Thursday, December 01, 2011

Diversity Thursday

Sometimes a DivThu just writes itself.

Though we have covered a lot here over the last few years - I think one of the good things is that more and more people no longer lash out or defend what is going on.

Sure, they try to excuse or hedge - but the facts are so clear. In that light, behold this slide from the Aviation Major Command Screen Board out-brief. I think the stats speak for themselves.

Can the last of the hope/believe/think flotilla stop pretending now? The mask hasn't just slipped - it is flying through the air in to the next room

You don't need graduate level statistics to see the story. It's all there.


BTW - if you don't get the last part of the slide - that means that the female selection rate was 50%. That is five times greater than the overall population.

107 comments:

ivan0026 said...

Errr... I may be missing something but all I can tell is that the female selection rate was 33%.

NAnonymous said...

One female declined selection.

annonymous said...

It isn't the statistics, rather the fact that this is a required slide on an outbrief.  It shouldn't matter, but obviously does. 
Also, as someone who has worked this and other boards, I can tell you that it isn't just minorities, but which minorities as that is an issue as well.

Anonymous USN said...

Interesting to me is how the slide does not tell the complete demographic story in a "just the facts Maam" way...  if you consider that there were 3 females and 20 minorities (and ignore the possibility that some of the females could also have been minorities and some double-counting between the two categories might exist), you would end up with a third category euphemistically called "non-female and non-minority" - which sounds an awful lot like "white male.  My slide would look like this:

Total "Eligible:  23 of 232 (10%)
Minorities Selected:  5 of 20 (25%)
Females Selected:  1 of 3 (33%)
White Males Selected:  17 of 209 (8%)

The diversity cult would probably use those statistics and indignantly declare "white males are three times more likely to be selected for major command than minorities, and 17 times more likely than females."  However, statistically speaking, females were four times more likely than white males, and minorities were three times more likely.

We frequently hear the term "inclusion" in reference to what diversity is all about - which makes me wonder why "exclusion" is how it has been rabidly implemented for years.

MinoritySailor said...

Wow - only 10 percent of the competing records considered were minority or female (23 out of over 200). Of that only 3 percent selected (6 out of over 200). And yet you try to stir up controversy. Give me a break. Please pause, take a deep breath and relax. When you come back please try to see how you can help with constructive feedback vice trying to tear down EVERYTHING you disagree with. That's all you do now and it gets old.

Minority Sailor

P.S. I am sure you already screened the list of those selected (had to be easy since it was only 6 people) and made the call as to if you thought they were worthy or not. Notice you did not comment on that but if you did how would you then explain the integrity of the Flag Officers on the board? That's right ... You can't. Give it a rest and let's continue to groom all for opportunities to excell.

AW1 Tim said...

The entire point of this and all the other Diversity Thursday posts is that race/ethnicity/gender/whatever, should have nothing to do with anything in the US Navy.

 The Navy is wasting millions of scarce dollars and hundreds of enlisted and officer tours on the "Diversity Enterprise". That's rubbish, and needs to be eliminated.

 There is no room in our military for the failed and racist policies of affirnative action.  there is only one race: human. Anyone who attempts to partition us from each other is using the politics of divisiveness to weaken and destroy our Navy, as they are trying to do with our nation.

  Shut down Millington, ban the "Diversity Enterprise" and redirect the funds and manpower and wasted hours towards training in warfighting and life saving skills such as first aid and damage control.

  We are a nation at war, though you wouldn't know that if you listened to the Diversity Zampolits, the CNO or any of the Diversity Enablers in and out of the service.

Byron said...

Please look at the correct breakdown of statistics below...they more correctly represent the percentages selected.

The real point is why the hell are we even letting race or sex enter the discussion of promotion? Is it not enough to list your "racial" status as "haze grey"? For me at least, putting your gender or your ethinicity before your ability to serve the Navy and the Nation is nothing short of criminal. Then again, you have self-identified yourself as something other than just a sailor....

Anonymous said...

befoer everyone gets excited about 50% of women, you have to keep in mind the options are 0, 50 or 100 with the population size.  Unless you have a way to select a percentage of a person. 

cdrsalamander said...

MS,
You are not addressing the metrics and are attacking the messenger.  You are avoiding the topic at hand.

CDR K said...

Ah, now I see the problem...the English language is defeating you.  Your words above are not what the slide pictured is presenting.  Read the previous post below to see how someone that understands basic English interpreted the slide.

Actus Rhesus said...

MS,

Then point is that it is difficult to claim discrimination in hiring when comparatively, minorites and women are overselected based on poulation size.  You bring up a salient point which is that they (and I would say women in particular) are, relative to the american population, underrepresented.  But is that the fault of the Navy, or the population in question?  A lot of women choose not to join the armed forces.  Ergo, there will be fewer of them to select from.  Self-selection is not discrimination.

-Female Sailor

PS, I have been at commands with abyssimal EEO Climates, and have frequently had to deal with commenters on this board tell me in not so many words that I don't belong here in the first place, so I do not deny that there are still very real issues of discrimination.  But I think we need to seperate what are actually holdover attitudes from isolated individuals, and a perception that the system is somehow biased.  Individuals may discriminate, but the Navy does not.  In fact, if anything, it overcompensates to the point of paternalistic insult.

Actus Rhesus said...

PS: re grooming all to excell -

This is war, not T-Ball.  Not everyone gets a trophy. (though they do apparently all get NAMs)

Cupojoe said...

I suspect the numbers are a little skewed because there are some Navy communities, such as the nursing corps, that are disproportionately women.  It's likely that the major command selectees from those fields are women.  AS for the minorities, we all know that this is a very ambiguous category.  I'm sure there is at least one selectee you would be surprised to find was considered a minority. 

cdrsalamander said...

Please ... explain my error to me in detail.  I await your wisdom.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Problem is, I think, that no matter what the slide information is, the hue and cry from the Diversity crowd will always be "Not enough of US!"

And by "us" they don't mean highly qualified and competent leaders.  They mean skin color/ethnicity/gender/sexual preference.  And always will.

Stu said...

I like how they had to qualify with the fact that one of the women put in a "do not pick me" letter as if to say the number could have been even higher.

MR T's Haircut said...

"explain the integrity of the Flag Officers on the board?"  LMAO.. Integrity?  really?  To sit on this board and see this crap go down, against the very oath of "selecting the best qualified"...  yea I can call the integrity into question and I do..

Andy said...

"...the female selection rate was 50%."  And on a related note: http://hamptonroads.com/2011/11/navy-report-finds-preferential-treatment-ponce 

Chris G. said...

This was *Aviation Major Command*. I don't have the data, so I'll back down if I have facts showing I'm wrong, but I believe Aviation is disporportionately white male. So you'd expect to see an even lower fraction of women and minorities, if we assume the best and fully  qualified are distributed evenly across race and sex.

And if you want to go down that road, why aren't the Diversity folks all upset when a disproportionate # of Nurse promotees are women/minorities? Quite a while ago we saw a slide that showed the desired minority rates at the Flag level in 20 yrs...it was different than minority rates at the O-1 level...basically a clear plan to disproportionately advance women and minorities.

 Again, just flip it on its head and think if white males were being promoted at rates above their representation, would that smell like racism?

John said...

All animal s are equal.  Some animals are more equal.

This sort of crap just confirms that the Navy (and military in general) is no longer seen as a vital fighting force to defend our nation, but an opportunity to impose politically correct schemes on a large segment of the population with total disregard for the consequences.

Those who support, encourage, demand, or force this sort of non-merit based outcomes could very well fit the definition of "enemies, foreign or domestic."

DeltaBravo said...

So glad you're back posting MTH

Samie said...

If this board used performance, forgetting about gender and ethnicity, as their guiding and major selection precept, it would be damn near impossible to get an outcome such as this.  How can anyone put out these numbers without realizing they are the reason "Diversity Thursday" exists in the first place.

Cap'n Bill said...

"Selection Boards" held within the U S Navy are subject to DETAILED very specific "guidance" that originates at the SECNAV level, flows to CNO, thence to NAVPERS and thence to the President/Senior member of the particular board. It can and is amplified by personal meetings of those concerned with their seniors in the chain.

Those who convene selection boards demand specific goals be met.  I repeat the word DEMAND.

Any other reading  of the tea leaves is baloney.
It is very easy to identify those "responsible" for the results.

Stu said...

I've shared this story before and I will share it again.  I was in Millington when the requirement for officer photos returned.  It has nothing to do with seeing if an individual is a "fat body" or not.  It is about color of your skin.  How do I know?  Becuase initially they were going to require passport photos insted be added to your recorded.  That was too transparent in terms of making know what their ultimate goal was.  So they simply backtracked and brought back the full-length shots. 

Mine Bubba said...

If you have not seen this it might be worth your time:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-unintended-consequences-of-racial-preferences/2011/11/29/gIQAbuoPEO_story.html

Ret MCPO said...

The sad thing is the navy and military as a whole is nothing but a political tool for the left and dirty politicians to mandate their flawed ideology. Thank God for Diversity Thursdays!

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

proportion of general population or proportion of navy population?

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

Sticking up for the diversity industry as only impacting a very small number of Sailors is like saying that we shouldn't waste our time with earmark reform because it only saves $33B.  There is a moral issue at hand, and where there is smoke, there is fire.  Spending, like racism, only increases if left unchecked.

SouthernAP said...

Just to quote again from Navy Requlations every time this comes up:
Specifically Chapter 11 section 64:
<span><span>[quote]
<p><span><span>Equal Opportunity and Treatment</span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>Equal opportunity shall be afforded to all on the basis of individual effort, performance, conduct, diligence, potential, capabilities and talents without discrimination as to race, color, religion, creed, sex or nations origin. Naval personnel shall demonstrate a strong personal commitment to stand on these principles and carry them out.[/quote]</span></span>

</p></span></span>

SWOINATOR said...

And the CO firings just keep on continuing and everyone asks... why?

The world wonders.

YNSN said...

When sending packages to boards - 

Only identifying information on the package:  SSN.  Blackout all names on the fitreps/evals.

Approved SSNs are sent to NPC and NPC then tells the larger Navy who got selected by the board.  

If there is still a case to be made that boards are not selecting based on qualifications, or that a person did not get accepted because of some type of discrimination.  Then there is such a massive discrimination problem in the Navy that forced selection of minorities will not solve the problem in the first place.  

Old Grunt said...

The real issue is would these minority officers and the female officer been selected if they were not "special?" Or did the selection process gerrymander qualifications so that they (along with the 3-stars son-in-law) could slip in.  You know, set a passing score of 75 and give no one extra credit for scores above 75. Or use soft undefined measures like "lifes experiencesl" as a criteria. How many superior leaders were shunted aside for any or all of the "special"selectees.
Seadaddyism (as Sal has pointed out) for any reason, is a disease that rots commands. I have suffered through the son-in-law and a female 0-6 who had been "mentored" by senior officers. Both were preselected for high level promotion regardless of what they did or how destructive they were in previous assignments. The worse part was that they both thought a) they were qualified to be in command and leadership positions and b) they knew they were invulnerable when they did anything stupid or destroyed anyone who stood up to them.
Doesn't anyone in Navy leadership know the rot they create when they selct based on quotas and not merit? How minority and female officers end up being seen as "check the box" when selected and not as selected due to superior merit? Set standards, like carrier and rotary wing aviation and Special Warfare and pull people up to the standards, don't lower standards to meet personnel goals. When I see a minority SEAL or female helo pilot, I know they got their jobs on merit and on being the best.  What can't the rest of the Naval Service be the same way?

Anonymous said...

Promotions based on quotas/diversity violates one's oath of office, and the practice places the future of this nation in jeopardy.

Anonymous said...

You're right, how dare they select a woman until the population of eligibles is high enough to select at the same rate in the female population as the entire eligible population. Clearly she couldn't have been better than any of the 228 men and been selected on merit.

DM05 said...

Unfortunately, it's rampant in Corporate America, with the most talented minority people sought after and, of course compensated. One has to look good in the eyes of the public of course. In the zero sum game of Navy promotion, locked in somewhat by pension and expected gates, it's a horrible message to send to male warriors. And public dollars promulgate the nonsense. If not lost, the way ahead is fogged up pretty well with leftover Roughead diversity juice. 

pk said...

MB:

something of interest is that the fellow that was given the spot in medical school that started the BAKKE case also is historical in that he was the first plastic surgeon to lose a patient during LIPOSUCTION.

just a little something that went tripping by on the local news when it happened and only mentioned once.

C

Chris G. said...

OG,
 I concur with all you said, except that last part...this slide was from an Aviation Major Command board. I think it means that carrier and rotary wing aviation are no longer holding the line on high standards. But maybe I misunderstood "Aviation Major Command".

 It would be nice if the DoN were up front about the discrimination and racial preference.

Anonymous USN said...

Reasonable statistical point - your implied reference to statistically significant/insignificant differences when comparing results from different sample sizes.  This was something I elected to ignore in my analysis below (due to laziness and a fundamental hatred of statistics thanks to a particular college professor for whom English was a sixth language.  I also suspect that for a sample size of 3 any result (0, 1, 2 or 3) may have no statistically significant difference from 10% but I'll leave that to a more motivated statistician to investigate.) 

To me (an accomplished DC powerpoint ranger) what's really telling is how the data is used to present a message:  
1)  showing the overall selection opportunity (10%) followed by minority and female selection results (25/30 respectively) is unambiguous as to the message - "look Admiral - the minority and female percentages are above the opportunity percentage - we did really good on this board!"  This is reinforced by the need to include the '1 female submitted a don't-pick-me letter' which implicitly says 'it was really 1 in 2' or 'it could have been 2 of 3'.
2)  not showing the 'white male' category (i.e., the remainder of the sample population) explicitly says that the selection rate of white males is not important/relevant to the diversity dialogue.  This is "exclusion" at its very core.

Finally, your question speaks to an unintended consequence of the Diversity train-wreck - a real cancer it creates.  The flawed way this industry/our Navy has packaged and promoted this "initiative" results in meaningless but inherently damaging speculations such as yours:  did this 1 female get promoted based purely on merit or did she have some type of advantage at the board?  Did her record get an advantage during the years leading up to the board because of the diversity edicts received by her reporting seniors?  Already promotion board precepts say 'we favor diversity' amongst the 'best and fully qualified' crowd.  I hear these Monday morning quarterbacking questions now - I never heard them before the Navy became infected with Diversity.  And the people they are most unfair to are the very people the initiative is trying to help - the minorities and women who are promoted/selected and for whom there will always be a question of why they cleared the bar.

Grumpy Old Ham said...

<span> it's a horrible message to send to male warriors</span>

Male warriors are no longer desirable, and in fact are dangerous to society...or so says Janet Incompetano (h/t URR), anyway...

Active Duty Reality Check said...

Wow, this blog seems to be filled with:
a) folks that have never had the opportunity to sit on a board and see how it is run, rather than conjecture and take a spin on the rumor mill,
b) folks that are all too ready to fling mud rather than assume every one of the selectees whether they be caucasion, Native American, African American, male or female, was incredibly QUALIFIED
c) folks that feel they have personally been spited in some way by a female or minority Service member. 

Either way, I find it intriguing that CDR Salamander dedicates every (?) Thursday to the diversity topic (really???).  What does he (?) hate so much about having the Navy look more like America?  What happened in his (?) past that makes him (?) so bitter?  Was he passed over for command/promotion while the Navy promoted a more qualified minority candidate? 

Reality check: 5 of 232 Total Eligible = 2.15%, 1 of 232 Total Eligible = 0.4%, and lastly 23-6 = 17 (non-minority, non-female), 17 of 232 = 7.3%
The real statistics kind of deflate your war balloon.  Life is too short to be so cynical and caustic.

cdrsalamander said...

ADRC,
a. Well - I have actually been a board member; so I guess you are talking about someone else.
b. Again, speaking for myself - of course all these folks are incredibly qualified.  Not everyone has the same record or qualifications and not everyone is above average.  As you know, only 49.9% of all people are below average.
c. Actually, one of the most frequent "targets" of DivThu over the years has been the former CNO and the previous Supe of USNA ... both white males.

If you were a regular, you would know the background of DivThu - a topic I actually do not like to do, as I have covered before.  In summary, for those who are new, DivThu was started as a reaction to Diversity being the #1 priority of the CNO and the amount of Orwelian doublespeak that goes on about the subject. I keep it going though based on the feedback I receive mostly from active duty personnel who communicate with me via email - many of them very senior personnel; and not all of them are "white" or male. I only publish a very small percentage 

I don't hate anyone.  If I did, then I wouldn't have had women and minorities as competitive #1s. I find you female comments funny - as you would be lucky to find anyone in the military blogosphere who has been a greater supporter of women serving than your humble blogg'r.

Ditto on homosexuals. I'm sorry, but I don't fit your cliche. As for minorities, frankly, I don't and never have thought of things that way - as in many places in my life and upbringing I was in "majority minority" populations. Again, you assume way too much.

There is a big difference between "Diversity" and "diversity." You need to think about this with a little more depth.  It isn't "hate" to oppose the discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin - just the opposite.  I believe now the same way I was brought up - judge someone by their performance and the content of their character.  Your DNA does not matter.

cdrsalamander said...

(cont) 

Our Navy though does not believe that.  It intentionally discriminates on the basis of race, creed, color, and national origin in acts of commission and omission. It encourages racial self-identification fraud. It has "approved" and "unapproved" minorities.  Some get special treatment, others do not.  For the multitude of those who are of mixed race - or mixtures of mixtures - it forces a selection of one part of our background over another.  It means nothing - but it means everything to those who have to create the PPT or accountability metrics.

I would ask you to open your mind a bit and not assume that everyone that opposed discrimination hates.  It is completely backwards logic.

"Look like America."  I don't care - and anyway - which part of America? If you have a mindset of equality and meritocracy - then how someone looks should not matter.  That is where I am coming from.  That is another reason DivThu exists - my Navy does not believe inequality and meritocracy - they are still feeding those who have the mindset of a bigot where the first thing they see in an individual is their race and their sex. 

As a side bar - again be careful in your assumptions - many of the commenters here are actually from "minority" groups.  Some of actually can claim more than one - just like the nation they come from.

I invite you to hit the "Diversity" tab on this post and read the archive of all the DivThu to inform yourself a bit better.  Ponder and then come back.  What you believe is going on here, isn't what is actually here.  Know what is going on here.  It is always better to "know" than to "believe."

SouthernAP said...

A real Active Duty Reality Check is Navy Regulation 1164. Which was beat in to my head during boot camp, A-school, C-school and all leadership schools that I have been attending, along with the rest of the Navy Regulations out of the SORN and all of my command SORMs. If Navy leadership is so wrapped up into sticking its sailors into neat little boxes then how is that not a violation of Regulation 1164? Why can't we just view everyone that comes in the doors of the recuriting office as a potential bosun, fighter pilot, SEAL, SWCC, MC, or COB? Instead why do we need to look at them as the first [insert diversity descriptor here] SEAL or COB? Why do we need to support bigoted training to the fleet when again we have a regulation on the book that claims we don't support bigots?

LCDRLDO6440 said...

The O6 selection board I participated in had specific instructions to re-look all minorities that failed to select. BTW, each of them failed to select again.  This boosted my confidence in the integrity of the selection process - at least for this particular selection board.  

MR T's Haircut said...

<span>ADRC,  
 
I have sat on 2 selection boards.  One as a recorder, and one as a voter... your assumptions are wrong and predicated that all of us commenter's are somehow jaded and racist.   Many of the posters, are actually classified as minorities according to the urban dictionary and certain Navy Selection Board critieria, yet self identify as simply "American".
 
I would ask you to pull your head out of your arrogant ass and take a look at the words we are saying, the context they are in, and how this is so damaging for an organization that was founded on Meritocracy and the ideals in the U.S. Constitution that are also by no happy coincidence, part of codified law.  
 
And as for your assertion that divthu is bitter, or hate filled, in some way, I would recommend you reread the first header of his blog and see that CDR Phib attacks Political Correctness in ALL forms and does so with humor, grace, and a hell of a lot more tact than I would or do.  
 
I also find your passive aggressive attempt to somehow color the fact that he retired as a Commander (who knows he may be a paygrade higher) in the greatest Navy in the world as some kind of character flaw, VERY offensive to him and the rest of us.. I suspect you spend hours looking at your ID card and your fruit salad.  I suspect further, that your collar devices define you.  you sir, are missing the point and the bus.  </span>
<span></span>
<span>I recommend you take a breath and stop attacking the messenger.</span>

MR T's Haircut said...

6440,
the very fact they forced a "relook" in the precept is telling.. what they (board sponsor/NPC) dont have trust in the integrity of the board so they required a second "crunch"?  that to me is an affront to the integrity of the board members.  How many excused themselves from the selection board?

Anonymous said...

That's why you shouldn't seek to find meaning in the numbers, other than they are what they are.  Instead, we get bigotry, false accusations, and a premise based on ignorance of statistics.  Nothing but a bunch of bitter retirees that didn't speak out whilst on active duty, and complain like cowards after they leave.

Anonymous said...

Hit the nail on the head active duty.  "Trust me, I've promoted women, I don't hate them."  Is almost as good as "I have gay friends, I don't hate them, they're just sinners and I just don't want them to be able to marry."

MK75Gunner said...

Once again the "guest" and he alone has the uncanny ability to see within one person's heart and mind and decipher that they are obviously sexist or racist or a homophobe or any other of the pathetic labels that are used by those who cannot debate or argue their points. Perhaps this uncanny ability is merely a projection of the "guests" own personal issues. Much like the medias penchant for hearing dog whistles whenever the issue touches on one of the so called "protected classes" there is never any evidence just the huring of accusations and then an undeserved sense of smug satisfaction. 

Anonymous said...

Wow, so your first name is MK75 and your last name is Gunner? Interesting. I guess the obvious false conclusion of the slide is beyond you. You hypocritical anonymous coward.

Anonymous said...

No need to see in anyone's heart. Just watch the actions. False conclusions based on bad data analysis is either stupidity or a desire to use false evidence to prove a point. When you use false evidence to support your point, you reveal that it is your opinion, and you ate grasping at straws. Use irrefutable evidence, and you look less like a anonymous fool. This slide isn't evidence of anything, other than false conclusions based on limited data.

Anonymous said...

"BTW - if you don't get the last part of the slide - that means that the female selection rate was 50%. That is five times greater than the overall population."

So which is more fair, "five times the rate" or zero opportunity for women? Those are the only options based on your data. The board gets skewered either way. Valuable contribution to society Sal. Inciting the resentment of women in the military through false analysis, good for the Navy and the Midshipmen and JOs you mentor? How does this improve anything?

SouthernAP said...

Even if this is false conclusions. How can you be a cheering for a por-bigotiry organization that out of one mouth it offically states it doens't discriminate based on race, color, creed, sex, religion, national origin, or any other diversity identifier; while the organization authorizes segreation of people and authorizes its senior staff to violate the law as it comes to equal employement by looking at some sort of quota process to pick people for advancement or even to command levels. Doesn't this just slide just prove that point?

Grandpa Bluewater said...

You don't know why CO's walk the plank? Turkeys trot to water. :-D

Byron said...

Guest, you're not interested in what anyone has to say, which means you've already made your mind up. In my mind that means you're a bigot in every sense of the word. To you, it matters not what the actions of the people here may be; they fall into a group that is anti-thetical from your group. Tell me what difference it is from you to a Klavern that hates blacks because they are a different group.

The truth of the matter is you don't want to hear the point: That is, the people here don't want the process skewed by racial set-asides; they want only the best people (of all races, creeds and religions) to be in the Navy so that they may better serve the Nation. Do we want the kind of discrimnation that keeps minorites at a disadvantage? Absolutely not! What they are against is a system that allows at CAPT. Holly Graf to rise through a system of preferences. How many good sailors got out the Navy because of this horrible officer? How much harm did she cause the Navy? And you, with YOUR bias would KEEP her in the Navy.

No, "guest", the problem with the Navy is the serving and retired members of the Front Porch; it's you and your fellow travelers who believe social redress is more important that the defense of the nation.

Byron said...

Best answer to that question I've ever heard, Grandpa 8-)

Sean said...

It helps by shining sunlight on the despicable / illegal / immoral practice of judging people on the basis of diversity (skin color and sexual appendages) rather than the content of their professional abilities.

I want the BEST qualified people selected for Major Command - if that means that we end up with 100% left handed women who favor Abba then so be it....the BEST people were selected.

What sort of mentoring are you providing if you are happy with the dispicable practice of blatant discrimination??...."hey sorry about you not being selected but of course you were never going to be selected since you are white male-unless lightning struck" - is that your message??  Pretty shitty message if you ask me (and you did).

News flash - the board is going to get second guessed no matter what they do, but I would be far far happier if the blatant discrimination stopped immediately.

LCDR Black said...

Why do we think there is active discrimination?  Ummm, I don't know, probably because they are putting it in presentations like this, keeping metrics, setting "goals" (not quotas mind you, cause that would be illegal), oh yeah, and setting admiralty rates based on percentages of different races/genders which are completely counter to the JO recruiting rate of those gender/race inputs.  THEY TELL YOU THAT IT IS THEIR GOAL TO ACTIVELY DISCRIMINATE.  Set the bar, hold the bar, get rid of photos, run FITREPs through on numbers (not names) alone and have no reference to gender/race and now you are cooking w/ gasoline. 

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Yes, well, there's THAT.  But what other proof do you have?  ;)

MR T's Haircut said...

Facts is stubborn things Mr Black...

MR T's Haircut said...

Guest,.. who says we didnt speak out and who says we ae bitter?  Actually I did refuse to submit people for work around awards simply because they fit a minority class (ala Hispanic Latina Flight Engineer, Latina Citizen of the Year Award etc..)..  the reason had nothing to do with race.. it had everything to do with waste of the adminstrative resources of my command, waste of the time of my CPO's and LPO's drafting the screed to write the nonsensical award up, and finally to preserve the few actual awards that bring value to an organization such as SOY or SSOQ... hell if we're gonna be all diverse, lets break each of those awards into color division... save everyone the embarrassment of pretending we are not cherry picking based on skin color...

dont make assumtions about us with out all the "facts" you love so dearly.

MK75Gunner said...

My profile is public. Can't say the same for you....your ball. 

Anonymous said...

"<span>shining sunlight on the despicable / illegal / immoral practice of judging people on the basis of diversity (skin color and sexual appendages) rather than the content of their professional abilities."</span>

Too bad that it doesn't do that, because the sample size is too small to be relevant. It is being used as a tool to get people that don't think critically to make the assumption that women are being promoted unfairly.

"<span>I want the BEST qualified people selected for Major Command - if that means that we end up with 100% left handed women who favor Abba then so be it....the BEST people were selected."</span>

How do you know that the one woman selected wasn't good enough to meet the cut?

"<span>What sort of mentoring are you providing if you are happy with the dispicable practice of blatant discrimination??"</span>
-Show me the discrimination, and I'm against it.  Opening up extrra command slots after the board is done, would be discrimination.  Opening slots only for women would be discrimination.  Were you screaming discrimination when women weren't allowed in combat?  Were you screaming discrimination when gay people were gagged?  Are you screaming discrimination now, when the partners of gay people don't get benefits like the partners of straight people.  That is discrimination.  These are results of a board that given the sample size of women, says nothing.  Sal knows that, but he doesn't care because he can create news for the ignornant by saying things like you don't have to have a "graduate level in statistics" when he should have said "if you've ever taken a statistics class, you'd know this means nothing."  What's the p-value Sal?  Do some real work, be honest.

Anonymous said...

Why do you want to see the names?  What do the names have to do with performance?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Guest,

I will finish reading your comments when I am done nominating someone for The Caucasian Engineer award, and celebrating Men's History Month. 

Anonymous said...

How do you know what I want to do?  Just curious?  Am I the one drawing inaccurate conclusions?  Do you know enough about stats to see the problem with this post, or do you just not care enough to learn because you know women are being promoted unfairly, and you're just looking for facts that sound like they promote your position.  I think what you're doing is obvious.  You don't want to hear that your data are wrong, so you attack the messenger.  You call me a "bigot" put me in a group, thinking that I'll defend the group.  Sorry, you deal with your inaccurate facts, and those inaccurate facts tell me the real agenda.  When you use false data, you show your hand because your position is unsupported, revealing your bias.

Anonymous said...

Southern AP "<span>Doesn't this just slide just prove that point?"  No, this slide proves nothing other than they track the data.  You can make all sorts of logic leaps from there, but at least be honest about the leap.  Would you be happy if they promoted zero women?  Would that be fair?</span>

SouthernAP said...

Nope, I just feel that we shouldn't be looking at people and promoting them because they are left-handed, brown-eyed, Mac users, Xbox players, pray for Gozer the Gozerian, like to look at pictures of crying clowns or come from the Shire of Middle-Earth. Rather we should be looking at the best of the best and only advancing those that meet that level. If you can't do that then it only seems to say even if they were the cream of the crop, then said folks couldn't advance because they needed help.

SouthernAP said...

If said person couldn't advance without your help doesn't that prove they aren't the cream of the crop? How is that helping them improve themselves to become the better person? How is that helpful to the Navy (or any organization) that we tell people they can succeed unless they accept to following biogted policies to advance themselves? If we say in offical rules and policies that we don't tolerate bigots and in the next situtation say that some people are authorized to be bigots, isn't that a form of Orwellian doublespeak?

Anonymous said...

"<span>How can you be a cheering for a por-bigotiry organization"</span>
I assume you mean "pro-bigotry," and I'm not.  The military is struggling with equal opportunity because of people that draw conclusions like the erroneous one drawn here.  It struggles because people don't understand statistics.  The Navy still struggles with equal opportunity for women, because people that don't understand stats use data like these to influence the minds of our junior Sailors and junior Officers.  If the Senior people like the ones on this board, and my CO's had embraced service by women, we wouldn't be having the problems we have now.

Lead.  This post is not leadership, it's cowardly subterfuge and poor data analysis by someone that purports to know better, and if he does know better, its intentional destruction of trust that will eventually tear the military apart.  If there are only two women eligible, they CAN'T select inline with the % of men.  It's impossible.  They needed some, but not 116 promotes.  DO THE MATH.

Anonymous said...

Hey Regis, instead, why don't you write an article for the Washington Post, or Proceedings about how you don't believe that we should have racially based awards in the military?  Better yet, submit the name of your best Engineer without regard to race, and see what happens. Stop whining and lead.

Chris G. said...

First, my *opinion* is that yes, DoN actively discriminates. Having said that, I looked at the facts here, in this specific case.

Per the data:
Total eligible was 232 (per slide shown on post).
Total selected was 53 (count the names on the select list on the BUPERS web site).

Overall selection rate was 53/232=23%.

# of eligible minorites was 20 (per slide); minority selection rate was 5/20=20%
# of eligible women was 3 (per slide); female selection rate was 1/3=33%
# of eligible "favored classes" was 6/23=26%.

 All those seem close enough to the overall rate of 23% to not exactly scream discrimination. BTW, the sole female was CAPT Heidi Alston Fleming, a 1320 selected for major command ashore. (I presume "Heidi" is female.)

 I think it's a shame we even *have* a slide like this; I think it's a shame we give women and/or minority nonselects another canvass of records if they FTS, but based on the numbers above, it does not appear this board disproportionately promoted minorities or females.

 (Also, consider if they promoted 1 less minority and woman. Stats would be:
4/20 minority=20%; 0/3=0%; 4/23=17%...starts to look a little low.
 Conspiracy theorists could argue that the board crunched the #'s and say these numbers, so decided to promote "just enough" women and minorities to keep their percentages in line with the rest, but I don't dive the board that much credit.)

Big point to make...I wish we didn't even *have* this slide to talk about...it's a shame, and the very fact it exists implies a lack of fairness in selection boards.

If my data's off, please correct or add better...it's possible I missed something. There's also some "iffiness" in the "total eligible" number...I'm not sure exactly how the Bureau derived it.

pk said...

urr:
theres' the old thing about a duck.

if it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, ......like a duck,......like a duck,......like a duck.

it just might be a duck, not sayin, but maybeeeee.

C

SouthernAP said...

Yes, I meant pro-bigotry, my eyes had played a trick on me with regards to it being spelt right.
Your completely and totally missing the point of this posting. It isn't that the Navy (and the DoD) on a whole are struggling for EO. Rather we state for a fact that we can't be color-blind, sex-blind, religion-blind and everything else and have to make decisions on personnel decisions and have make any decsion on advancement we have to look at these blocks for a person. Even worst we have to waste man hours from junior personnel to draft these slides, do the statistics and prove that we attempted to abided by EEO laws with regards to diversity. The point of most of these diversity posts is that, as the good host as said, isn't to admit that we have a problem; rather have old, white, males tell the rest of the fleet that they are bigots because those that aren't white males with WASP like last names aren't advancing in correct numbers. Ergo, aren't going to knowingly or unknowingly suppress some others rights to advance others?
I would hazard that HR departments in places like Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Boeing, Macy's all do the same tracking. Yet, they don't produce slides and waste man-hours every year to show they are advancing folks under EEO-netural policies unless they have been directed to by a federal court case. We do and seeing slides like this, because as you state people don't understand statistics, only gives gasoline to those folks who feel they are being suppressed because of these apparent bigoted policies. At least in my honest opinion.
I would also like to ask how the numbers we see on this slide jive with the accessions for the year group of the same officers and see how that breaks down to how many of those 17% gained in 1998 (the year most aviators would have had to start based on a 2yr training pipeline) before they would have started to screen for command. I bet the numbers would be smaller still. That give we have been at war now for 10 years with ever lengthen deployments and it only makes me wonder if the number on this slide isn't because the organization is biogted on a whole. Rather, those were the ones that really wanted to screen for command and wanted to make the Navy the most important part of thier lives. Not because they were some how suppressed or held back by the "good ol'boys network" as some would claim.

cdrsalamander said...

Guest,
You're new - so I'll be nice.
1. "<span>Were you screaming discrimination when women weren't allowed in combat? </span>" - Again for the 1,000th time - you will be hard pressed to find a greater supporter of women in the service than your humble blogg'r.  Since day 1 here - look it up.  So, you strike out there.
2. "<span>Were you screaming discrimination when gay people were gagged? </span>" Both here an on my radio program, you again would be hard pressed to find a milblogg'r who came out early and often for allowing homosexuals to openly serve. So, there's your second stike in assumptionville.  Talk to the leadership of SLDN if you need a second opinion on that topic.
3. If this were the only data point - the rest of your comments might have more footing - but it is clear that you are new here.  Please go back to the "Diversity" tag and read some more primary sources going back years on the Navy's official policy of discrimination.  Its all there.  

Pick a better commenting name and return early and often - your view on the topic is always welcome ... just make it informed next time and address the issue at hand a little more than you attack the host. 

cdrsalamander said...

+1 to Chris G. - excellent comment - ... you are heading in the right direction.  That is the core of it. What is the slide built this way?  Why is it required?  If you consider the truism "You get what you inspect/measure" along with the whole "Accountability Review" culture ... you're getting closer.

I should have worded the post better and not used the "S" word.  That is not the story.  The slide is.

SouthernAP said...

How is that I feel that some of us are like the red headed kid in this comic.

cdrsalamander said...

Well .... there is that question out there if you have a soul.   :-P

SouthernAP said...

I don't have a soul. I sold it to the company store. O:-)

Anonymous said...

If my view were welcome here, I wouldn't be blocked. - The lies continue.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

You got that backwards, Guest.  Those who are constantly harping on the necessity and fairness of racial/ethnic/gender (and soon sexual preference) quotas have embraced "Stop leading and WHINE". 

UltimaRatioRegis said...

If you were the recently-banished individual, I might tell you that suggesting sex acts to perform on oneself, and labeling people as parts of anatomy as an intro to conversation, hardly constitutes "views" being welcomed anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Been awhile, but thanks for the warm reception in line with your character.

Adversus Something something said...

It's not the percentages that matter.  It is the fact that we're tracking the numbers.  You only keep stats on what is important...it's why we keep score in football.  So if it is important, and more is a goal, what do you think they are doing to achieve this?  How do they measure success?  What...you think they passively sit back and just hope for more females to become major commanders?

Please.

The only thing the Navy sits back and hopes for are ships and airplanes.

Anonymous said...

NouOps [url=http://canadagoosejacketsite.com/]canada goose jacket[/url] WmcOwj NbyPxk http://canadagoosejacketsite.com/ YwiKns SjgQjk [url=http://canadagoosejacketclub.com/]canada goose jacket[/url] VjxCmk MuxQic http://canadagoosejacketclub.com/ DaqAuk GxeKmk [url=http://canadagooseoutlettoca.com/] canada goose jacket[/url] NptGsy XafRfv http://canadagooseoutlettoca.com/ XxzUzt XylRsp [url=http://canadagoosesalehome.com/]canada goose[/url] TnjBbb WtpNio http://canadagoosesalehome.com/ PuySne

Anonymous said...

NzkOay [url=http://canadagoosejacketsite.com/]canada goose jackets[/url] QxbQjr TipYbb http://canadagoosejacketsite.com/ SseIyk OycLuy [url=http://canadagoosejacketclub.com/]canada goose jacket[/url] MoiPyd QwjPuf http://canadagoosejacketclub.com/ SooAev NauXoi [url=http://canadagooseoutlettoca.com/] canada goose parka[/url] TkmZih RksXrl http://canadagooseoutlettoca.com/ HueHvu TumHgy [url=http://canadagoosesalehome.com/] canada goose sale[/url] MkcVkk LynIvq http://canadagoosesalehome.com/ NniDnu

Anonymous said...

KyqJyn [url=http://canadagoosejacketsite.com/]canada goose jacket[/url] KveWnf TruKnd http://canadagoosejacketsite.com/ KwcRsh NaqOvu [url=http://canadagoosejacketclub.com/]canada goose jacket[/url] ZfiRtz JahAko http://canadagoosejacketclub.com/ AsqBfb KdtUjx [url=http://canadagooseoutlettoca.com/] canada goose jackets[/url] AgxIwg HarNoi http://canadagooseoutlettoca.com/ AenKxb UgjCyn [url=http://canadagoosesalehome.com/] canada goose sale[/url] NzmShb XdlIpb http://canadagoosesalehome.com/ PacLoh

Anonymous said...

Recent questions about canada goose answered and in addition reasons why you have to read through every single concept on this documentation. [url=http://www.goosefromcanada.com/]canada goose expedition parka[/url] Unprejudiced statement discloses 5 new stuff on canada goose that none is mentioning. [url=http://www.supercoatsale.com]Canada Goose Outlet[/url] What authorities won't be stating around canada goose as well as how this has an effect on you actually. Beginner questions regarding Adidas Jeremy Scott replied not to mention the reasons you have got to review every word on this document. [url=http://www.adidasoutle.com/]Adidas Wings[/url] VakQbj [URL=http://sacguesspascher.bodiesmadison.com]sac guess pas cher[/url] OqnHup [URL=http://sacsguesspascher.bodiesmadison.com]sacs guess pas cher[/url] ZwfIuo [URL=http://sacguesspascherneuf.bodiesmadison.com]sac guess pas cher neuf[/url] ZioVed [URL=http://sacguessdiscount.bodiesmadison.com]sac guess discount[/url] TboQqn [URL=http://guesspascher.bodiesmadison.com]guess pas cher[/url] BvtHvy [URL=http://guesssacpascher.bodiesmadison.com]guess sac pas cher[/url] PtvHhs [URL=http://achetersacguesspascher.bodiesmadison.com]acheter sac guess pas cher[/url] IcjQqb [URL=http://sacguesspaschers.bodiesmadison.com]sac guess pas chers[/url] CwsJaf [URL=http://sacocheguesspascher.bodiesmadison.com]sacoche guess pas cher[/url] HueKit [URL=http://sacnoirpascher.bodiesmadison.com]sac noir pas cher[/url] SxkLvz [URL=http://sacguesspaschere.bodiesmadison.com]sac guess pas chere[/url] FnoYzg

Anonymous said...

EcgRpx [url=http://www.bootsshowjp.com/]アグ [/url] KpiDkc http://www.bootsshowjp.com/ HgpTpm [url=http://www.mutonbu-tsu.com/]アグ ブーツ[/url] KiqGqg http://www.mutonbu-tsu.com/ OnyIeu [url=http://www.australiabestboots.com/]ugg アグ[/url] XfvTos http://www.australiabestboots.com/ TiwWmp[url=http://www.bestbootsjapan.com/]ugg ブーツ[/url] QboTkw http://www.bestbootsjapan.com/ IqiJxx [url=http://www.bootshotsales.com/]ugg アウトレット[/url] JtxKob http://www.bootshotsales.com/ GxmSow [url=http://www.bootssaletojp.com/]ugg アグ[/url] GsjGkm http://www.bootssaletojp.com/ BbaIum

Anonymous said...

JpbCel [url=http://ukbootshopon.com/]ugg boots ebay[/url] NccMqa http://ukbootshopon.com/

Anonymous said...

VuhFhk [url=http://ukbootshopon.com/]cheap ugg bailey button boots[/url] HpyJxy http://ukbootshopon.com/

Anonymous said...

ygottm [url=http://canada-goose-sales.ca]Canada Goose Jacket[/url] auvovk http://canada-goose-sales.ca vlirmx [url=http://canadagooseoutletss.com]Canada Goose Outlet[/url] fogmve http://canadagooseoutletss.com pvixwu [url=http://salecanadagooseoutlet.ca]Canada Goose Outlet[/url] ieeiov http://salecanadagooseoutlet.ca kwsicu [url=http://mycanadagoose-canada.com]Canada Goose[/url] iwgthd http://mycanadagoose-canada.com oyalxz [url=http://salecanadagoose-outlets.com]Canada Goose Outlet[/url] wpjaea http://salecanadagoose-outlets.com ecygmr [url=http://salecanaadagoosejackets.ca]Canada Goose Sale[/url] dgzzgo http://salecanaadagoosejackets.ca rmbyfg

Anonymous said...

rtva [url=http://salecanadagooseoutlet.ca]Canada Goose Jacket[/url] ssuz http://salecanadagooseoutlet.ca ncdc [url=http://mycanadagoose-canada.com]Canada Goose Outlet[/url] xcqx http://mycanadagoose-canada.com gwfo [url=http://salecanadagoose-outlets.com]Canada Goose Outlet[/url] rcdw http://salecanadagoose-outlets.com tlzy [url=http://salecanaadagoosejackets.ca]Canada Goose Jackets[/url] lkvn http://salecanaadagoosejackets.ca hjjy

Anonymous said...

Hello there I am so happy I found your site, I really found you by accident, while I was
researching on Digg for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would just like
to say thank you for a remarkable post and a all round
enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design), I don't have time to read it all at the minute but I have book-marked it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read more, Please do keep up the fantastic work.
Also see my webpage: reportacrook.com

Anonymous said...

It's wonderful that you are getting thoughts from this article as well as from our argument made at this time.
Look at my web-site nfl jerseys custom

Anonymous said...

I don't even know how I stopped up here, however I assumed this submit was good. I don't recognize who you're but certainly you are going to a well-known blogger in case you are not already. Cheers!
Have a look at my web site ; christian louboutin outlet

Anonymous said...

EoaPac [url=http://ghdshairscarestore.com/]ghd[/url] YdoAbf http://ghdshairscarestore.com/ AkyPxu [url=http://ghdshairscareshop.com/]ghd straighteners[/url] VqjFnl http://ghdshairscareshop.com/ FtdRdf [url=http://ghdshaircarestore.com/]ghd hair straightener australia[/url] IulWfc http://ghdshaircarestore.com/ FbnAev [url=http://ghdshaircareshop.com/]ghd straightener[/url] SqnLbv http://ghdshaircareshop.com/ XrnYsh [url=http://ghdhairscarestore.com/]ghd australia sale[/url] YujMog http://ghdhairscarestore.com/ VzgAtk [url=http://ghdhairscaresshop.com/]ghd factory outlet[/url] GagOln http://ghdhairscaresshop.com/ VjhBgk [url=http://ghdhaircarestore.com/]ghd outlet[/url] RqlVnj http://ghdhaircarestore.com/ EtsTdg [url=http://ghdhaircaresstore.com/]ghd australia[/url] EaaGfg http://ghdhaircaresstore.com/ QzaZkn [url=http://ghdhaircareshop.com/]ghd hair straightener australia[/url] KjbDhe http://ghdhaircareshop.com/

Anonymous said...

PecXzg [url=http://www.aggyoi.com/]アグ ブーツ[/url] PpzHja QupYfu [url=http://www.aggyoi.com/]ugg ブーツ[/url] EwjKdb BepVre [url=http://www.aggyoi.com/]アグ ブーツ 激安[/url] NwhAoy SgrHjt [url=http://www.aggyoi.com/]ugg ブーツ 激安[/url] NcqVzf MsqYye http://www.aggyoi.com/ PkxFzh

Anonymous said...

UvgAqj [url=http://www.monclersaikou.com/]モンクレール[/url] MvlHtt CtpHne [url=http://www.monclersaikou.com/]モンクレール ダウン[/url] LlpYuy ApoAso [url=http://www.monclersaikou.com/]Moncler ダウン[/url] RpcVet JybVry [url=http://www.monclersaikou.com/]モンクレール アウトレット[/url] SjsFfk BsjYvu http://www.monclersaikou.com/ WfmZuz

Anonymous said...

BmyIfg [url=http://www.kutsubuy.com/]アグ ブーツ[/url] RewIts DdxQyl [url=http://www.kutsubuy.com/]ugg ブーツ[/url] CinPdg XvfWgj [url=http://www.kutsubuy.com/]ugg ムートンブーツ[/url] EkzDin KyjCso http://www.kutsubuy.com/ KlrHox

Anonymous said...

VlaJlp [url=http://www.downjacketsjapanonline.info/]モンクレール[/url] IkzZid ZouRay [url=http://www.downjacketsjapanonline.info/]モンクレール アウトレット[/url] LxiVbd AhbFpb [url=http://www.downjacketsjapanonline.info/]モンクレール ダウン[/url] WzvPln CjcSlc http://www.downjacketsjapanonline.info/ AgaIjv

Anonymous said...

WbvSmu [url=http://www.monclerwarmjp.com/]モンクレール ダウン[/url] LwmWnq YnqKtu [url=http://www.monclerwarmjp.com/]モンクレール アウトレット[/url] NdaStx YsaSto [url=http://www.monclerwarmjp.com/]モンクレール ダウンアウトレット[/url] AbsJdg WdlAuq http://www.monclerwarmjp.com/ ZsnZwq NfuWhf [url=http://www.shoeskan.com/]ugg ブーツ[/url] EbwIep LssJbd [url=http://www.shoeskan.com/]ugg のブーツ[/url] MduXix SedEdo [url=http://www.shoeskan.com/]ブーツ ugg[/url] CopDxp HznOrb [url=http://www.shoeskan.com/]アグ ブーツ[/url] QhoUdq KwnMyl [url=http://www.shoeskan.com/]ugg ブーツ メンズ[/url] BjqZbb UvsQyo [url=http://www.shoeskan.com/]アグ ムートンブーツ[/url] GvcIic AtwCfa http://www.shoeskan.com/ AatOus HkhIvr [url=http://www.bootcojp.com/]ムートンブーツ[/url] DneFcd EbaNbu [url=http://www.bootcojp.com/]UGG ムートンブーツ[/url] UlmHuh FmdHqu [url=http://www.bootcojp.com/]アグ ムートンブーツ[/url] QxaTfz SzfMux [url=http://www.bootcojp.com/]ムートンブーツ UGG[/url] YziTjd TgtSqr [url=http://www.bootcojp.com/]UGG ムートンブーツ 激安[/url] QffDkb EvlJru http://www.bootcojp.com/ VvqPnz VcyWyl [url=http://www.guccijphome.com/]グッチ 財布[/url] FqbYrd FycYps [url=http://www.guccijphome.com/]グッチ アウトレット[/url] XnyJjb YdqJal [url=http://www.guccijphome.com/]グッチ バッグ[/url] SyhPab CjnHcj [url=http://www.guccijphome.com/]グッチ 長財布[/url] ReuFgs LsvPzu [url=http://www.guccijphome.com/]gucci 財布[/url] OhwUvl GksFad http://www.guccijphome.com/ EplKby HlnLbt [url=http://monclersekai.com/]モンクレール アウトレット[/url] MprPpz XzyWta [url=http://monclersekai.com/]モンクレール ダウン[/url] FbtMyq MiqIbb [url=http://monclersekai.com/]モンクレール ダウンジャケット[/url] NvgKpw SvrRzp http://monclersekai.com/ QaxMjy DlgLau [url=http://boots-abc.com/]UGG ブーツ[/url] EaaNsp PilSas [url=http://boots-abc.com/]UGG ムートン ブーツ[/url] YmlUby UtpToj [url=http://boots-abc.com/]アグ ブーツ[/url] RhvAca KlqBrz [url=http://boots-abc.com/]UGG ブーツ 激安[/url] VpeVir RhgOyc http://boots-abc.com/ GjhXgx

Anonymous said...

ZmkYtw [url=http://www.mymonclerhome.com/]モンクレール アウトレット[/url] XlxMwf OkiRey [url=http://www.mymonclerhome.com/]モンクレール ジャケット[/url] AeuRwu KzvKfj [url=http://www.mymonclerhome.com/]モンクレール 店舗[/url] FbuIcs KjhOfq http://www.mymonclerhome.com/ SsmGiy BbfBji [url=http://www.bootsjpbest.com/]アグ ムートンブーツ[/url] NukTzl KxgEdu [url=http://www.bootsjpbest.com/]uggのブーツ[/url] WbnEdj TamMeo [url=http://www.bootsjpbest.com/]アグ ブーツ 激安[/url] TioBhl VrwIxe http://www.bootsjpbest.com/ YxlCyz PxdFjt [url=http://www.chloesweet.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] ZxmVnp JmyHgm [url=http://www.chloesweet.com/]クロエ バッグ[/url] JqaNvn KxcHhy [url=http://www.chloesweet.com/]chloe バッグ[/url] OwwLkw LcpXor http://www.chloesweet.com/ SlrZac JkyZkx [url=http://gucci-nice.com/]GUCCI アウトレット[/url] DbsGpd HkaXiu [url=http://gucci-nice.com/]GUCCI 財布[/url] RnaItn DueCza [url=http://gucci-nice.com/]gucci バッグ[/url] VdfQkkOwpHcz http://gucci-nice.com LnzPgt

Anonymous said...

mupequave mupequaveJB
Authentic Aldon Smith Jersey
Authentic Eli Manning Jersey
Eli Manning Jersey

Anonymous said...

Payday loans online http://www.legitpaydayloansonline1.com/ Fundpopog [url=http://legitpaydayloansonline1.com]http://www.legitpaydayloansonline2.com[/url] Stype payday loans online faxless payday loans online As a result, you can grab the cash via this loan method even wind enough the service fast cash loans work for you today?

Anonymous said...

Easybinarycash.com - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month!

[url=http://www.easybinarycash.com/]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option

Binary Options is the way to [url=http://www.easybinarycash.com/]make money[/url] securely online

Anonymous said...

диеты эффективные , http://www.best-dieta-2013.ru/#ShousDesDuh диета