BBO Discussion Forums: Romney vs. Obama - BBO Discussion Forums

phil_20686, on 2012-November-15, 06:49, said:

I'd bet that in 20 years you will come to think this is a bad idea after all.

TimG, on 2012-November-15, 07:22, said:

Agree. But, a fair portion of the public loves a good scandal, and the media love to show it for them to watch. I think they are hoping for something really juicy, like maybe a prostitute service for top brass in Tampa. Not likely, but not unprecedented, so hope lives on.

Then again, there is always the small chance of a serious security breach, so perhaps the feds should investigate at least enough to determine that.

billw55, on 2012-November-15, 07:32, said:

Perhaps, but the tide is running the other way at the moment. Mental health charities seem perennially on campaign for people to be more open about their mental health. And it feels strange that when one is required to put sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and any physical or mental illnesses on job applications "for diversity monitoring", which are read by strangers, that we should consider it private information.

phil_20686, on 2012-November-15, 08:22, said:

Different cultures I guess. In the USA, it is illegal to ask for such information in an application or interview.

TimG, on 2012-November-15, 07:22, said:

Largely I agree, although I confess to being, for the moment, one of the rubberneckers. Part of it has to do with worldview, perhaps. In tenure decisions we have to decide what is and what is not our business. For me, sexual issues are on the "not my business" list, as long as they obey Ms. Campbell's injunction about not frightening the horses. It is said that military officers take such matters far more seriously. I have never been in the military but from my outsider observations I think this claim of purity is more than a bit overstated.

And of course there always is the less admirable but sometimes hard to resist interest in trash. I'm pretty immune to stuff about rock stars and such. Mostly I don't even know their names. But this story has some clout, I guess. The first one I can recall that made such a splash was Christine Keeler, maybe fifty years ago. Time Magazine (I think it was Time) had a picture of her that I still can see in my mind.

But really I agree. We know all we need to know, time to move on.

billw55, on 2012-November-15, 08:26, said:

The information won't be disclosed to the interview pannel. It is for the HR department to check if the probability of rejection depends on your skin colour and such.

billw55, on 2012-November-15, 07:52, said:

Sure, the Feds should look into that, but no need to involve the general public in that process.

helene_t, on 2012-November-15, 08:43, said:

Different cultures again. Over here, most people would not trust this assertion. I envy yours in this regard, if people and corporations are honest enough for this to be taken for granted, and adhered to.

TimG, on 2012-November-15, 08:59, said:

Agree, in fact it probably hampers the actual investigation.

Although in fairness, this matter did proceed non-publicly for a while. It was outed by Petraeus' resignation, which could not feasibly be kept from the public (although perhaps the reasons could have been).

billw55, on 2012-November-15, 09:51, said:

Most likely the information is optional -- I know I would never provide it.

Of course, optional information can be tricky. I don't think it is legal to ask an applicant's age, but I believe that most people include it on their CV. So if it's not there, the applicant would probably prefer the employer didn't know.

kenberg, on 2012-November-15, 08:42, said:

I think it depends on the specific issue. Two incidents I recall from my Navy career. During my first tour, on a ship homeported in Japan, I learned that the CO of one of the other ships there and his wife divorced — and she promptly married the XO of the same ship. This seemed bizarre to me, since the CO wrote the XO's fitness reports. But that's all I know about that incident — for all I know the divorce was amicable and the CO bore no ill will towards either his ex-wife or his XO. Still, ship's parties were probably awkward.

The other incident, in another command, involved rumors of sexual misconduct between an enlisted woman and several different officers (this was a training command with a larger than usual proportion of officers to enlisted). There was an investigation, the rumors were determined to be false, and still the Commodore addressed all the officers in the command, saying, among other things "it is not enough that an officer avoid impropriety. An officer must also avoid the appearance of impropriety."

Another point: it is part of military culture that you have your shipmate's back, and he yours. So sleeping with his wife, or he sleeping with yours, is generally deprecated as indicating a lack of trustworthiness — and you don't want to go into combat with someone you don't trust supposedly watching your back.

Even in academia I think sleeping with a colleagues spouse would be a really bad idea. It happens, but sure it would cause problems.

Added; I don't want to be misunderstood about relations with non-colleagues. I and everyone I know would not think highly of a married colleague who is carrying on an affair with anyone. All I mean is that we would not take it out on him/her professionally. We would see it is not our business. Now if the adulterer's partner is the spouse of a colleague, that's jut plain stupid. If this causes problems, don't come to me for help.

From G.O.P. Governors Meet, Amid Whispers of 2016

Quote

There are times that I feel left out. The Republicans did not get my vote, and they lost the election. They will now try to figure out how to get the Latino vote. Perhaps they will try for the Black vote. Who knows, maybe they will go after the Gay vote. Would they, just for the hell of it, be interested in trying for my vote?

Why I am looking at this identity politics stuff, I see that Obama got 39% of the White vote. The percentage of White Male votes ( I am uncertain when upper case is preferred to lower case in demographics, so I decided to just try for consistency) is even smaller. Does this concern the Democrats? Is it their plan to concede the White vote to the Republicans, just as Romney conceded the Freeloader vote to the Democrats?

I just want to toss an idea out on the field for consideration. Perhaps running a strong candidate on a platform of well thought out economic, educational, and defense policies would get some votes from White people, Black People, Latino People, Gay People, and Straight people.

Probably a nutty idea, but I just thought I would put it out there.

kenberg, on 2012-November-16, 07:55, said:

Bill Clinton tried this and look where it got him.

kenberg, on 2012-November-16, 07:55, said:

Ken, I recommend looking at the cross tabs.

The Democrats don't have a white male problem, rather they have a "Southern White Male" problem.

I, for one, think that we're better off without them.

y66, on 2012-November-16, 08:01, said:

As I recall, he was elected and reelected and is now a highly respected senior statesman.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

ArtK78, on 2012-November-16, 08:12, said:

Not amongst "Southern White Males".

kenberg, on 2012-November-16, 07:55, said:

I predict that the next time the Democratic candidate is a white male, his share of the white male vote will be higher than Obama's.
http://www.theatlant...lection/258322/

helene_t, on 2012-November-15, 08:43, said:

I can understand that with respect to skin color. After all, the interview panel might reject an applicant based on skin color. Unless s/he is wearing a burqa, the interview panel will know the applicant's skin color.

But for sexual orientation, or religious affiliation I don't understand that at all. How is an interviewer supposed to know about my religion (if any) or whether I fancy men or women?

Do we really try to impress interviewers with lines like: "Hey you pretty thing.. your house of worship or mine?"

Rik

cherdano, on 2012-November-16, 08:49, said:

An alternative conclusion from that research is that people who don't use racist search terms tend to have a pro-black-candidate bias, no? Or am I missing something?

I am not saying this is plausible, just trying to be the advocate of the devil.