Race, lets make this serious! It is nearly 2013.

[Vrede too]

A (Houston) hospital sought a Black expert's help to diversify. They fired him over his stance on race.

[Vrede too]

One Black juror, 11 whites to hear trial over Arbery slaying

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — A judge ruled Wednesday that he'll seat one Black juror and 11 whites to decide the trial of the men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery, despite prosecutors' objections that several Black potential jurors were cut because of their race.

Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley acknowledged that “intentional discrimination" by attorneys for the three white defendants charged in the death of the Black man appeared to have shaped jury selection. But he said Georgia law limited his authority to intervene....

In Glynn County, where Arbery was killed and the trial is being held, Black people account for nearly 27% of the population of 85,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The judge said 25% of the pool from which the final jury was chosen was Black....

1 in 12 = 8%. I guess the murdering White crackers do get a jury of their peers.

[billy.pilgrim]

One Black juror, 11 whites to hear trial over Arbery slaying

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — A judge ruled Wednesday that he'll seat one Black juror and 11 whites to decide the trial of the men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery, despite prosecutors' objections that several Black potential jurors were cut because of their race.

Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley acknowledged that “intentional discrimination" by attorneys for the three white defendants charged in the death of the Black man appeared to have shaped jury selection. But he said Georgia law limited his authority to intervene....

In Glynn County, where Arbery was killed and the trial is being held, Black people account for nearly 27% of the population of 85,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The judge said 25% of the pool from which the final jury was chosen was Black....

1 in 12 = 8%. I guess the murdering White crackers do get a jury of their peers.

The community is probably 30% black

[O Really]

A (Houston) hospital sought a Black expert's help to diversify. They fired him over his stance on race.

<sigh>
No, they didn't "fire" him - they rescinded an offer before he began employment.
No, they didn't dump him "over his stance on race" - they dumped him for being a jerk.

His side of the story: he thought the guy managing his relocation search was making comments he found to be (maybe inadvertently) racist. Like assuming he liked hip hop dancing. So he reported the guy to the company. Now consider: the job the guy is going to be doing involves a lot of diplomacy and ability to build, maintain, and improve relationships. Yet he thinks it's a good idea to cast aspersions on the real estate guy who had (maybe) worked with the company for a long time and who (may or may not) have ever been accused of racism; and to do that before he even starts the job. Classic Karen.

Let's say the real estate guy really did exhibit racist behaviour. The way to deal with that would be to wait until he'd been with the company a month or say, had established some rapport with his co-workers and bosses and built a little credibilty. Then he could bring up stereotyping racism and use the realtor as an example.

The company made the right decision.

[Vrede too]

... In Glynn County, where Arbery was killed and the trial is being held, Black people account for nearly 27% of the population of 85,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau....

1 in 12 = 8%. I guess the murdering White crackers do get a jury of their peers.

The community is probably 30% black

Nearby Brunswick, Georgia is 59.8% African American.

Both the county and city are way more than 8% Black.

[Vrede too]

A (Houston) hospital sought a Black expert's help to diversify. They fired him over his stance on race.

<sigh>
No, they didn't "fire" him - they rescinded an offer before he began employment.
No, they didn't dump him "over his stance on race" - they dumped him for being a jerk.

His side of the story: he thought the guy managing his relocation search was making comments he found to be (maybe inadvertently) racist. Like assuming he liked hip hop dancing. So he reported the guy to the company. Now consider: the job the guy is going to be doing involves a lot of diplomacy and ability to build, maintain, and improve relationships. Yet he thinks it's a good idea to cast aspersions on the real estate guy who had (maybe) worked with the company for a long time and who (may or may not) have ever been accused of racism; and to do that before he even starts the job. Classic Karen.

Let's say the real estate guy really did exhibit racist behaviour. The way to deal with that would be to wait until he'd been with the company a month or say, had established some rapport with his co-workers and bosses and built a little credibilty. Then he could bring up stereotyping racism and use the realtor as an example.

The company made the right decision.

Once again we are victimized by a headline writer. Neither "fire" nor "fired" is said by Joseph B. Hill nor the reporter. As for the rest, Hill has the credentials to know the things you do and he's the one that deemed the “microaggressions” to be serious enough to speak up immediately. Please invite me when you two debate.

[neoplacebo]

More like we're victimized by two decades of Faux News and five years of trumpian lunacy, lying, and whining. Making people jump to conclusions is about as good as controlling them. And making people believe bullshit is better than that. Look at how it works.

[O Really]

... Hill has the credentials to know the things you do and he's the one that deemed the “microaggressions” to be serious enough to speak up immediately. Please invite me when you two debate.

Hill has excellent credentials, and maybe the "microaggressions" were majorly serious. In our hypothetical debate, I'd ask him how his choice of handling the matter worked out for him.

[Vrede too]

... Hill has the credentials to know the things you do and he's the one that deemed the “microaggressions” to be serious enough to speak up immediately. Please invite me when you two debate.

Hill has excellent credentials, and maybe the "microaggressions" were majorly serious. In our hypothetical debate, I'd ask him how his choice of handling the matter worked out for him.

Sucky, or he's glad to know the truth about his bosses early.

[O Really]

... Hill has the credentials to know the things you do and he's the one that deemed the “microaggressions” to be serious enough to speak up immediately. Please invite me when you two debate.

Hill has excellent credentials, and maybe the "microaggressions" were majorly serious. In our hypothetical debate, I'd ask him how his choice of handling the matter worked out for him.

Sucky, or he's glad to know the truth about his bosses early.

His (would be) bosses hired him to improve diversity and related cultural and process issues. If they were perfect, they wouldn't need him. For whatever reason, they're trying. If Hill had withdrawn his acceptance because the real estate guy (contracted by the company) had microaggression issues and the company wasn't interested, I might look at it differently. Hill might have thought his hill at that company was steeper than he wanted to climb.

But he didn't withdraw. The offer was withdrawn because of the way he handled pre-employment issues, and he's not even willing (apparently) to acknowledge maybe he could have handled it differently.
Yeah, sucky.

[Vrede too]

His (would be) bosses hired him to improve diversity and related cultural and process issues. If they were perfect, they wouldn't need him. For whatever reason, they're trying. If Hill had withdrawn his acceptance because the real estate guy (contracted by the company) had microaggression issues and the company wasn't interested, I might look at it differently. Hill might have thought his hill at that company was steeper than he wanted to climb.

But he didn't withdraw. The offer was withdrawn because of the way he handled pre-employment issues, and he's not even willing (apparently) to acknowledge maybe he could have handled it differently.
Yeah, sucky.

It's suggested in the article:
That the bosses are more interested in blackwashing than real change;
That Hill was surprised by the bosses' reaction, that he didn't know the outsourced real estate agent was a shut up or withdraw situation.
Idk.

[O Really]

It's suggested in the article:
That the bosses are more interested in blackwashing than real change;
That Hill was surprised by the bosses' reaction, that he didn't know the outsourced real estate agent was a shut up or withdraw situation.
Idk.

(1) They probably were - I'd guess 90+% of his potential employers could be so described.
(2) He shouldn't have been surprised. He didn't have any personal credibility yet, and he didn't bother to wait and see if maybe the real estate guy was his bosses brother-in-law.

Ask me how I know that trashing somebody before you know who they are, or who their friends or enemies might be, can have unpleasant and possibly "surprising" results.

[GoCubsGo]

It's suggested in the article:
That the bosses are more interested in blackwashing than real change;
That Hill was surprised by the bosses' reaction, that he didn't know the outsourced real estate agent was a shut up or withdraw situation.
Idk.

(1) They probably were - I'd guess 90+% of his potential employers could be so described.
(2) He shouldn't have been surprised. He didn't have any personal credibility yet, and he didn't bother to wait and see if maybe the real estate guy was his bosses brother-in-law.

Ask me how I know that trashing somebody before you know who they are, or who their friends or enemies might be, can have unpleasant and possibly "surprising" results.

Okay, I'll bite.

How do you know?

[Vrede too]

It's suggested in the article:
That the bosses are more interested in blackwashing than real change;
That Hill was surprised by the bosses' reaction, that he didn't know the outsourced real estate agent was a shut up or withdraw situation.
Idk.

(1) They probably were - I'd guess 90+% of his potential employers could be so described.
(2) He shouldn't have been surprised. He didn't have any personal credibility yet, and he didn't bother to wait and see if maybe the real estate guy was his bosses brother-in-law.

Ask me how I know that trashing somebody before you know who they are, or who their friends or enemies might be, can have unpleasant and possibly "surprising" results.

Okay, I'll bite.

How do you know?

Fake news unless you tell us.


A (White) mom and her biracial child were stopped by police at a Denver airport because a Southwest employee suspected human trafficking

Idk about this one.
Travel employees have at times foiled human trafficking.
It's not like we can expect flight attendants to be expert detectives.
In the interest of kids it's good if suspicions get passed on to experts.
Mom was questioned and released, no arrest, no cuffs, no abuse, apparently no accusations.
Idk what to think of the follow-up call with a detective ten days later. I'd want to hear more about what was said.
It will be a shame if actual human trafficking gets missed because travel employees are afraid to share their suspicions.

[O Really]

Ask me how I know that trashing somebody before you know who they are, or who their friends or enemies might be, can have unpleasant and possibly "surprising" results.

Okay, I'll bite.

How do you know?

So back in the late 70's I got a job with the company formerly known as ITT. I worked out of NYC with the EEO/AAP group. ITT had zillions of government contracts and was in constant trouble with the EEOC and OFCCP, so we were not only kept busy, but under significant pressure to keep the various operating units out of trouble, or get them out once they got in. ITT was a huge global conglomerate back then, and in the overall scheme of things, my job would have been a Grunt level III. However, if you worked at 320 Park, the headquarters for the huge ITT, where you might, if you worked there long enough, maybe even see Harold Geneen himself getting into his limo, it was easy to get a bit of an inflated sense of your own importance and influence.

ITT owned Grinnell Corporation, in Providence RI, that at the time fabricated pipe fittings, valves, and hangers in addition to the fire protection business. They had a history of being in trouble over slimy business practices, antitrust, anti-competitor practices, etc., and they were getting hammered by the OFCCP on contract non-compliance. So I got sent up there to patch it up. Nobody was happy to see me - or happy to see anybody from ITT actually. Ten years after the ITT acquisition, they were still mad about it and generally chafed under ITT's admittedly heavy-handed rule. The company union rep was particularly adamant that he didn't want anymore "broads or niggers" in his unit. Knowing very little about this unit's history or culture, I went off on him and said that to ITT that was an unacceptable attitude, unacceptable language, and if he wasn't going to cooperate he could be easily replaced. He just gave me an extreme rolling eye and "wha-tever" or maybe it was "fuck you" and walked away.

The Grinnell labor relations manager told me that I really couldn't get him replaced, and that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to try. He said the union rep was really a pretty decent guy and that if the company fired him, they'd probably get somebody worse and would have a lot of problems with the union in the meantime. He'd expect work slow-downs, vandalism, threats to management, etc. I told him I didn't think that was going to be acceptable to "320 Park" and I was going to speak to the Group Executive responsible for Grinnel about it. He said, "fine - that's a good idea. They know about him and won't let you get rid of him anyway." A Group Executive in NYC knows about some local rep in Providence RI? Seriously? He said "look, we just need to deal with him. He's not going anywhere - Mr. Patriarca likes him here."

Spoiler:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarca_crime_family

[O Really]

One Black juror, 11 whites to hear trial over Arbery slaying

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — A judge ruled Wednesday that he'll seat one Black juror and 11 whites to decide the trial of the men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery, despite prosecutors' objections that several Black potential jurors were cut because of their race.

Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley acknowledged that “intentional discrimination" by attorneys for the three white defendants charged in the death of the Black man appeared to have shaped jury selection. But he said Georgia law limited his authority to intervene....

In Glynn County, where Arbery was killed and the trial is being held, Black people account for nearly 27% of the population of 85,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The judge said 25% of the pool from which the final jury was chosen was Black....

1 in 12 = 8%. I guess the murdering White crackers do get a jury of their peers.

Good discussion here of "jury of peers." No rejection based on race is allowed.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... peers.html

[Vrede too]

One Black juror, 11 whites to hear trial over Arbery slaying

1 in 12 = 8%. I guess the murdering White crackers do get a jury of their peers.

Good discussion here of "jury of peers." No rejection based on race is allowed.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... peers.html

From my link:

... The judge said his ability to change the jury’s racial makeup was limited because defense attorneys were able to give nonracial reasons for their decisions to strike the potential Black jurors....

Rejection based on race is allowed if you have good enough lawyers.

[Vrede too]

... A Group Executive in NYC knows about some local rep in Providence RI? Seriously? He said "look, we just need to deal with him. He's not going anywhere - Mr. Patriarca likes him here."

Spoiler:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarca_crime_family

Spoiler:

Fake news unless your fingers were broken as an "incentive".

[Vrede too]

A prominent leader of the Proud Boys asked a judge to let him out of jail early, claiming the conditions are inhumane

So, the white supremacist chieftain who burned a Black Lives Matter flag that he stole from a historically Black church wants special treatment because he's being treated like Black inmates are all the time. Irony.

... Judge Pittman has yet to issue a ruling but one is expected later this week, The Post reported.

"It's obviously distressing to hear of these conditions," Pittman said, adding that Tarrio is not the only prisoner currently facing these conditions, according to The Post.

If Tarrio were to be released, "why isn't everybody else?" Pittman said....

[Ulysses]

Good discussion here of "jury of peers." No rejection based on race is allowed.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... peers.html

How is any of this a surprise in the Deep South?