posted
MILWAUKEE — Seventeen white, male police lieutenants were awarded nearly $2.2 million by a jury that concluded they were not promoted because of discrimination.
The jury found last week that former police chief Arthur Jones (search) had promoted less-qualified women and minorities to captain, ahead of the plaintiffs. The former chief, who is black, testified he picked nominees mostly by personal evaluations of their skills, without consulting resumes or department personnel records.
The 17 plaintiffs will receive compensatory damages from $9,500 to $50,000 each, and $102,000 each in punitive damages from the city.
Jones noted that during his seven-year tenure he promoted 41 people to captain, 21 of them white men. The city argued that the fire and police commission, which approves hirings, was not malicious and did not know about any discrimination.
Two of the men who brought the lawsuit in 2003 have since been promoted to captain and two have retired. Jones left the department that year.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Curran (search) will hear more testimony before deciding whether to award back pay and promotions, for those plaintiffs who are still lieutenants.
Their attorney, William Rettko, asked for hundreds of thousands of dollars for each man, saying they suffered emotionally and lost status in the community because of the discrimination. Since all are at or near retirement age, they would have difficulty finding other jobs, he argued.
Rettko said he did not know how many of the men would return to the department. Assistant City Attorney Miriam Horowitz and current police Chief Nan Hegerty declined to comment on the jury's decision.
Capt. Andra Williams, who was named in court as one of the black officers benefiting from Jones' discrimination, said he would have been promoted no matter who the chief was.
"It's insulting to be labeled as less qualified or to imply that the community is getting less of a supervisor in me or any of the other minority supervisors or women," he said.
Posts: 396 | From: Blue Springs MO USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are hurting our pets - our poor, dumb darkies that we have adopted to take care of.
Don't they know these pets should get special privileges over whites? How are they going to make it unless they propped up with special treatment? They need money to drink, take drugs, dance and sing, and reproduce, not to mention to keep them from commiting crimes.
We simply can't expect that our lovable pets pull their own weight. Outrageous!
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Don't you mean, built a super power capitalist empire off of their slave labour?? You didnt adopt them, you dragged them forcibly from there homeland, destroyed their culture and enslaved them.
That said... this kind of bull**** is unacceptable. Fighting racism with racism is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, I'm glad the good guys finally won here...
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
" So giving special privileges to a minority group to the harm of other groups is not racism? "
I completely agree that it IS racism, thats why I said...
"That said... this kind of bull**** is unacceptable. Fighting racism with racism is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, I'm glad the good guys finally won here... "
"Yes, and they have been striving desperately to return to Africa ever since."
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: " Art: So giving special privileges to a minority group to the harm of other groups is not racism? "
Kevin: I completely agree that it IS racism, thats why I said...
"That said... this kind of bull**** is unacceptable. Fighting racism with racism is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, I'm glad the good guys finally won here... "
Art: "Yes, and they have been striving desperately to return to Africa ever since."
Kevin: evidence?
Art: Misunderstood your comment on the racism of reverse discrimination - my response was inappropriate in view of my misunderstanding.
My remark about blacks trying desperately to return to Africa was said sarcastically in response to what you said below:
Kevin: You didn't adopt them, you dragged them forcibly from there homeland, destroyed their culture and enslaved them.
Art: If they were treated so badly, why haven't they returned to their homeland since being freed? We could offer each black under the age of 25 (in the USA only) $100,000 if they would return to Africa and never come back. Maybe a handful, out of millions, would accept it - they have a better life here than anywhere (except in Canada where they could get more welfare).
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln's real plan after the Civil War was to return all slaves back to Africa? Even though he despised slavery, he never thought that whites and blacks could live together in peace... so he wanted them shipped to Liberia. However, after he was assassinated (before the war ended), those plans were changed because the Northerners wanted to punish the South. What better way to pnish them by making them live with their former slaves?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lincoln was pained by the killing and suffering of the Civil war. He hated the injustice of slavery since his youth, but I can see that seeing the war's devastation made him question the feasibility of blacks living in peace with whites in the future.
Lincoln was self-educated and consulted two volumes frequently: the bible and the works of Shakespeare.
He was truly a great man and realized how important maintaining the union of states was to this country's future well-being.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Apenorm57: Did you know that Abraham Lincoln's real plan after the Civil War was to return all slaves back to Africa? Even though he despised slavery, he never thought that whites and blacks could live together in peace... so he wanted them shipped to Liberia. However, after he was assassinated (before the war ended), those plans were changed because the Northerners wanted to punish the South. What better way to pnish them by making them live with their former slaves?
any facts to support this statement? i doubt that this would have become public knowledge. you SIR----- are talking out of your azz.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apenorm57 is a reliable source - he would not make things up.
I have read that the attitude of the North toward the South was extemely punitive after the civil war - they tried to rob southerners of their deeded land and give it to the blacks, for instance.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Lincoln made that speech that is abolute truth I have read it before. I imagine it wil be hard to find a copy of it seeing how history has been getting a re writing for the last 40 years.
Posts: 396 | From: Blue Springs MO USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I'm not talking out of my ass. I read it in a book about the Civil War... not really an editorialized book, just the facts about all the battles and it mentions it. It's about 800 pages long... I'll get the name of it.
Art - you're right. The Secretary of War really hated the Southerners after they assassinated Lincoln, as well as the VP. Why do you think Northern troops stayed in Southern cities for years after the Civil War?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
too much money to be made to pass up the opportunity...to the victors go the spoils...the south would have done the same to the nort h had they won...
the civil war was about money all along...
yes there were moral issues involved, but the North didn't really like the "free" labor the southerners had, and England was willing to pay more for cotton than the northerners wanted to pay...
Grant was a flatout drunk... who knows what demons Sherman was carrying around...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By 1860, cotton ruled the South, which annually exported two-thirds of the world supply of the "white gold." Cotton ruled the West and Midwest because each year these sections sold $30 million worth of food supplies to Southern cotton producers. Cotton ruled the Northeast because the domestic textile industry there produced $100 million worth of cloth each year. In addition, the North sold to the cotton-growing South more than $150 million worth of manufactured goods every year, and Northern ships transported cotton and cotton products worldwide.
also northerners pretty much ran the slave trade as well...
not to mention they were quite efficient at destroying the whale populations.....
morals were just sleight of hand (spin)...sound familiar?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
there was also the issue that slavery was CONSTITUTIONAL, not likely to ammended...
slaves were property, BUT a slave counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes in congress...hmmmmm...gerrymandering is not new eeither...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
More than three-fourths of the cotton used in the textile industries of England and France came from the American South. Between a fourth and a fifth of the English population depended in some way on the textile industry, and half of the export trade of England was in cotton textiles. About a tenth of the nations wealth was also invested in the cotton business. The English Board of Trade said in 1859 that India was completely inadequate as a source of raw cotton; England apparently was dependent on the American South for cotton.
from "white gold" to "black gold" in just 140 years...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
On February 28, 1861, Congress passed an act levying an export duty of 1/8 cent per pound on all cotton shipped after August 1 of that year. The government hoped to raise $20 million through the export tax in order to pay a $15 million loan funded by an issue of 8 percent bonds. But because of the tightening blockade and the South's own voluntary cotton embargo, the measure raised only $30,000. When the secretary of the treasury lobbied to have this minuscule tax raised, opposition from the planter class kept Congress from increasing it, even when the Confederacy's finances were desperate.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, the part where glassman talks is in regular font, the part he is obviously taking from a source is in bold...
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
