I found this interesting enough that I meant to post about it last
week and then thought about adding it in my response to you on the
Omar thread but it would have been a wild topic drift. So here it is.

This is a video about the US Secret Service over on John Oliver's
show. Some interesting points brought like the starting salary for
potentially putting your life on the line of about $47,000. Doesn't
seem exactly fair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-Xnzj_uz4

I do love the training setup with the removable barriers. ;)

And the Michael Bay recruitment ad.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

I found this interesting enough that I meant to post about it last
week and then thought about adding it in my response to you on the
Omar thread but it would have been a wild topic drift. So here it is.

This is a video about the US Secret Service over on John Oliver's
show. Some interesting points brought like the starting salary for potentially putting your life on the line of about $47,000. Doesn't
seem exactly fair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-Xnzj_uz4

I do love the training setup with the removable barriers. ;)

And the Michael Bay recruitment ad.

I noticed that of all the problems Oliver listed, he conveniently left out
the DEI hiring that's been forced on the agency. Like the overfed agentette
in Butler who first cowered behind her protectee and later flagged him with
her gun.

I sat on hiring panels right before I retired and we would be told by headquarters to reject applicants who'd served in the military and led men
in combat because they were white and male, while being forced to push
through candidates who were what we call "soup sandwiches" because they
ticked the right identity grievance boxes.

But that's a sacred cow of the Left so there's no way a die-hard prog like
John Oliver would mention it.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 07:17:23 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

I found this interesting enough that I meant to post about it last
week and then thought about adding it in my response to you on the
Omar thread but it would have been a wild topic drift. So here it is.

This is a video about the US Secret Service over on John Oliver's
show. Some interesting points brought like the starting salary for
potentially putting your life on the line of about $47,000. Doesn't
seem exactly fair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-Xnzj_uz4

I do love the training setup with the removable barriers. ;)

And the Michael Bay recruitment ad.

I noticed that of all the problems Oliver listed, he conveniently left out >the DEI hiring that's been forced on the agency. Like the overfed agentette >in Butler who first cowered behind her protectee and later flagged him with >her gun.

DEI is fine but you can't lower standards in support of it. I
wondered about how some of them could pass the physical.

Though this isn't a new thing. I still remember my dad telling me
about this woman that got hired to load the toilet products on trains
back in the late 70s for Proctor & Gamble. He said that she couldn't
do most of the work so they had other workers do the work for her.

It made no sense to me as a kid why they would keep anyone around if
they couldn't do the job and then have other workers cover up for her.

I sat on hiring panels right before I retired and we would be told by >headquarters to reject applicants who'd served in the military and led men
in combat because they were white and male, while being forced to push >through candidates who were what we call "soup sandwiches" because they >ticked the right identity grievance boxes.

Okay, if they had some quota to fill but you still held the "soup
sandwiches" to the same standards as everyone else, right? Right?

But that's a sacred cow of the Left so there's no way a die-hard prog like >John Oliver would mention it.

Well, he wasn't doing a documentary. Just a comedic telling of the
USSS with the elements of the story not being likely to anger anyone
on a political bias.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Mon, 19 Oct 2026 07:17:23 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

. . .

I noticed that of all the problems Oliver listed, he conveniently left
out the DEI hiring that's been forced on the agency. Like the overfed >>agentette in Butler who first cowered behind her protectee and later >>flagged him with her gun.

DEI is fine but you can't lower standards in support of it. I
wondered about how some of them could pass the physical.

If DEI is the objective, not meeting realistic standards, and not
preparedness, how is it fine? DEI isn't "in addition to" but "in lieu
of". Furthermore, do you even know what it means? I'm not sure
"diversity" and "inclusion" address different issues. Maybe your telling
a recruiter to look past like kind race or ethnicity or sex that humans
do by instinct when forming groups. In practice, it must set desired
personnel objectives aside, like being successful in past jobs
demonstrating preparadeness for this job to achieve a specious goal that
the workforce reflects the racial makeup of society.

The "equity" bit is never innocuous. That's doublespeak for quotas, which
are generally illegal discrimination under civil rights law in hiring.
If it's illegal discrimination, it's not allowed. Future discrimination
as a remedy for past discrimination is neither just nor effective. It's
not a remedy for those who were hurt in the past, who are probably dead.

You are wrong, shawn. It is not fine, and to the extent that
discrimination denies an equal employment opportunity, it is illegal.

Though this isn't a new thing. I still remember my dad telling me
about this woman that got hired to load the toilet products on trains
back in the late 70s for Proctor & Gamble. He said that she couldn't
do most of the work so they had other workers do the work for her.

It made no sense to me as a kid why they would keep anyone around if
they couldn't do the job and then have other workers cover up for her.

So you already knew it was not fine.

I sat on hiring panels right before I retired and we would be told by >>headquarters to reject applicants who'd served in the military and led men >>in combat because they were white and male, while being forced to push >>through candidates who were what we call "soup sandwiches" because they >>ticked the right identity grievance boxes.

Okay, if they had some quota to fill but you still held the "soup
sandwiches" to the same standards as everyone else, right? Right?

It's an illegal hiring practice.

But that's a sacred cow of the Left so there's no way a die-hard prog like >>John Oliver would mention it.

Well, he wasn't doing a documentary. Just a comedic telling of the
USSS with the elements of the story not being likely to anger anyone
on a political bias.

Political bias against facts sounds like Trump. There's no difference
between the pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump side if the first thing being done
is ignoring inconvenient facts.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 15:24:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Mon, 19 Oct 2026 07:17:23 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

. . .

I noticed that of all the problems Oliver listed, he conveniently left >>>out the DEI hiring that's been forced on the agency. Like the overfed >>>agentette in Butler who first cowered behind her protectee and later >>>flagged him with her gun.

DEI is fine but you can't lower standards in support of it. I
wondered about how some of them could pass the physical.

If DEI is the objective, not meeting realistic standards, and not >preparedness, how is it fine?

Which was exactly what I said when I said "you can't lower standards
in support of it." I know you can understand that so I don't know
where you comment comes from as it ignores what I said.

In other words
1) standards must be met.
2) DEI is an option organizations can choose as a priority.
3) DEI choices must still meet the same standards as everyone else.

DEI isn't "in addition to" but "in lieu
of". Furthermore, do you even know what it means? I'm not sure
"diversity" and "inclusion" address different issues.

Typically it means choosing women or racial choices other than white.
Certainly people can have other options but those are the most common.

Maybe your telling
a recruiter to look past like kind race or ethnicity or sex that humans
do by instinct when forming groups. In practice, it must set desired >personnel objectives aside, like being successful in past jobs
demonstrating preparadeness for this job to achieve a specious goal that
the workforce reflects the racial makeup of society.

The "equity" bit is never innocuous. That's doublespeak for quotas, which
are generally illegal discrimination under civil rights law in hiring.
If it's illegal discrimination, it's not allowed. Future discrimination
as a remedy for past discrimination is neither just nor effective. It's
not a remedy for those who were hurt in the past, who are probably dead.

You are wrong, shawn. It is not fine, and to the extent that
discrimination denies an equal employment opportunity, it is illegal.

You are wrong because you did not read and properly comprehend what I
said. Not the first time that's happened and I'm sure it won't be the
last. It may be illegal but it happens. Usually when there's some
uproar about an organization being too white like BTR brought up. Hell
it's even happened among our TV shows where many studios want a
certain percentage of women, lesbians, blacks and other minorities
included on all of their shows.

Though this isn't a new thing. I still remember my dad telling me
about this woman that got hired to load the toilet products on trains
back in the late 70s for Proctor & Gamble. He said that she couldn't
do most of the work so they had other workers do the work for her.

It made no sense to me as a kid why they would keep anyone around if
they couldn't do the job and then have other workers cover up for her.

So you already knew it was not fine.

Which I said at the very top. Though to be clear I said DEI is fine,
as in trying to have a mix of , lets go with stereotypes, as long as
it doesn't ignore what ever standards are in place. In BTR's case it
would require any applicant to pass all of the physical and test
standards that any male applicant would be held to even if the
applicant was female.

I sat on hiring panels right before I retired and we would be told by >>>headquarters to reject applicants who'd served in the military and led men >>>in combat because they were white and male, while being forced to push >>>through candidates who were what we call "soup sandwiches" because they >>>ticked the right identity grievance boxes.

Okay, if they had some quota to fill but you still held the "soup >>sandwiches" to the same standards as everyone else, right? Right?

It's an illegal hiring practice.

But that's a sacred cow of the Left so there's no way a die-hard prog like >>>John Oliver would mention it.

Well, he wasn't doing a documentary. Just a comedic telling of the
USSS with the elements of the story not being likely to anger anyone
on a political bias.

Political bias against facts sounds like Trump. There's no difference
between the pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump side if the first thing being done
is ignoring inconvenient facts.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-10-19 9:50 a.m., shawn wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 07:17:23 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

I found this interesting enough that I meant to post about it last
week and then thought about adding it in my response to you on the
Omar thread but it would have been a wild topic drift. So here it is.

This is a video about the US Secret Service over on John Oliver's
show. Some interesting points brought like the starting salary for
potentially putting your life on the line of about $47,000. Doesn't
seem exactly fair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-Xnzj_uz4

I do love the training setup with the removable barriers. ;)

And the Michael Bay recruitment ad.

I noticed that of all the problems Oliver listed, he conveniently left out >> the DEI hiring that's been forced on the agency. Like the overfed agentette >> in Butler who first cowered behind her protectee and later flagged him with >> her gun.

DEI is fine but you can't lower standards in support of it. I
wondered about how some of them could pass the physical.

Though this isn't a new thing. I still remember my dad telling me
about this woman that got hired to load the toilet products on trains
back in the late 70s for Proctor & Gamble. He said that she couldn't
do most of the work so they had other workers do the work for her.

I once attended an all-candidates session for mayoral candidates in
Toronto. One of the candidates was the late Jack Layton, the then
husband of Olivia Chow, the current mayor of Toronto. The pair of them
were as "progressive" a pair as you can imagine.

When Jack gave his speech, he promised all kinds of things and since the meeting was sponsored by handicapped people, he made sure to lay on lots
of pandering for them. He promised to make every single bit of the TTC
(the bus and subway system) wheelchair accessible at a cost that would
surely be in the billions of dollars without bothering to mention how he
would fund that. He said he would make every inch of municipally owned buildings wheelchair accessible, which presumably involved a lot of
expensive renovations. He also pledged to hire lots and lots of
handicapped people and if any of them were unable to do the entirety of
their job themselves, he would hire assistants for them. Given the state
of some handicapped people in attendance, I would estimate that the
assistant would have to do a LOT of the work. Again, he didn't attempt
to cost that initiative either since you'd presumably need to pay two
full salaries for most of the positions. Or maybe the assistants would
also be semi-disabled and need their own assistants!

Thankfully, Layton didn't get elected for that job.

It made no sense to me as a kid why they would keep anyone around if
they couldn't do the job and then have other workers cover up for her.

I sat on hiring panels right before I retired and we would be told by
headquarters to reject applicants who'd served in the military and led men >> in combat because they were white and male, while being forced to push
through candidates who were what we call "soup sandwiches" because they
ticked the right identity grievance boxes.

Okay, if they had some quota to fill but you still held the "soup
sandwiches" to the same standards as everyone else, right? Right?

But that's a sacred cow of the Left so there's no way a die-hard prog like >> John Oliver would mention it.

Well, he wasn't doing a documentary. Just a comedic telling of the
USSS with the elements of the story not being likely to anger anyone
on a political bias.

--
Rhino

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Mon, 19 Oct 2026 15:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Mon, 19 Oct 2026 07:17:23 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

. . .

I noticed that of all the problems Oliver listed, he conveniently left >>>>out the DEI hiring that's been forced on the agency. Like the overfed >>>>agentette in Butler who first cowered behind her protectee and later >>>>flagged him with her gun.

DEI is fine but you can't lower standards in support of it. I
wondered about how some of them could pass the physical.

If DEI is the objective, not meeting realistic standards, and not >>preparedness, how is it fine?

Which was exactly what I said when I said "you can't lower standards
in support of it."

You are ignoring what's inconvenient about how DEI works in practice
because you don't want to criticize it overtly, just implicitly.

Even if I ignore practice like you, that "diversity" and "inclusion" are
goals not just after hiring the right job candidate, "equity" can never
meet standards as it is a denial of equal protection and a civil rights
law illegality. You refuse to acknowledge the law.

I know you can understand that so I don't know
where you comment comes from as it ignores what I said.

In other words
1) standards must be met.
2) DEI is an option organizations can choose as a priority.

Do you understand you are making me defend Trump here? This isn't like
college admission with its fuzzy quotas for justifiable reasons the
Supreme Court only recently cracked down on, or government contraction
with set asides.

There can be no quotas in employment law. We have laws against
discrimination harming a protected class. Race, ethnicity, and sex are
among the protected classes.

You refuse to acknowledge thar equity in DEI is illegal discrimination.
Do you understand that civil rights law is neutral but equity cannot be?

3) DEI choices must still meet the same standards as everyone else.

Same objection

DEI isn't "in addition to" but "in lieu
of". Furthermore, do you even know what it means? I'm not sure
"diversity" and "inclusion" address different issues.

Typically it means choosing women or racial choices other than white. >Certainly people can have other options but those are the most common.

other than older white male with the right experience who is well
qualified

Maybe your telling
a recruiter to look past like kind race or ethnicity or sex that humans
do by instinct when forming groups. In practice, it must set desired >>personnel objectives aside, like being successful in past jobs >>demonstrating preparadeness for this job to achieve a specious goal that >>the workforce reflects the racial makeup of society.

The "equity" bit is never innocuous. That's doublespeak for quotas, which >>are generally illegal discrimination under civil rights law in hiring.
If it's illegal discrimination, it's not allowed. Future discrimination
as a remedy for past discrimination is neither just nor effective. It's
not a remedy for those who were hurt in the past, who are probably dead.

You are wrong, shawn. It is not fine, and to the extent that
discrimination denies an equal employment opportunity, it is illegal.

You are wrong because you did not read and properly comprehend what I
said.

Until you confront "equity" in DEI to explain why it's fine, you haven't
made a valid argument.

Not the first time that's happened and I'm sure it won't be the
last. It may be illegal but it happens.

Don't handwaive away discrimination in hiring.

Usually when there's some
uproar about an organization being too white like BTR brought up. Hell
it's even happened among our TV shows where many studios want a
certain percentage of women, lesbians, blacks and other minorities
included on all of their shows.

Though this isn't a new thing. I still remember my dad telling me
about this woman that got hired to load the toilet products on trains >>>back in the late 70s for Proctor & Gamble. He said that she couldn't
do most of the work so they had other workers do the work for her.

It made no sense to me as a kid why they would keep anyone around if
they couldn't do the job and then have other workers cover up for her.

So you already knew it was not fine.

Which I said at the very top. Though to be clear I said DEI is fine,
as in trying to have a mix of , lets go with stereotypes, as long as
it doesn't ignore what ever standards are in place. In BTR's case it
would require any applicant to pass all of the physical and test
standards that any male applicant would be held to even if the
applicant was female.

That's not DEI! You've changed its definition, ignoring equity, to
avoid the overt criticism you are unwilling to state.

. . .

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 07:17:23 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

I found this interesting enough that I meant to post about it last
week and then thought about adding it in my response to you on the
Omar thread but it would have been a wild topic drift. So here it is.

This is a video about the US Secret Service over on John Oliver's
show. Some interesting points brought like the starting salary for
potentially putting your life on the line of about $47,000. Doesn't
seem exactly fair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-Xnzj_uz4

I do love the training setup with the removable barriers. ;)

And the Michael Bay recruitment ad.

I noticed that of all the problems Oliver listed, he conveniently left out >> the DEI hiring that's been forced on the agency. Like the overfed agentette >> in Butler who first cowered behind her protectee and later flagged him with >> her gun.

DEI is fine but you can't lower standards in support of it.

It's impossible not to lower standards and still have DEI.

Though this isn't a new thing. I still remember my dad telling me
about this woman that got hired to load the toilet products on trains
back in the late 70s for Proctor & Gamble. He said that she couldn't
do most of the work so they had other workers do the work for her.

It made no sense to me as a kid why they would keep anyone around if
they couldn't do the job and then have other workers cover up for her.

I sat on hiring panels right before I retired and we would be told by
headquarters to reject applicants who'd served in the military and led men >> in combat because they were white and male, while being forced to push
through candidates who were what we call "soup sandwiches" because they
ticked the right identity grievance boxes.

Okay, if they had some quota to fill but you still held the "soup
sandwiches" to the same standards as everyone else, right? Right?

Quotas are illegal, shawn. By telling me a candidate should be rejected
because of his race and gender, the federal government was committing a
civil rights violation. But everyone just acts like that's okay if the
victim is white and/or male. It's like the unstated attitude is, "We all
know the Civil Rights Act was meant to benefit black people, not white
people, so it doesn't really apply to whites."

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 15:24:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Mon, 19 Oct 2026 07:17:23 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>

. . .

I noticed that of all the problems Oliver listed, he conveniently left >>>> out the DEI hiring that's been forced on the agency. Like the overfed
agentette in Butler who first cowered behind her protectee and later
flagged him with her gun.

DEI is fine but you can't lower standards in support of it. I
wondered about how some of them could pass the physical.

If DEI is the objective, not meeting realistic standards, and not
preparedness, how is it fine?

Which was exactly what I said when I said "you can't lower standards
in support of it." I know you can understand that so I don't know
where you comment comes from as it ignores what I said.

In other words
1) standards must be met.
2) DEI is an option organizations can choose as a priority.
3) DEI choices must still meet the same standards as everyone else.

DEI isn't "in addition to" but "in lieu
of". Furthermore, do you even know what it means? I'm not sure
"diversity" and "inclusion" address different issues.

Typically it means choosing women or racial choices other than white.

Which is illegal racial discrimination.

Maybe your telling
a recruiter to look past like kind race or ethnicity or sex that humans
do by instinct when forming groups. In practice, it must set desired
personnel objectives aside, like being successful in past jobs
demonstrating preparadeness for this job to achieve a specious goal that
the workforce reflects the racial makeup of society.

The "equity" bit is never innocuous. That's doublespeak for quotas, which
are generally illegal discrimination under civil rights law in hiring.
If it's illegal discrimination, it's not allowed. Future discrimination
as a remedy for past discrimination is neither just nor effective. It's
not a remedy for those who were hurt in the past, who are probably dead.

You are wrong, shawn. It is not fine, and to the extent that
discrimination denies an equal employment opportunity, it is illegal.

You are wrong because you did not read and properly comprehend what I
said. Not the first time that's happened and I'm sure it won't be the
last. It may be illegal but it happens. Usually when there's some
uproar about an organization being too white like BTR brought up. Hell
it's even happened among our TV shows where many studios want a
certain percentage of women, lesbians, blacks and other minorities
included on all of their shows.

Though this isn't a new thing. I still remember my dad telling me
about this woman that got hired to load the toilet products on trains
back in the late 70s for Proctor & Gamble. He said that she couldn't
do most of the work so they had other workers do the work for her.

It made no sense to me as a kid why they would keep anyone around if
they couldn't do the job and then have other workers cover up for her.

So you already knew it was not fine.

Which I said at the very top. Though to be clear I said DEI is fine,
as in trying to have a mix of , lets go with stereotypes, as long as
it doesn't ignore what ever standards are in place. In BTR's case it
would require any applicant to pass all of the physical and test
standards that any male applicant would be held to even if the
applicant was female.

Which they don't. There's literally a published physical fitness standard
for men and a lesser one for women. From secretservice.gov:

https://ibb.co/jv8NnwFw

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)