I believe that a lot of people have been whipped into a fury over AA and will call almost anything regarding EEOC etc "AA". But when people begin talking about specifics such as ideas that the govt has required certain hiring or promotion practices above and beyond mere equal opportunity stuff they are invariably referring to the specific requirements outlined by EO11246. I've seen too many specific references (not to the name, but to the specific requirements of EO11246) to believe it's really a generic gripe as you describe. >>>You've suggested that hiring quotas are illegal. >> >>And in fact they are. > > Unless they're called "guidelines", or "court-ordered mandates". >They certainly exist, today. No, they're illegal. I think you're just repeating a lot of the sort of rhetorical heat I hear from people like Rush Limbaugh. The lingo of "they're stealing our jobs!" goes back across many ethnic and racial groups and is a heartfelt theme repeated through much of this century. >>More strongly, my objection is that libertarianism as constructed >>would necessarily require the full force of the state to defend overt >>racist acts. >> >>The rest is just baggage generally associated with non-discrimination, >>affirmative action per se is nearly irrelevant to the specific issue. > > The rest of what? Of libertarianism? [122 lines left ... full text available at <url:http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/go?choice=message&table=04_1997&mid=4388459&hilit=DRUG+SMART> ] ---------------------------------- Received: from shadowfax.reference.com by netbase.t0.or.at via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI.AUTO) Article-ID: 04_1997&4466963 Score: 78 Subject: AH, 3M & More Update #6 ~~~~ Some going twice