|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 17 new of 536 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 520 of 536:
| 
Dec 22 01:49 UTC 2003 |
If "systemic" means present throughout, then the US has systemic racism. It
isn't universal, and it is largely outlawed, but *people* still have attitudes
that they put into effect in ways that escape the laws to discriminate against
members of other groups. This is, in fact, the flaw in the
anti-affirmative-action drives: eliminating affirmative action removes
elements of favoratism toward mostly discriminated against minorities, but
they do not remove the discrimination.
|
willcome
|
|
response 521 of 536:
|
Dec 22 02:16 UTC 2003 |
By SYSTEMic, I mean as far as the SYSTEM goes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 522 of 536:
|
Dec 22 14:05 UTC 2003 |
Systemic has both meanings (which rather limits its use unless context can
indicate which is meant).
|
gull
|
|
response 523 of 536:
|
Dec 22 16:30 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:493: So basically, the Bush Administration is cutting the same
sort of deal with Libya that they've been calling Clinton a traitor for
having made with North Korea?
|
klg
|
|
response 524 of 536:
|
Dec 22 17:05 UTC 2003 |
Basically, no.
|
twenex
|
|
response 525 of 536:
|
Dec 22 17:11 UTC 2003 |
Or rather, yes.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 526 of 536:
|
Dec 22 17:23 UTC 2003 |
re #523: While I think that the Libya deal is basically grandstanding,
I disagree with your characterization as (a) I am unaware of any instance
of an official of the Bush administration characterizing Clinton as a
traitor while acting in their capacity as a member of the administration,
and (b) the deal with Libya is supposed to include an inspections regimen
if I understand it correctly. It's too early to tell whether the
inspection plan will be any more successful than the one that North Korea
was supposed to abide by. Also (c) as far as we know Libya is not getting
its payment up front for this change, the way North Korea did under the
so-called Agreed Framework.
|
klg
|
|
response 527 of 536:
|
Dec 22 18:02 UTC 2003 |
Unlike N. Korea, which is already well-armed - possibly with nuclear
weapons - Libya does not have a major population which it can hold
hostage in a standoff. This would, basically, allow the U.S. to handle
it as we handled Iraq. There is, therefore, little reason to presume
that we would succumb to N. Korean-type blackmail. Is there?
|
klg
|
|
response 528 of 536:
|
Dec 22 18:05 UTC 2003 |
(Assuming, of course, that neither How-weird or Weasly is elected.)
|
willcome
|
|
response 529 of 536:
|
Dec 23 06:00 UTC 2003 |
Re. 522: Please, please, leave the definitions to the more than capable
Mister McNally.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 530 of 536:
|
Dec 24 04:37 UTC 2003 |
I leave the definitions to the even more competent ODE.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 531 of 536:
|
Dec 24 04:40 UTC 2003 |
OED?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 532 of 536:
|
Dec 24 04:49 UTC 2003 |
ODE - Oxford Dictionary of English
|
gelinas
|
|
response 533 of 536:
|
Dec 24 05:09 UTC 2003 |
Thanks. :)
|
twenex
|
|
response 534 of 536:
|
Dec 24 16:14 UTC 2003 |
Er, OED is correct.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 535 of 536:
|
Dec 24 22:16 UTC 2003 |
It certainly is.
|
tod
|
|
response 536 of 536:
|
Dec 24 22:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
