I hope not. Hooters is awesome. Screw Bal Thackeray and Arundhati Roy - they want to impose their own idiotic morality on the rest of society.

"Idiotic Morality?" On second thought, nevermind. I don't even want to go down that road on this post by taking your bait with respect to the lovely Ms. Roy. For clarification though, the Hindutva orgs and the BJP are the ones that are going to be throwing the bricks.

My only suggestion is that Hooters India changes its name to "Gulab Jamuns" for the sake of cultural assimilation.

Yes, and to further assimilate, men can say they're only going because they have good samosas. :)

Hey - if Hooters is going to use that map in India, it sure as hell is going to get a lot more than just the Bal Thackerays and Arundhati Roys.

For clarification though, the Hindutva orgs and the BJP are the ones that are going to be throwing the bricks.

I don't think the Indian feminist/communist left is going to be too happy about a slice of Americana like Hooters (which is a multinational to boot). They're going to try to sue, legislate, and/or rabble-rouse it out of existence - just like they did in the US. We shall see whether the attacks are led by Bal Thackeray's goons or by Jose Bove/black bloc type anti-globalist leftists.

Hey - if Hooters is going to use that map in India, it sure as hell is going to get a lot more than just the Bal Thackerays and Arundhati Roys.

And just wait till the Bangladeshis see it...

I was trying to figure out why Hooters would go to all places India also. If you look at their international locations they have a heavier concentration in South America and Europe, which seems reasonable. If there was any asian country that would definitely be more suitable, it would be Japan - they are crazy for any kind of Americana. On the other hand, I read somewhere I thought it was on here, that many Americans (non-indian) are going to India for jobs and it seems reasonable that Hooters could open up where there large ex-pat population. Also, (and maybe I'm thinking incorrectly here) Hooters might import American women to work in India; this may prevent some of the harsher social reactions, but it might also breed some other kind resentment, i.e. aren't Indian women hot enough to work at Hooters; or even increase attacks -- I don't know for sure just guessing. But India is like a big college kid right now, it's been building and learning; a huge middle class, lots of disposable cash, just bursting to try anything new. I guess we will see what happens.

They're going to try to sue, legislate, and/or rabble-rouse it out of existence
GC: Isn't this the tactic that the republicans/conservatives have been using for the last 15 years?

anti-globalist leftists
It just flows of the tongue....I wish there better terms for the other side: pro-sweatshop neocons? pro-keeptherestoftheworldsuppressed neocons? I'm new to this GC, can you help brutha out?

sluggo:

what, are you really saying the anti-globalists aren't leftists? quick, someone tell arundhati roy and the (two) Indian Communist Parties!

GC: Isn't this the tactic that the republicans/conservatives have been using for the last 15 years

sure, like the *right* has used the courts to push their agenda. Everything from Roe to "hate crimes" to sexual harassment to forced busing to racial preferences - the left has won virtually every single judicial battle. The trial lawyers are one of the Democratic party's biggest donors.

Trial lawyer contributions represent 78% of Democratic Party campaign funds according to a study released by Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy, an Austin-based consumer organization.

During the 1998 election cycle, plaintiff trial lawyers contributed 78% of all money collected by the Texas Democratic Party. Forty-one percent of all the funds were contributed by just five attorneys who were made millionaires by the recent Texas tobacco settlement case.

pro-keeptherestoftheworldsuppressed neocons?

I think the term you're looking for is "Israel first" neocons or "open borders" neocons, neither of which have much to do with mainstream rightism or free trade.

Everything from Roe to "hate crimes" to sexual harassment to forced busing to racial preferences - the left has won virtually every single judicial battle.

Um -- I think the term you're looking for is "progress." Or "cultural evolution." Or "the tide of history." Not "the left."

Methinks you'd have been defending slavery if you'd been born a hundred years ago.

Here's a better link for information on donations by lawyer groups. Which proves your point on more donations going to democrats, but doesn't actually prove that this helped any of the agendas you talk about. But have you forgotten:

1) The Supreme Court putting George Bush into power.
2) Federalist Society" "For years, small chapters of the Federalist Society met on college campuses trying to inject their conservative ideas into the mainstream of legal thought."
3) Another interesting article about the Feddies
4) *Ahem* the 1994 Contract with America
5) More Bush Juidicial judicial appointments have gone through then Clinton's ever did; Also, I like this quote from the article "The strategy all along has been to show the obstructionist tactics of the Democrats. We've lost that tactic."
6) I really don't have much of an opinion on forced busing and racial preferences, but I'm not sure what you could possibly object to with "hate crime" or "sexual harassment" legislation. Let me put into context, what if it was your mother, sister, wife, or daughter that affected by either or of these items -- how would you feel?

Methinks you'd have been defending slavery if you'd been born a hundred years ago.

Given current discourse re: IQ/etc., methinks you and Sluggo would be denying Galileo if you'd been born 400 hundred years ago.

(Not to mention promoting racial preferences, the one-drop rule, etc., just as you do today.)

I should note that I'm pro-choice, but the way to do it should not have been via judicial fiat. Dozens of states had already legalized abortion and such an important issue should have been dealt with in the legislature rather than the judicial branch.

And the other stuff I named - busing, sexual harassment, and racial preferences - those have been *disasters*. Clinton's impeachment was based on a sexual harassment law that he signed into effect. Busing caused riots and was a disaster - liberal hypocrisy aside, inner cities aren't very safe places to send your kids. And racial preferences penalize merit and primarily benefit immigrant blacks & Hispanics - and not the descendants of slaves.

It's funny - for ethnic leftists who're supposedly intent on pursuing policies beneficial to Indians, you actually pursue policies *detrimental* to Indians like high taxes and racial preferences.

such an important issue should have been dealt with in the legislature rather than the judicial branch.

Nevertheless, it came up through the judicial system, a good outcome was achieved, and the legal system by and large caught up.

you actually pursue policies *detrimental* to Indians like high taxes and racial preferences.

I'm a fiscal conservative and for educational aff action only, given the strides made since the Civil Rights Movement. Try asking next time.

you and Sluggo

you and Abhi

Well, you and Alan Keyes... Precision, my friend.

busing, sexual harassment, and racial preferences - those have been *disasters*.

All laws can be subject to abuse, but sexual harassment law has been a major step forward both in the U.S. and other nations. Clinton was illegimately hounded via an array of laws ranging from finance (Whitewater) to sexual harassment to special prosecutors. Dissing sexual harassment law to defend Clinton without looking at what the law's done for safe work environments is missing the forest for the trees.

Busing is problematic not because of initial rioting -- there was rioting over Brown v. Board of Education too. It's problematic because it hasn't actually worked well, but the experimental data was useful.

Sluggo:

1) I voted for Gore in 2000 (see point 4) below). So I am no Bush partisan, but you can fool around with this website to try to see if there was any way Gore would have won with different rulings. I tried for a bit and didn't find any scenario in which Gore won.

2,3) The Federalist society (whoa, a rightist law student association - must be Fox affiliated!) is nothing relative to 80% of law professors:

For example, in my primary field (law), Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren a few years ago conducted a survey of the faculty members at the nation’s top 100 law schools. Professor Lindgren found that approximately 80% of law professors identify themselves as “Democrats” and only 13% identify themselves as “Republicans.”

more:

The advertisement listed the break-down of faculty members' political affiliations--Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated--for each of eight humanities departments, based on a cross-reference of Duke's departmental faculty lists with North Carolina voter registration records. According to DCU, 142 of the faculty members and deans included in the survey are registered Democrats, 28 are unaffiliated and 8 are registered Republicans.

So that's *both* professional and academic lawyers. Any more tee-balls you want me to hit out? (PS: Before bringing up the puerile "leftists are smarter", recall that by supporting racial preferences you've already declared merit off limits as an explanation for representational discrepancy!)

4) I fail to see how the Contract is relevant to the point I made above about the left advancing its cause antidemocratically through the courts.

The Contract was a *legislative* agenda, and was a reaction against Hillary's socialist health care disaster. In response, Clinton adopted most of the provisions and triangulated. That was why Clinton was a decent president domestically - he was fiscally fairly right wing (in addition to the Contract's welfare reform, which he passed, he also passed a balanced budget, NAFTA, GATT, etc.). That's why I voted for Gore - the New Democrats were pretty good libertarian surrogates.

5) Bush is not a rightist. He is a pseudocon. He has massively increased spending. He has the DOJ filing briefs in defense of "diversity" - probably the tipping point that kept racial preferences in effect for another two decades. He wants to give 20 million illegal aliens citizenship. He babbles about how opposing his policy is racist. The fact that Bush is perceived as a right-winger (!) is testament to the triumph of the left. In virtually every respect he has repudiated Reagan.

6) "hate crime" and "sexual harassment" laws are political weapons and as such are a terrible idea. Consider: the Carr brothers aren't being prosecuted for hate crimes. Neither are these guys:

Among the incidents reported are, in front of Lafayette HS last June, the Asian bashers - armed with chains and martial-arts sticks - broke the 17-year-old's right arm, forcing him to miss final exams and attend summer school to catch up. His father, Sajjad, claimed it was a bias attack.

Other incidents the Post reported included:

* A boy of Chinese descent was allegedly assaulted and robbed by an unidentified black male student in a stairwell on April 5. The victim was punched in the jaw and his watch and wallet stolen.

* A student of Southeast Asian descent charged that a black student threatened him with a gun in the cafeteria last March.

* A student from the Middle East was allegedly harassed by four black students outside the building last March. They called him "A-rab" before slapping him in the face.

* A student of Middle Eastern descent said he was threatened with a knife by three unidentified blacks in a stairwell on April 2.

* Two students of Middle Eastern descent were robbed at gunpoint by a former Lafayette student at a playground across from the school on June 1. The suspect was arrested.

* A Bangladeshi girl was knocked unconscious when two black female students assaulted and robbed her on the subway after dismissal on Oct. 2. The attackers were arrested.

* A female Chinese immigrant student was punched by a black male student after he pulled her hair on Oct. 11. The attacker was expelled, a source said.

* A boy of Chinese descent was allegedly attacked in a stairwell by two black students in October while another was hospitalized after getting smashed in the head from behind with a combination lock on Nov. 16.

One 15-year-old Chinese immigrant student robbed outside the school entrance told The Post, "Asian students are getting picked on because they don't speak English."

That's one school, and not a comprehensive list of incidents. That's what forced busing gets you, which is why the parents of these kids are getting them out ASAP. And you just need to look at the numbers to see that these crimes aren't being committed by whites...and as such won't be called "hate crimes".

The term "Hate crimes" - and the extra penalties - are levied only when a privileged group is attacked by an unprivileged group. And there is a totem pole, as Indian cabbies can be attacked by more privileged minorities without it being called a "hate crime"...while the city fines them for refusing to endanger themselves!

The far more common incidence of black-on-white or Hispanic-on-white murders (as seen statistically, see FBI Uniform Crime reports Table 43 or California DOJ statistics) is not considered "hate crime" for political reasons.

After taking a gander at those rape stats in the preceding two links, why not take a look at the ethnic distribution of domestic violence stats while you're at it? Might also be enlightening to see who's *actually* committing violence against women. (Hint: it's not the frat boys being lectured during the V-Monologues or Take Back The Night...)

lastly: what if it was your brother who got his arm broken by a privileged group, and there was no "hate crime" charge and he was called "racist" for bringing it up? What if a friend of yours was accused of date rape by a girl who just felt about having consensual sex the day after? Two can play this game...

I'm a fiscal conservative and for educational aff action only, given the strides made since the Civil Rights Movement. Try asking next time.

Try not calling me a supporter of slavery and perhaps I'll endeavour to be more precise :)

Why are you for educational racial preferences? As demonstrated in the Times article I cited above the benefits mainly go to 1) Voluntary Immigrant Africans, 2) Voluntary Immigrant Hispanics and 3) the wealthiest AA's and Hispanic Americans. Poor descendants of slaves and Native Americans are not the primary beneficiaries.

Can you give me a good rationale for why voluntary immigrant Hispanics and Africans should get preferences? What has the US government ever done to them comparable to what they did to slaves & Natives?

sexual harassment law has been a major step forward... what the law's done for safe work environments

Wow - you really think sexual harassment law is a *good thing*? Look how broad the scope of the EEOC definition is:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Welcome sexual advances are, as always, not sexual harassment. But pinups in a fireman's locker room constitute a "hostile work environment".

If the scope was limited to "sex or you're fired" instances of genuine compulsion, I'd be ok with it. But as phrased it makes every interaction in the workplace a potential lawsuit, and the burden of proof is astonishingly nebulous. It needlessly introduces tension by inculcating a culture of payday litigation and oversensitity.

It's problematic because it hasn't actually worked well, but the experimental data was useful.

Lucky you that your parents were wealthy enough to live in the suburbs and therefore immune to the consequences of said "experiment" (see broken arms, robberies, etc. in previous post).

Who shall we "experiment" on next, Dr. M?

Try not calling me a supporter of slavery

Metaphor. The issues you cited align you pretty consistently against evolving social consensus. Perhaps 'a brake on the the engine of history' is more apt? ;)

Why are you for educational racial preferences?

Not racial. I'm for economic affirmative action at the university level. Education is key to breaking the cycle of poverty, and it's worth giving poor kids a shot.

as phrased it makes every interaction in the workplace a potential lawsuit

Tactical criticism, not strategic. So tighten the definition or live with the fact that there are many broad laws that are clarified over time via precedent. The overriding point is, we've come a long way from the days when stealing a grope in the office was ok.

see broken arms, robberies, etc. in previous post

Come on, man. Make a serious argument here. There are plenty of actual problems with busing's educational effectiveness to talk about.

1. Purely anecdotal -- show me stats
2. No causality shown -- this is just a list of anti-Asian attacks
3. Reverse causality -- bus in enough kids of the same racial group and they'll band together to defend themselves

Dudes -- Abhi wrote about "Gulab Jamuns" and you guys would rather talk about busing? No wonder South Asian geeks get no play. I always thought that titties were the one thing that straight men of both the left and right could agree!

I cannot believe Hooters is going to India.
It's old news by now - does anyone know if it actually happened?

I would say it's bad news for women there.

Without a doubt, the well-endowed beauties who work there - whether foriegn or desi, will definitely get molested.

India, especially North, as a big problem with "eve teasing" (i.e. sexual harrassment) as it is. Hooters will just aggrevate the problem.

It's just not worth it.