Our Hypocritical Country

In this episode:

The wonderment surrounding why this endorement didn't rock the boat:

McCain Receives Hagee Endorsement

Yet, these consume the media for days:

Louis Farrakhan backs Obama...
What Should Obama Do About Wright?
Geraldine Ferraro Let's Her Emotions Do the Talking

Is it just the news I'm watching? Clue me in, please!

Our Hypocritical Country

In this episode:

Why this is illegal and blasted to the front of the news for almost a week:

Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring (From March 10)

Yet, this is kept legal, practiced and essentially ignored:

Bush vetoes bill banning waterboarding (From March 8)

Discuss.

At Least You Can Stand By Your Decision

Ann-Marie: Are you an Obama or Clinton supporter?

Steve: Well, I don't really care as long as one of them wins. But I think I'm more aligned with Obama.

Ann-Marie: Why?

Steve: For the most inappropriate reasons. I think he's charismatic and can inspire people. But I know he has shit for experience.

Overheard in Ann-Marie's Office.

McCain Pulls a John Edwards, Shouts "Look at Me! Look at Me!"

I've become too cynical regarding politics, I believe.

The New York Times posted a story dated February 21, 2008 regarding possible inproprieties Senator and Presidential hopeful John McCain had with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.

My take:

A) The New York Times already endorsed McCain, they don't really have that strong an interest in dragging his name through the mud.

B) The beginnings of this story started way back in December, prior to the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primaries. Very interesting that the big blow up didn't happen until after McCain was the true front-runner for the GOP's nomination.

C) Since McCain's status as front-runner has been sealed, he's been receiving a lot less press than his Democratic colleagues. And is it not fishy (if not just a little interesting) that this story breaks on the day of what could be the most important Democratic debate?

I would not think twice if I heard that McCain's camp is just a little bit more responsible for pushing the NYT into publishing this today - considering that now that it has, his face has been plastered on a lot more websites and newsprograms.

That Pie Chart Sure is Purty

On Monday, the El Paso Times ran a story with the headline "Richard Wiles preferred heavily in race for sheriff." The story led off with this graphic:


Isn't it a pretty picture?! Riddle me this - what does the fine print say? Click here if you can't read it. Here's a summary: 350 likely voters were polled with a +/- 5.5%. Here's what I have to say about that -

1. The 2006 population (estimated) of El Paso county is 736,310. Simple math shows the sample size for this poll was only 0.05% of the entire county.

2. Plus/Minus 5.5% - You've gotta be kidding me!

3. The Reuel Group (the firm responsible for administering the poll) allows users the option of creating customized voter lists, totally negating any type of "random" sample that may occur. Or at least throwing the concept of "random sampling" into a realm open to criticism. And, while I cannot confirm, it is rumored that the group themselves have publicly endorsed Wiles. That stench you smell is what I like to call "conflict of interest."

4. Does anyone else see a problem in polling likely voters as opposed to registered voters? Here's why they have to print it that way - you see, these polls are conducted via automated telephone calls (you know, the type that say "To elect a douchebag, press 1. To come to your senses, press 2.") Yeah, my 2 year old cousin can pick up a phone and press numbers. The methodology also causes one to ask, "Which candidate did they chose to be option 1?"

5. In the body of the story, the Times reports that if you removed the percentage of voters who chose "Don't Know" Wiles would have the support of 56% of the remaining people polled. Do you want to know what that math equals? 145 people which equals 0.02% of the county population. I wouldn't necessarily brag about that.

Let this be a lesson to you folks - pretty pictures don't necessarily make the best things on which to base your opinions. Unless you want to trust a second rate news source. And then you have to remember - you get what you pay for.

Equal Opportunity Patronization

In an annual presidential address to the University of Texas at El Paso community, Dr. Diana Natalicio released, on September 1, 2007, the University's statement on Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action and University Policy Statement.

In this statement, Dr. Natalicio outlines UTEP's protected classes, which are: race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, or disability. Yes, my friends, sexual orientation. Pretty amazing considering we're in the state of Texas, right?

Upon further research, however, I have found that, as published in UTEP's EO & AA Office Brochure (page 2), the University is very quick to point out that sexual orientation is not protected under state and federal law.

What does this mean, exactly? It means that UTEP can claim to be non-discriminitory in regards to sexual orientation, however, there is no legistlation or precedent to actually hold them accountable to this policy.

As stated by a UTEP Human Resources representative during Employee Orientation, gay couples may not claim their domestic partners as a dependent, therefore those partners are not eligible for university benefits.

Really? Even though Dr. Natalicio's memo clearly states, "The University's commitment to equal opportunity principles applies to all aspects of employment, including recruitment, promotion, compensation, benefits, and training?"

Yes, really.

The Human Resources Services Frequently Asked Questions page documents that "eligible dependents include your legally married spouse..." Well, guess what folks (loophole alert!) - the gays can't get married in Texas! Well, you may ask, what if I, a gay man, and my partner, another gay man, got married in Massachusetts, where it is legal? You guessed it - another loophole alert! - Texas (and in turn, UTEP) won't recognize that legal document thanks to DOMA.

So what does this all mean? I'll tell you - it means that UTEP can lure gay and lesbian (and bisexual ... we won't include transgender folks as the policy clearly states "sexual orientation" and not "gender identity") applicants under the guise of equal opportunity when really it is just a fallacy.

Would UTEP be so bold as to withhold benefits from say ... a visiting professor from Spain? A black man? An employee with Cerebral Palsy? I guarantee it wouldn't, even though it does choose to discriminate against another member of the so-called protected class list. And is there anything in place from prohibiting the University to be more blatant in it's discrimination? Do gay and lesbian employees really have security in their employment at UTEP as the institution is so bold to publish such a bogus document without the ability to back it up?

Do I really want to take it there? Yes, and here's why - this list is used as recruiting tool. Natalicio herself has written "the University commits itself to increased recruitment efforts to assure that qulified minorities, women, veterans, and individuals with a disability are represnted in the applicant pool..."

UTEP is unabashedly using it's status as the only school in the University of Texas system to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy.

And in response I say - UTEP, do us all a favor (and by us, I mean the university community), don't patronize. It's beneath you and insulting to the rest of us.