although he too ruled in favor of the good guys against
> > > the Louisville and Seattle plans.
> >
> > There are few more pathetic than white people whining about being racially
> > discriminated against.
> >
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> How does this level the playing field when you know that minority
> means not in the majority? How does helping friend find jobs, repaying
> favors to friends and aqauantices, fair to a minority???? How can
> being a minority actully be a threat to any
> one in America.When does the fear stop?

When will discriminating against white children stop?
Imam
--
If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention.
 >> Stay informed about: Chipping Away At Reverse Racism