Yeah, nevermind the fact that in her speeches included her "struggles" as a "black women." She's a sociopath.
I know this is farce, but true story: I had a friend about 10 years ago who was Mexican, but because his father was some horrible criminal, convinced himself he was actually part-Chinese instead, and so passed himself off as Asian, going so far as to try to get his family name changed. Mental illness is a rich pageant of all the myriad ways we're secretly fucked up.
Back here in THE REAL WORLD, Kennedy and Johnson created and fully enacted our affirmative action laws. The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process and, in 1967, the concept was expanded to include sex. Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[66] On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[4] Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11375 which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[11][67] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#United_States
Up until about 100 years ago, yes that is how it used to work. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/MF_ANNUAL_LANDINGS.RESULTS
LOL at MARIS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/people/john-f-kennedy President John F. Kennedy had campaigned in part on a moderately pro-civil rights platform, but in the spring of 1961, his first priority was Cold War politics. Kennedy wanted to avoid embarrassing headlines in the weeks leading up to his June summit meeting in Vienna with Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev. ... His administration permitted the Freedom Riders to be imprisoned in Mississippi on flimsy breach-of-peace charges, but also put pressure on the Interstate Commerce Commission to remove Jim Crow signs and end segregation of interstate bus travel facilities. IKE: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0925.html
Yeah, about 1910 is the tipping point when most agree that the Chinook salmon population hit it's peak and the decline in salmon began. Once modern fishing fleets coupled with union American canneries the catch ballooned in the 60's and with all the dam building going on back then nearly wiped Chinook off the face of the earth. It is so rare that it is too expensive to pursue commercially, and has been for over 25 years.
Pretty sure she has committed some obvious felonies by using a fraudulent identity to solicit donations.
LOL. Your chart merely shows that all salmon. hatchery and wild combined, only amount to an average of 5% what the historic wild population was before we fished, dammed and polluted them to near extinction. Thanks for proving you're wrong again.
You're the one who makes assertions that turn out to be trivially debunked. No, 100 years ago, the number of salmon did not decline. It increased 60 years ago and even more so in the 2000s. What's true for this one river, which has < 20% of all the salmon, is true for all locations where salmon are. That is, there's more of them than 100 years ago.
Most idiotic post I've read here. Maybe this will help prevent your embarrassment in the future: http://www.wikihow.com/Read-Graphs (Step 1 seems to be where you go off track usually.)
It's obvious in the chart with that post. Please follow the instructions in my previous link and learn how to read a graph, then we can discuss this like educated adults.
Maybe black and white text will sink in. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100903/full/news.2010.449.html Canada sees shock salmon glut
"Over a century's worth of data shows immense variety in total abundance..." Not "100 years ago..." Your assertion proved wrong again.
If by immense variety you mean 100 years of near-extinction speckled with 3-4 "okay" runs. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100903/full/news.2010.449/box/1.html
Learn to read a graph. It doesn't at all support your assertions. You only prove yourself wrong. 10,000,000 - 25,000,000 fish isn't "near extinction." What a joke.
