9:40 am, July 11, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 54
       

  • Diversity?
    Just me
    I think the President's message is ill timed and smacks of politics. During a period when agencies are looking to reduce costs (translation: Shed jobs) discussions should be focused on retaining the best QUALIFIED personnel With many of the reward and retention incentives OFF the table, the focus should be on how to prevent the bset performers from exiting federal service...particularly if Congress slashes pay and benefits. Does this mean we should abandon diversity programss? No, but arguing that we must promote diversity, at the expense of qualificaitons and performance serves no good purpose. What the President SHOULD have said is that we should be promoting a meritocracy in the federal service. The best qualified PERSON should be selected, regardless of gender, race, creed, age, or sexual orientation.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • diversity
    Cathy
    I totally agree. Well stated. Also, Anon, in Mike's story, made great sense too.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Diversity Among Best Qualified
    JBsPoint2Ponder
    Agree with the above comments and Anon. One variance to consider is with truly disabled. Whether it is from a birth defect, accident, or our Wounded Warriors, I think special consideration is merited. These are real barriers and challenges that we should accommodate. Let the educational institutions take on the challenges of preparing highly qualified candidate for the fields that have limited representation.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Diversity
    Moderate
    I agree with both Cathy and Just Me. I have no problems with the hiring of women , those of a different race religion, and any other division I failed to mention. However, they must be hired based on ability and not based on these other factors. I think Obama is way out of line in pushing this diversity nonsense at this level.---------With that in mind, if diversity is needed, thentraining should be given to everyone via the schools. If extra schooling is needed, it should be provided for all. Federal funding should be provided for this extra schooling. this would allow for diversity without unfair advantages.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Whose Diversity?
    Tea Partier
    Liberal politicians care more about physical differences than they do about intellectual differences. The Federal government is one of the Least diverse places to work in when it comes to political thought. I work in a large office that is about 95% Democrat. Republicans are required to stay in the closet & shut up. If you dare to express an opinion about tolerance that differs from the touchy feely groupthink of the Left, my agency refuses to publish it, alongside a litany of left wing twaddle about how wonderful tolerance is. There is no tolerance for conservatives, which also means they don't want diversity of thought, only diversity of physical appearances. I just read yesterday that Eric Holder's DOJ just hired a bunch of radical liberal lawyers for the Civil Rights division of the Justice Dept. Conservative lawyers need not apply. They won't be considered. Liberal's diversity means liberal groupthink.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Diversity in politics
    Linda
    I feel for you Tea Partier. I am considered a Flaming Liberal in my office. Also full of Feds. I think it depends on where you live. My state is a red state. So red that the Democrat Govenor is anti gay marriage, anti abortion, pro NRA and fiscally conservative. No where else is that a Democrat! I think some just call themselves Democrats in my state to have two parties. I am a true moderate. Fiscally conservative and socially (morally) liberal. The Tea Party started protesting against the deficit and being otherwise very diverse in moral standards. Now it is utra Right Wing as to be the conservative side of the Republican Party.................................Diversity is a frame of mind and a demographic locality. My locality is 90% white, 8% native american and a spattering of everything else. A minority in my office is a male. Women make up more than 50% of the population, but not of the work force. So how is the ratios figured, by population or work force? .....................Women are also, on average, better educated than men.............does that mean they should have the highest paying jobs on average? .... We all know that is not how it works. .....Women on average also work a lot less hours than men. They don't, on average, work the overtime and take time off to raise children...................................This is what causes the pay gap, less experience, not less knowledge, education or ability to do the work. Where should diversity start?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To tea partier
    Moderate
    What organization do you work for that is 95% Democrat? is it a political organization for the Democratic Party? if so, then you can expect them to hire Democrats. And why would you be there?------I have read some of your opinions about tolerance. Remember your writings about Muslims? Remember some of your writings promoting Chreistianity over other religions? Of course they will not publish that kind of stuff. That will open themselves up to all sorts of negative comments and possibly an investigation.-------There is an acceptance of conservative views, liberal views and moderate views. However, there is no acceptance of racist views or those with views that knock religious beliefs.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Location
    Tea Partier
    I live in the liberal NE corridor of the country between DC & Boston, and work for a large Federal agency. I am trying to get a relocation to a more conservative part of the country, but try getting a hardship tfr. based on your political affiliation. Why am I here? I was born & raised here. Not my choice. Getting a relocation in the gov't is extremely tough. The city I live in is 95% Democrat.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Location
    Moderate
    Tea partier, would you please read what you write. You want a hardship transfer based on political affiliations. You must be pulling my chain. Did you ask an expert whether that is grounds for a hardship transfer? I am no expert in hardship transfers, but I doubt that you can do this.-----Talk to an expert or perhaps your union steward, if you have one, and find out how you can transfer to another office where you would be happier. It may take a few years, but I believe you would have a better chance than going for a hardship transfer. Check the COL for job announcements. Perhaps you can get a lateral transfer. Perhaps you can find someone who will switch offices with you. If you are that unhappy, and you get along with your boss, maybe he (she) can help you out.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Reply
    Tea Partier
    You always prove my point. You automatically assume anything I say must be racist because you disagree with it. In point of fact, what I wanted them to publish was a critique of left wing hypocrisy, where they assume the mantle of tolerance, while demonizing anyone who disagrees with them as racists & bigots. That's what they wouldn't publish: the intolerance of the Left.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Response to tea partier
    Moderate
    Did you read what I wrote? You said you wanted a hardship transfer for political reasons. I do not think that political reasons is a valid reason for a hardship transfer, but I wrote to ask an expert on that issue. I said to talk to an expert to see how you can get a transfer. I also said to check the COL. How does race enter into that?------Now, in my post above the one saying where you worked, I cited your intolerance of Muslims and your comments concerning non Christians. Am I incorrect about your comments there? Aren't you just a little bit bigotted. ----- Of course your organization will not publish your comments about Muslims and non Christians. You are the one who is intolerant. This has nothing to do with left or right. I cannot speak for the right, but would they publish that kind of stuff?---------
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Follow Up
    Tea Partier
    I would also describe the Left's definition of diversity as bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with them philosophically. There can be no disagreement with their world view permitted. If you disagree with them, by their own definition, you are the one who is being intolerant. Is this starting to sound like George Orwell's 1984?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "...bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with them..."?
    FERS Fed
    Are you sure you're not talking about the Tea Party?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with them..."?
    Usurped
    Whodda thunk? Working in the bowels of civil rights 260/360/1810 series and the most vicious racists I've every laid my eyes upon are civil rights investigators...un group rights advocates would be a more appropriate series classification. And that quip about "1984?" Yup I have started referring to myself as another Winston Smith. I think that was his name. He too worked in the bowels of the bureauRatacy.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Usurpted
    Moderate
    I can see your point. Some of these investigations are less than rational. But what tea partier wrote is less than rational also. And he is definitely not Winston Smith. He as well as some of these investigators are out on 2 fringes.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with them..."?
    Usurped
    Whodda thunk? Working in the bowels of civil rights 260/360/1810 series and the most vicious racists I've every laid my eyes upon are civil rights investigators...un group rights advocates would be a more appropriate series classification. And that quip about "1984?" Yup I have started referring to myself as another Winston Smith. I think that was his name. He too worked in the bowels of the bureauRatacy.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with them..."?
    Usurped
    Whodda thunk? Working in the bowels of civil rights 260/360/1810 series and the most vicious racists I've every laid my eyes upon are civil rights investigators...un group rights advocates would be a more appropriate series classification. And that quip about "1984?" Yup I have started referring to myself as another Winston Smith. I think that was his name. He too worked in the bowels of the bureauRatacy.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with them..."?
    Usurped
    Whodda thunk? Working in the bowels of civil rights 260/360/1810 series and the most vicious racists I've every laid my eyes upon are civil rights investigators...un group rights advocates would be a more appropriate series classification. And that quip about "1984?" Yup I have started referring to myself as another Winston Smith. I think that was his name. He too worked in the bowels of the bureauRatacy.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with them..."?
    Usurped
    Sorry, I musta had a hicup, Break!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Defining Diversity
    Reinaldo Luis A.
    The following is a quote from your article: The Obama administration is working on a major pre-election effort to improve diversity in federal agencies. On Aug. 21, the Washington Post reported that 160 Hispanic community leaders had been invited to a two-day open access session at the White House. Last Friday the Post had a Page one story headlined "White House Devotes New Attention To Blacks." From this quote I make the following points: I) It illustrates the rationale for this sudden interest in diversity. 'a major pre-election effort' defines exactly how shallow and manipulative the focus of the Administration's initiative. 2) The failure of the Administration to address long-term structural unemployment among Blacks is dealt by the "White House Devotes New Attention to Blacks." Does this mean that the previous program, Blacks in Government, has been a failure? 3) Why wasn't the meeting with 160 Hispanic community leaders held the first year of the Administration rather than the period ramping up to the 2012 elections? 'Nuff said!!!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Really
    Sparrowhawk
    The comments are all on target. I have always given the President the benefit of the doubt, but in this case it is all too obvious of the goal. Is serving two terms so important that achieving the goal by any means necessary is acceptable. The administration and congress need to work to achieve a bright future for our children and grandchildren. But as we have seen, that is not going to happen. As the demographics change, so will the face of the workforce but what happens when the majority becomes the minority, will we still push diversity in the workforce.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }