Hurricane names raise a warningRep. sheila Jackson Lee thinks that hurricane names are exclusionary towards blacks and wants something done about it.
QUOTE
Hurricane names raise a warning
The 2003 hurricane season is here, and that means a whole new list of names such as Larry, Sam and Wanda ready to make tropical-storm history.
Although Spanish and French names are included in this year’s lineup, among them Juan and Claudette, which struck Texas last week, popular African American names, like Keisha, Jamal and Deshawn, are nowhere to be found.
Some black lawmakers don’t seem to mind, but Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) does. “All racial groups should be represented,” said Lee.
Courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration
Hurricane names have been too lily white for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). She says all ethnic groups should be represented.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Meteorological Organization began naming tropical storms after women in 1953. That made sense to scientists at the time who thought women and storms were both unpredictable. After feminist groups protested, men’s names were added in 1979.
The National Weather Service says hurricane names are derived from languages spoken in areas that border the Atlantic Ocean, where such storms occur. Yet that doesn’t explain why Gaston, Ernesto and Cindy were chosen and Antwon, Destiny and Latonya were passed over.
Lee said she hoped in the future the weather establishment “would try to be inclusive of African American names.”
That could take a while. The current roster of hurricane names isn’t due to be updated until 2007.
Note that women's groups actually petitioned for MEN's names to be added, since a woman-only list was considered derogatory.
In a separate case, two women won a judgement for being discriminated against : for a job they didn't even apply for :
Cal ThomasQUOTE
The EEOC, which has been trying to make a federal case out of Joe's for 11 years, won a partial victory July 12. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erased damages awarded in 1998 to two women the EEOC claimed had been discriminated against when they applied for jobs at Joe's. But the court upheld the damages awarded to another woman and ordered Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley to recalculate the damages awarded to a fourth woman. (The ruling will reduce the $154,000 in back wages and benefits, plus interest, originally awarded in the case.)
Where this case gets even more ridiculous is the appeals court finding that the two women for whom the court awarded damages were only "interested" in applying for server jobs at Joe's during 1990. They opted not to apply because they were told by acquaintances that Joe's did not hire women.
The restaurant is owned by women and has a large percentage of female managers, but because there is quote unquote discrimination for one position (a physically demanding one), the place needs to pay damages, and now the damages extend to some who did not even apply for jobs.
The article (an opinion piece) goes on to mention another anecdote:
QUOTE
Citing the Americans With Disabilities Act, an Orlando man filed suit recently against the Wildside Adult Sports Cabaret in West Palm Beach, Fla., because a section of the club reserved for men who want one-on-one nude lap dances is not accessible to his wheelchair. The club has handicapped parking and restrooms equipped for patrons in wheelchairs. The plaintiff can get his lap dance at his table, but the lawsuit says his rights are being violated because he can't go to the semi-private room and have women rub up against him there.
Are we going too far in our pursuit of "equal opportunity"?