Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sheb]

How will they enforce it though?

[palsch]

How will they enforce it though?

This is basically an instruction to any government agency that issues contracts to private companies to only issue such contracts to companies that don't discriminate in this way, or at least have policies in place that are viewed as sufficient to prevent such discrimination. So whatever standards of proof they usually use for such contractual requirements.

[Sheb]

Feels like an awful lots of red tape, compared to just enforcing an anti-discrimination statute across the board.

[Frumple]

This is basically an instruction to any government agency that issues contracts to private companies to only issue such contracts to companies that don't discriminate in this way, or at least have policies in place that are viewed as sufficient to prevent such discrimination. So whatever standards of proof they usually use for such contractual requirements.

And yeah... I've never known anything resembling specifics as to what they look for, but from what I've picked up from folks working in regards to that (on both sides of the equation -- business and regulation*) the requirements aren't exactly monumentally strenuous. If you can't even manage to meet government regs for stuff like that, my initial suspicion would be that something is sincerely fucked up in your company.

*Primarily through a grant-writing parent, who has managed to bring a few hundred thousand dollars worth of state/federal money into the local school system over the years. This is the same area where one of the major towns has an african american population that's singular. Also some interaction with auditors and business owners and whatnot over the recent year or two. Shit ain't hard.

[Sheb]

So standards already exists. Good. But why do they have standards if they weren't needed before? For the federal agencies themselves?

[Frumple]

They didn't (still don't, I guess?) have standards in regards to sexual orientation, and plenty of discrimination happens in regards to that. Which would be why they're putting in new standards, presumably. Or trying to, anyway.

Also the standards were needed before. Craploads of discrimination happened before folks pulled their heads out their nethers and brought down the law hammer. Bigots spend an inordinate amount of time trying to wiggle through loopholes, Sheb, and blanket, general language has a nasty habit of not holding up in court (or being twisted into horrific things *shrug*).

[Sheb]

Oh, I'm not saying it wasn't needed, I was just saying that "requirement for federal contracts" may not be the best place to put it. Better than nothing I guess.

I hope they added a clause to kill it once a federal bill instate protection for all business.

[Frumple]

Ah. Yeah, it's a "better than nothing" thing, more than anything. Plenty of businesses (particularly notably being schools, which can have a ripple effect in regards to stuff like this) are after federal money, and even if their particular jurisdiction is run by bigoted asshats they'll try to (at least nominally, which is better than not at all) bring their business in line with federal regs. Basically, it's an economic means of social propagation used when other means (blanket, local, protection, etc.) isn't working -- businesses that play nice get more money, and thus (probably) outperform those that don't, eventually killing the competition and leaving nothing but complying companies. When you can get jack-all through the legislative system, it's one of the few tools you have available, heh.

[BurnedToast]

"how do we stop this Occupy shit from happening again, as frustration inevitably grows with all the stuff that movement was addressing."

It would seem that they already have found an effective method of dealing with such movements, no?

Yeah, sort of.  They were certainly effective at suppressing Occupy and containing its influence.  But never completely shut it down.  It was a major revitalization for activism in the U.S..  Major protest events have grown in frequency since (most wouldn't know it as mass media's discipline in ignoring them has grown stricter), and many local chapters and projects are still operating under the Occupy label.  The origins of the movement are still relevant and growing in tensions and awareness.  I think it's likely that there will be a full resurgence eventually, and it's hard for me to believe that the rapid escalation of surveillance and police militarization doesn't have anything to do with that.  Maybe the research in question doesn't, though.  I do see the bias in the author's writing style.

Really? I was under the impression that all occupy did was shit up a bunch of parks, smoke a whole lot of weed, then go home to play xbox when it got cold out.

I think it's incredibly unlikely the escalation of surveillance etc. is in response to a bunch of people who couldn't even seem figure out what exactly they were protesting (uh... uh.... down with The Man the 1%!).

But maybe I missed something.

[SalmonGod]

"how do we stop this Occupy shit from happening again, as frustration inevitably grows with all the stuff that movement was addressing."

It would seem that they already have found an effective method of dealing with such movements, no?

Yeah, sort of.  They were certainly effective at suppressing Occupy and containing its influence.  But never completely shut it down.  It was a major revitalization for activism in the U.S..  Major protest events have grown in frequency since (most wouldn't know it as mass media's discipline in ignoring them has grown stricter), and many local chapters and projects are still operating under the Occupy label.  The origins of the movement are still relevant and growing in tensions and awareness.  I think it's likely that there will be a full resurgence eventually, and it's hard for me to believe that the rapid escalation of surveillance and police militarization doesn't have anything to do with that.  Maybe the research in question doesn't, though.  I do see the bias in the author's writing style.

Really? I was under the impression that all occupy did was shit up a bunch of parks, smoke a whole lot of weed, then go home to play xbox when it got cold out.

I think it's incredibly unlikely the escalation of surveillance etc. is in response to a bunch of people who couldn't even seem figure out what exactly they were protesting (uh... uh.... down with The Man the 1%!).

But maybe I missed something.

Yeah... you missed quite a lot.  I'll just stop myself there before I find I've spent the next 3 or 4 hours collecting evidence against your perceptions, which don't look like they ever graduated the level of preconception.

[GlyphGryph]

Really? I was under the impression that all occupy did was shit up a bunch of parks, smoke a whole lot of weed, then go home to play xbox when it got cold out.

That you think so is just an example of how effective the campaign was. The government and major media networks worked very, very hard to cast Occupy under this light, but that's... not really what it was like, for the vast majority of those involved.

Much like the government/media attempts to discredit "hippies" (who, remember, those in charge once believed were an imminent and incredibly powerful force in shaping American discourse), they've done the same for Occupy, and done what they could, post-narrative, to make that narrative true.

[Helgoland]

At least in Germany, that was true. Occupy in my city was a bunch of dudes sitting around in a circle on a marketplace, with around a fifth of them being competent union activists, three fifths doing not much, and one fifth being paranoid about the gub'mint. Hell, one of them introduced himself by his internet nick (!), fearing that stating his real name might lead to surveillance!

[palsch]

I didn't stop to talk to people at Occupy London when I noticed one of the few tents that had people around it was a Truther group. But then it was the days between Christmas and New Years, so didn't expect many people.

Finally uploaded this anyway.

[scriver]

European "occupy" were mostly copy cats, they can't be compared to the American thing. That shouldn't even need to be said.

[palsch]

Erm, they used the American Occupy as an excuse, but Occupy London was basically grown out of local movements that already existed. Notably UK Uncut who had been holding protests against corporate tax avoidance for a year by the time the Zuccotti Park demos started. I knew people who had travelled to protests and marches all over Europe in the years before Occupy who were involved to some degree (although their views of Occupy itself were more mixed), not least people who were connected to the M-15 protests in Spain.

I'd actually argue that it's status as a splinter of the American idea harmed the London camp's potential as it's own protest and maybe even sapped some of the energy of those local movements. For sure the local efforts were more targeted/directed and got more publicity before the media black hole of Occupy pushed them into the shadows. They also seemed to move away from Occupy as the fringe groups moved in, which makes sense as it rapidly became a vehicle that couldn't effectively progress any given agenda.