Aetna International Claim: Fill & Download for Free

I don't know to much about all the insurance companies but stay clear of Aetna they are notorious for lack of refund payment's they consistently dodge payment's making people have to refile claims. Hope that help's. I have several clients who use Aetna and have major headache's with it. I would try Blue Cross Blue Shield.

For several years, I’ve taken unpopular stances in defending institutions of the United States that come under heavy criticism. These included defense of the National Anthem when it was called a “racist” anthem of a “racist” country, and more recently, defending the very institution of the police. In both cases, whether it’s about kneeling during the anthem or claiming that the police are racist, the issue we deal with is “systemic racism.”“Systemic racism” isn't racism, as most of us understand it. It isn't when a person is treated differently because of their skin color. That’s the definition we all used to believe.Racism is said to be "systemic" when the negative treatment doesn’t come from an individual, but from the system itself. Think Jim Crow. Jim Crow was systemic racism because treating people differently because of race was literally written into the laws. The systems that existed were clearly and demonstrably systemic racism by design.With systemic racism, you could have institutions filled with otherwise decent people, but because the rules are written in, it will do things that oppress or hold back certain people automatically. For example, Civil Rights was about fighting systemic racism, as in, if there is a rule on the books that is literally written to treat one race different from another, that’s illegal. Once discovered, anyone could challenge it in a court of law and that rule will no longer be a rule.This was the purpose of Civil Rights. It provided the legal framework for fighting systemic racism, as in, if there is a rule on the books that is literally written to treat one race different from another, that’s illegal. You can challenge it a court of law and that rule will no longer be a rule.That was the victory of the Civil Rights movement. It wasn’t that we “fixed racism”. Such high minded ideals will never happen. So long as people themselves are different, someone will come to generalizations and not like them. I prefer that reality to one where we’re all soulless robots. But Civil Rights did create a system whereby people can challenge unfair laws or organizational polices in courts and those organizations could be pressed to change. The organization continues to provide service to the community, but the rule that hurts people is removed. Whatever racism existed in the system is purged and racism itself is disincentivized throughout society. Win-Win, but it takes time.Not days or weeks, but at least a generation. You were born in a time where racism is considered very ugly. 99% of humanity going back tens of thousands of years... thought it was a survival tactic, and it worked. Be thankful for the times you live in, but radical change following every ideological whim will undermine whatever healthy progress we've thus far created.This process, beginning with abolition, continuing through the Civil Right's era, has already been going on now for several succeeding generations. The incentives to be racist, either personally or instructionally are so bad that trying it openly will cost you. In that sort of culture, racism dies.Yea.That’s why racism is the lowest it’s ever been… well, that’s not true. Things were better around 2009, but that's another story for a different day. But in general, the great crime of our education and information dissemination systems is the failure of the average American to know that we are the least racist today than we have ever been, or even that America, when measured against almost anywhere else, is one of the least racist places in the world.That is to say that while finding individual examples of racism isn’t very hard, it’s hard to say that all Americas are racist. Finding an example of a neo-nazi or member of the KKK isn't hard. I mean, it's very hard to find one in person, but the media is very good at making sure you see the few who come out. Did you know that the KKK only consists of about 7,000 members, and that they are mostly just small feuding groups spread across the country with no influence at all? That's not a conservative stance. That's actually sourced from the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group tracker, and the SPLC has anything but a history of being fair in that regard. That they could only prove about 7,000 disparate people should say something about how much attention they receive.But this is also racism, of the kind that you very rarely see outside of a few select sources.Finding examples of racism that goes the other way isn't difficult either. Seeing things like "Die Whites Die", "All White People are Racist", undermines the notion that racism is a purely white problem.To say nothing of events that should outrage everyone, like the kidnapping and torture of a mentally handicapped man, tied, beaten, and forced to drink from a toilet while denouncing Donald Trump by four black kidnappers. They’re bigotry was so normalized that they broadcast it over Facebook. How normal do you have to think a hate crime is to post it live to Social Media, not realizing this will probably have consequences? Why we aren’t talking about this daily still boggles my mind.(Four charged with hate crimes for torturing mentally disabled teen on Facebook Live)Regardless of these events, or the existence of groups who are hateful, that doesn't define a population of over three hundred million people. We've been told for decades against the evils of overgeneralizing whole populations. Why does that rule apply to some groups, and not to America itself?Measuring objectively, it’s very difficult to prove that racism is actually a defining characteristic of our country. In fact, the more you look elsewhere (save for those special utopian European cities where all the tourists go) you see that America is far more racially tolerant than is normal. That is to say that the presence of racism somewhere in a population does not make the population racist, just like a person of a particular color being in a gang doesn’t make everyone who looks like him gang members. I assume I don’t need to illustrate this point further.But that’s exactly what we’ve done. For reasons that are too extensive for this letter, we’ve taken examples of some people’s racism, mostly a small handful of white supremacists spread across the country in tiny pockets of discontentment, added the fact that racial economic and social disparity still exists, and ignored all other possible explanations for why that could happen, and jumped to the conclusion that white supremacy built and perpetuates a system specifically designed to disenfranchise people of color.What other explanations exist? I’ve written a massive answer on answering just that question: Jon Davis's answer to Why do many white people pretend racism does not exist? There, you’ll see many arguments for why there is racial disparity in America that are not caused by racism. And the people I sourced for that aren’t other white people. They are black conservatives who look to more grounded explanations for why things are as they are in their communities than the simple excuse that the racism of someone who doesn’t live anywhere near them, has no power over them, and has no interest in their lives, is still responsible for most of the disparity in 2020. That’s a massive answer, so if you’re curious, go there, but we’re not going to talk about it, here. What we are going to talk about is how, in spite of many, many well documented examples demonstrating why black disparity exists that have nothing to do with racism, it is believed that whole vital institutions in America are said to be systemically racist.For example, let’s start the police. Currently, we’re just coming down from a months long struggle that culminated with violence towards police and calls for abolishing them everywhere. Why? Because the police, not just some police officers, but the entire institution of policing in the United States is said to be racist at its core.The police, and the justice system itself, are considered to be systemically racist because more blacks are imprisoned than whites per capita. Individual high profile incidents shine a bright blazing beacon on the problem, and point to a system that makes cops actually racist, specifically targeting blacks for arrest, and even killing, some going so far as to accuse the American police forces as literally guilty of black genocide. Those aren’t true. There have been numerous studies done that show that blacks and whites, when in the same situations are treated the same by cops, such as police shootings. In fact, studies have shown that white police officers are less likely to kill minorities than other whites in similar situations. [1][1][1][1]No, the issue is that there are more crimes committed per capita, and particularly violent crimes among those populations than others. That is the disparity, and the criminal justice system should reflect it. Solving for why that happens is something I already addressed here. Simply put, bad policy, which people voted for, that led to destructive unintended consequences on a population like increasing fatherlessness in the home, the decline of education standards, shipping jobs overseas, or piling tens of thousands of people in a few block area (the Projects) was a recipe for the predictable disaster that has fallen on black cities. And it was predicted. People said that we would see a rise in crime and other vices and we did. It's not an aspect of black culture. That is not a natural consequence of a people that gave us Frederick Douglass, the Harlem Renaissance, and Thomas Sowell. It's a consequence of bad policy, and of politicians who refuse to take responsibility for saying, "Our ideas may have meant well, but failed and now we have do the hard thing, and take away programs that people have grown dependent upon. It will cost us votes, but it's the right thing to do." Rather than do that hard thing, those same people blame other people's racism, and the cops.Because there is a demonstrable difference in the outcomes one race experiences, regardless of the initiating events that led to that difference, it is said that there is inequality and when race is involved in that, it is racism. Too often, actually reviewing the specifics of a case undermines the argument that a specific person’s white racism was to blame, in the first place. People rioted and destroyed whole cities because of that belief, but the facts don't add up. A thorough look into the history Michael Brown, famous for "Hands up; Don't shoot" is a case study in how an incident can be turned 180 degrees from what actually happened to what people were protesting about. Whatever, the case, that and all the other incidents are still viewed as proof of America's white racism and of the police. The racism is built into the system, regardless of the individual cop in question. Where no individual’s explicit racism can be proven, but some racial inequality exists… then the cause is systemic racism.Put differently, the arguments of systemic racism say that whether or not racism exists in individuals, it exists at the organizational level. This is particularly true if those organizations and institutions were built during more racist times, having inherited the racism of their founders, who subtly built the racism into the system.It really doesn’t matter what events have transpired since then, what reforms have been made, even cases where racist people were purged, or racist policies stricken either by an act of law, or by the institution itself voluntarily. The extremist view that is gaining significant wind is that an organization that in any way held a different standard of ethics than we do today, be that racism, sexism, or otherwise, is irredeemable and must atone or be abolished for past crimes. If the institution existed during a time more racist than today, they are part of whatever problems exist for racial minorities at present and therefore… racist. Worse still, any greater institution, such as the United States itself, which doesn’t solve the problem as the accusers see fit (not being “anti-racist”) then they are racist as well. This was why Collin Kaepernick’s is now famous, as demonstrated in own statements when he refused to stand for the flag of a racist nation. To quote him:"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."[1]Here’s an interesting case to to consider. In 2002, there was a lawsuit which held eight American companies responsible for reparations for blacks in America because of links to slavery over 150 years prior… to the tune of $1.4 trillion dollars.A prayer on a Brooklyn street preceded the filing of an unprecedented $1.4 trillion lawsuit against eight major corporations alleged to have profited from their historical ties to the slave trade more than 137 years ago.Claiming to represent all of the United States' 35 million African-Americans, New York slave reparations activist Deadria Farmer-Paellmann named Aetna Inc., CSX Corp. and FleetBoston Financial Corp., among others, as unjustly profiting from the slave trade before the Civil War ended in 1865."We are going to finally hold corporations accountable for the crimes against humanity that they've committed against my ancestors," Farmer-Paellmann told reporters Tuesday.(Eric Shawn, 2002)[2][2][2][2]Later in the article, more light is given on the fact that the law firm Farmer-Paellmann was the same firm who won over $8 Billion from Swiss banks who held Nazi assets taken from Jews before and during World War II. They base the legitimacy of their 2002 claims on the fact that companies like Aetna had already previously acknowledged that shortly after its founding it insured the lives of slaves in a 2000 acknowledgment expressing their deep regret over any participation at all in this deplorable practice. Likewise, CSX was placed on the list because slave labor was produced to build railways. Beyond that, companies such as New York Life, AIG, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wachovia, and FleetBoston also made the list.Wachovia, it needs to be highlighted, didn’t even exist during slavery. It was founded in 1879. They were held responsible for the actions of two companies they purchased in 1991, the Bank of Charleston and Georgia Railroad and Banking Companies, both of whom owned slaves prior to the Civil War. Yet the burden was pushed to Wachovia, somehow. That’s interesting, because now Wachovia itself no longer exists. Following the collapse of the banking industry in 2008, Wachovia was purchased by Wells Fargo. That said, the argument that Wachovia had any wealth it owed to slavery following 2008, or the numerous other recessions it survived, to say nothing of the Great Depression which preceded it, is a tough sell, particularly when its sin came from two other companies it bought years prior. But give it about 10 more years, and we’ll see if anyone starts looking to Wells Fargo for their slave owning past, by way of the defunct Wachovia, by way of two companies which stopped existing in the 1990s. This is to say that at no point will the apologies or the forms of reparations be enough, so long as someone somewhere has not achieved prosperity and someone somewhere can be linked to some ancestral form of victimhood. [3][3][3][3]This case ended with the expected failure, however numerous companies were forced into some action. J.P. Morgan Chase apologizing for some tie to slavery and the creation of a $5 million scholarship program in 2005. But it didn’t stop with just that case.So that we understand the situation, eight companies were forced in 2002 to defend the notion that they are currently responsible to pay for their participation, or rather, their existence in the vaguest of definitions, in normal market activities of the time, from a 150 years prior… for 1.4 trillion dollars. A rational thinking person would argue that a company which traded slaves prior to the Civil War is doubtfully still profiting from that individual choice. Given the undeniable destruction of the South’s economy from the Civil War, a Great Depression, and numerous recessions since, it’s hard to say that slavery is why these companies remain successful and why they hold some burden of guilt. They don’t. It’s not reasonable.While this case sounded ridiculous, this “original sin” outlook of judging and punishing today’s institutions based on the events of hundreds of years ago is a modern basis for critical race theory. Collin Kaerpernick’s now famous kneeling has awarded him millions based on this idea, but #takeaknee wasn’t even the worst case of original sin critical race theory in action. For that, we should look to the New York Times’ 1619 Project.Immediately after the Trump/Russia collusion story fell through, the New York Times’ very intentionally shifted to a narrative of America’s troubling racist past and it’s implications in today’s world.[4][4][4][4] 1619 Project’s stated aim is to “reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of [the United States'] national narrative." What it actually does is attempt to paint the America which exists today as being truly founded in 1619 with the first slave trade in what would become the United States, and that America’s legacy, its very essence, is one built on the backs of slaves. The Civil War, the repeal of Jim Crowe, Civil Rights reforms, none of that matters because in the beginning, slavery existed and for all time, that fact will remain… so long as the United States itself does.The 1619 Project has also been widely criticized for a very revisionist interpretation of history, stretching truths to paint the United States, the Revolution, the Civil War, and even Abraham Lincoln through a very cynical lens. Sean Wilentz, an expert on early American History for Princeton University rebuked the 1619 Project for “rendering [Abraham Lincoln] as a white supremacist”.[5][5][5][5] In a post to The Atlantic he also said that "No effort to educate the public in order to advance social justice can afford to dispense with a respect for basic facts". Other criticisms came after accusations that the American Revolution was really fought to protect slavery and other for the intended attacks on capitalism, as 1619 was “construing slavery as a capitalist venture despite documented anti-capitalist sentiment among many Southern slaveholders.” [6][6][6][6]The 1619 Project’s failures make it clear what it was about. It wanted to paint the United States as a nation defined by racism and slavery by reinterpreting its roots. Looking to the timing and stated goals of the editors discovered through leaks, it was also clear that this more about short term political victories (which as news paper shouldn’t be in the business of pursuing anyway). Regardless, this theory of original sin guilt of the past, only makes sense if you follow the central premise that just because a flaw existed in the beginning, that it will therefore be a problem for all time. I don’t.The creators of the 1619 Project aren’t alone. Critical Race Theory perpetuates the notion, arguing that the Anthem of the United States needs to be removed because of an out of context mention of slaves in an all but forgotten second verse. Because it has been branded historically racist, that paints any occurrence of the anthem as “deeply problematic”. Moving on, others have said that the Constitution itself codifies Systemic Racism because it was written by white slave owners. Done. Follow on amendments such as ending slavery and guaranteeing legal rights to all people regardless of skin color simply do not matter. The only context which does matter was the context upon which the foundational document of the United States was written. Many of those men owned slaves, so anything they wrote was white supremacy, and therefore, we live in a racist nation… even if no one can clearly point to the racist people in positions of power, what specifically they have done that was racist, what policies explicitly or implicitly create racist inequality, or which specific parts of which institutions are creating racist outcomes. America was, is, and will always be racist. That’s it.Okay, now that we’ve laid out what systemic racism is, who it affects, and how it is an inescapable and unforgivable burden of guilt on the accused… we need to talk about the hypocrisy.If racism was ever part of the picture in the history of an organization, then it is forever marked by that fact. It can never be anything but an oppressive organization. That's the new rule. We’ve seen that a civil war that was the deadliest in our nation’s history wasn’t enough to pay for the guilt of American slavery. Numerous amendments to the Constitution aren’t either. Civil Rights reforms making laws targeting others didn’t do the job. Now, proving racism is harder than ever before, where we don’t even know what exactly needs to be stricken to somehow make it better. We’re at a point that the sources of racism are so vague that we have to simply look to organizations that existed during times when things were worse than they are today as responsible. It was there at their foundation, so its there for all time. Right?So, where does the hypocrisy come in?Because the people who say these things the most, are Democrats trying to elect Joe Biden as President of the United States.Let’s keep this idea of systemic racism, original sin guilt of America as demonstrated by the 1619 Project, and all the other examples I’ve pointed out, and ask why they don’t apply to some people.In 1977, Biden was a U.S. senator in Delaware. He communicated then that he was against desegregation. One quote now famous among conservatives was that desegregation could result in his children growing up in “a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point.” In 1994, he sponsored a crime bill where-in he called the people it targeted, mostly black men, as “predators”. That legislation, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, Pub.L. 103 — 322, has been explicitly called out by black activists as one of the most demonstrable sources of systemic racism for the way it targeted inner city blacks almost specifically. All that was all before the era of “Joe Biden gaffs” like “poor kids can be just as smart as white kids,” too. Even Kamala Harris, his now running mate, has put him to task on his uncomfortable history of backing actual racist policy makers, and even former members of the KKK.“I also believe — and it’s personal and it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing,” Harris said. “There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school everyday. And that little girl was me.”Taqwa Lee III on Medium explains in “Why We Call Him Jim Crow Joe Biden.”Jim Crow was named after an insulting song lyric regarding American Descendants Of Slavery (ADOS), the laws that existed for about 100 years, from the post-Civil War era until 1968 were meant to return Southern states to an antebellum class structure by marginalizing American Descendants Of Slavery (ADOS). ADOS communities and individuals that defied Jim Crow laws often were murdered or thrown in prison.By the time Joe Biden started his political career his worldview was molded in a time of legalized racial discrimination so he quite naturally wanted to continue the legacy of that American institution of Jim Crow not only by tradition but it helped him and his progeny as well, so he did.From the first time he was elected as a Senator of Delaware in 1973 all the way up to 2009 and still continues to show us that he has never been an ally to Black Americans (ADOS), the only reason Jim Crow Joe is even running for president again, is because people have this perception of ‘uncle joe’ largely because he was Obama’s VP.[7][7][7][7]That sounds very clearly like critical race theory applied in a place it rarely is -- the left.Looking at Biden’s legacy, he has worked as part of the Democratic Party, where blacks have seen a reduction in living standards, harsher conditions, more death from violent crime, increased criminalization, for nearly five decades. These stigmas are most clearly demonstrated in the areas where Democrats have the greatest controls. Conservatives are very quick to point out that when you look to the places where blacks express the greatest resentment about inequality, you find those are far more likely to be devoid of Republican leadership. Look to the recent death of George Floyd. That took place in a city ran by a Democratic police chief, with an all Democrat city council, a Democrat Mayor, in a state with a Democrat governor. And all this has been consistent for decades. But the blame? It always goes to conservative white racism and Donald Trump. But how can that be when conservatives and Republicans are strangely absent from the site of their greatest crimes against humanity? That is the party that Joe Biden has been a leader of for nearly half a century without it getting better for the people it claims to represent the most.Getting off Biden for a while, maybe we should revisit the Democrats and their history, again, keeping in mind the inescapable guilt inherit to arguments of systemic racism.The Democratic party is directly responsible for writing the darkest pages of American history. They began under Andrew Jackson as the party that ordering the exile of the Native Americans. They were the party in defense of slavery, and the party of the Confederacy. They used the Ku Klux Klan as their militant arm to terrorize and repress the black vote during Reconstruction. They were the party of Jim Crow. Later, as “the Progressive party” they were the party of eugenics and then the internment of the Japanese during World War II. And finally, right up until “the Great Switch”, they pushed the hardest against civil rights.Many of those events, such as those relating to the Civil War and black representation, have been framed as owed to “conservatives”. That, however, falls apart when realizing that the Civil War, and all later conflicts resulting around black civil rights were between two different schools of thought, that of “all men are created innately equal in the sight of God” (see Bertrand Russell, a key founder of modern conservative philosophy) and “local sovereignty of the states”. Neither of these are modern progressive ideals, but both are modern conservative values. Simply saying conservativism is “preserving the status quo” is absurd when there exists an entire conservative ideology today that was as much a part of freeing slaves as it was a part of holding them back. So blame conservatism if you like, but just like “Antifa is just an idea”, so is conservatism. But the Democratic party is a real organization and the specific burden of history lies with Democrats.But what about that Great Switch? For those unaware, this was a great enlightenment during the time of Civil Rights, where Democrats today say that everything turned around. The Democrats became the party of justice and equality and the Republicans transformed into the party of racism. Three points are generally given as proof of this switch:In order to compete in the South, Republicans pandered to white racists in the sixties.Angry racist Democrats left their party & joined the Republicans after the Civil Rights act of 1964.This was all part of “the Southern Strategy”, and ever since, the Republicans have dominated the South.These facts are all incorrect.First, it assumes that the Democratic Party could evolve to no longer be racist, but Southerners themselves could not. “You’re from Georgia, and you’re white. Therefore, you’re a racist. Because Science.”Yeah, that’s not how things work. It is how bigotry works, but no other process is involved when looking at the perpetual assumption of racism of anyone born South of Mason Dixon line one hundred and fifty years after its relevance. What actually happened was that, as the South was forced to modernize, the same economic forces that made it stupid to be racist in business in the North then applied to the South. As wealth followed those who embraced blacks both as customers and employees, racism gradually diminished in the South. It’s just really hard to continue being a powerful racist when your competitor down the street is beating you because they aren’t. As racism went away and the economy of the South modernized, a new generation started joining the Republican party for its economic policies. It wasn’t the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Second, angry Democrats leaving their party sounds nice, but in actuality, there was only 1 Democratic Senator who opposed the bill and joined the Republicans. And finally, the belief that ever since, the Republicans have dominated the South ignores the fact that they didn’t hold a majority of Southern seats until 1994. The “Southern Strategy” is what many call this intentional effort to use the South’s racism by the Republicans, and is often said to be “proven” by one staffer in the 1980s who admitted that they did use a Southern Strategy, which those wanting to paint the Republicans as the real party of racism ever since have used ad nauseam. Looking at the actual evolution of the South, one where the world changed and the South changed with it, which Democrats are going to want to admit is possible, the Southern Strategy was to appeal to new values of the South, no longer trapped by an agrarian mode of thinking.In truth, even if a great switch happened, it didn’t happen in 1964, but in the 1920s. Prior to that time, Woodrow Wilson laid the groundwork for some of the most left leaning socialist programs in American history, attempting to solve American problems (for poor whites) through big spending government programs. That is the same Woodrow Wilson, famous for screening the first movie in the White House. That movie, lest it be forgotten, was Birth of a Nation, the Ku Klux Klan recruitment film, popular at the time of the Klan’s history that saw it go from a militant arm of the Democratic party in the South to a mainstream movement across the country. [8][8][8][8]Wilson’s successor was Franklin Roosevelt, who carried on the progressive legacy with the New Deal. The programs of the New Deal were intended to serve as handouts for poor whites, to raise them out of poverty through expensive government works programs and high taxes. This was particularly those still living under the economic consequences of the Civil War. One could call it the actual Southern Strategy. Poor blacks, however, having lived under centuries of actual racial oppression of Jim Crow had very good reasons then for being underserved and underprivileged. As would be naturally expected, they also sought this government relief, as well as voting for the party that wanted more of it. It wasn’t until the 1960s that these programs brought over enough poor blacks, and kept them there, that they comprised a large presence in the Democratic Party. Realizing what they had, the party’s narrative had to follow through. Then the Democrats shifted from a platform of actual white supremacy to one of black patronage, wherein blacks needed the help and patronage of the white race to achieve equal status. It was deeply condescending, but better than the last century.What was a real problem, however was the transactional nature this relationship often took, wherein blacks were given patronage by the new Democrats, but something was expected in return. President Lyndon B. Johnson illustrates that point, rather nicely, according to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin.“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”Another statement, attributed to Ronald M. MacMillan, a former Air Force One steward:“I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for 200 years.”He also called the Civil Rights Act of 1957 the “ni**er bill” to Senatorial colleagues and said of appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court:“Son, when I appoint a ni**er to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ni**er.”So… it seems not all the racist Democrats fled to the Republican Party. At least one stayed on as President. That said, given the “switch” from a supremacist outlook to one of patronage, which in hindsight unironically achieved the same conditions for those involved, it left anyone consistently believing that people should just be free to prosper on their own merit rather than being judged based on the color of their skin suddenly and miraculously going from “for black equality” to “not doing enough for blacks” to “the real white supremacists.”All that to say that the Democratic Party cannot escape it’s own history by passing the blame on to conservatives and Republicans. They can’t suddenly decree that everyone they disagree with are fascists and Nazis to overshadow their own past. And they can’t pretend that suddenly deciding they speak for the downtrodden absolves them from the responsibility of being most responsible of the problems they blame on others.While this answer appears to be a scathing indictment of the Democratic Party and Joe Biden, it actually isn’t.It’s illustrating a point.If many of you believe as you say you say believe, that systemic racism is an inescapable sin, that the consequences of history upon which an institution is founded are to forever define the innate character of that institution and all within it, then the Democratic Party is the most irredeemable institution in all of American history. If reparations for crimes of generations past are to be paid, it is not America’s debt to be paid, but the Democrats. No one should kneel through the American anthem or call the abolition of the police if they have not already lobbied for the banning the Democratic Party, first. If America is a racist country because of it’s founders, or the times in which it was formed, or racist things it has done in the past, and nothing that has happened since matters at all, then what does that make the Democratic party? If America, or the police, white people, modern companies who bought old companies, or anyone else holds a candle of guilt, and that that guilt should burn their reputation forever, then the Democrats are unpardonable inferno.If America can’t be forgiven, then the Democratic Party has no right to exist.And Joe Biden? By the rationale of once a racist; always a racist, then someone who literally began his career pushing the last of the Jim Crow legislation and white supremacy, who pushed criminal law that targeted black “predators”, who says things like “poor kids can be just as smart as white kids”, then that person has no right to lead the party that says that centuries of systemic racism is the cause of so much social harm we face today.But… if you believe as I do, that anyone who sins is worthy of forgiveness, that everyone makes mistakes, or even that people of the past can’t be judged by today’s standards, then there’s hope. Through hard work, sacrifice, and the willingness to do better, one can unburden themselves of the guilt of past wrongs. If you believe these things, then and only then can Joe Biden be your nominee. Likewise, the Democratic Party need not always be the party of slavery, of the KKK, of lynchings, and genocide. Like America, which has suffered greatly to correct its past failures, both through shed blood and the pain of self-reformation, the Democrats can be better, too.“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”Of course, it only works if forgiveness is possible. If we live in a time without forgiveness, where the guilt of people long since dead is used to bludgeon the living and mostly for short term political gain, then Joe Biden’s failures are the failures of everyone who votes for him. All of them are now guilty. Every one of them who votes for him are complicit in the unforgivable crimes of his past and of the party he represents. That’s if you believe as you say you believe.Whether we’re talking about liberals, leftists, progressives, or Democrats, one side continually pushes a narrative that “America was never great.” You can quote New York's Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo on that. Those are his exact words. “America was never great.” This accusation is based on the notion that America is forever guilty of anything wrong that ever happened in its past, and that today’s “good people” have the right to judge others for past wrongs when it is politically advantageous to do so. For some people to say that, it would be one thing. But for anyone of the Democratic party to say such a thing of anyone else ever, is… well, hypocritical is the nicest word to call it. For the people who are the most responsible for the worst events in America’s history to say that America is flawed demands someone to say, “Now wait just a minute.”No. America is great. It was great. It has been great from the start because it put to paper the rights that allowed for the greatest freedom and prosperity available to anyone anywhere in history. Was it perfect? No, and it never will be. But it started off great and continues to get better. In a constant struggle to look inward at places where we have failed to live up to our own ideals, we’ve fought to make ourselves better. Perfect isn’t possible, but a process to perpetually be better is the best anyone could ever hope for. That process, the intentionally designed method of self-renewal and self-accountability, that is perhaps our greatest attribute of all.In closing, I’ll never accept someone who calls themselves a Democrat say that America was never great, that we are a racist nation because of our racist legacy. They are the last people who should ever have the right to say such a thing. If, however, that Democrat were to say to me, “Yeah, we’ve all done some messed up things. My side really has some skeletons in the closet. But I think I have some good ideas and I would like your help,” then I think we can get past this era of intense cross the aisle hatred that seems to be all anyone ever sees.You must have humility and you must have forgiveness, and the rules must be the same for everyone.Either we are all defined by a racist legacy or none of us are. Either you can be redeemed by trying to be better, or you can’t. But you can’t pick and choose who gets forgiveness and who is unworthy based on other political views. That, to me, is the greatest political hypocrisy in America today.Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. - War ElephantFootnotes[1] New Study Says White Police Officers Are Not More Likely To Shoot Minority Suspects[1] New Study Says White Police Officers Are Not More Likely To Shoot Minority Suspects[1] New Study Says White Police Officers Are Not More Likely To Shoot Minority Suspects[1] New Study Says White Police Officers Are Not More Likely To Shoot Minority Suspects[2] Lawsuit Chases Companies Tied to Slavery[2] Lawsuit Chases Companies Tied to Slavery[2] Lawsuit Chases Companies Tied to Slavery[2] Lawsuit Chases Companies Tied to Slavery[3] Wachovia apologizes for ties to slavery[3] Wachovia apologizes for ties to slavery[3] Wachovia apologizes for ties to slavery[3] Wachovia apologizes for ties to slavery[4] New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism[4] New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism[4] New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism[4] New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism[5] American Slavery and ‘the Relentless Unforeseen’[5] American Slavery and ‘the Relentless Unforeseen’[5] American Slavery and ‘the Relentless Unforeseen’[5] American Slavery and ‘the Relentless Unforeseen’[6] Twelve Scholars Critique the 1619 Project and the New York Times Magazine Editor Responds[6] Twelve Scholars Critique the 1619 Project and the New York Times Magazine Editor Responds[6] Twelve Scholars Critique the 1619 Project and the New York Times Magazine Editor Responds[6] Twelve Scholars Critique the 1619 Project and the New York Times Magazine Editor Responds[7] Why We Call Him Jim Crow Joe Biden[7] Why We Call Him Jim Crow Joe Biden[7] Why We Call Him Jim Crow Joe Biden[7] Why We Call Him Jim Crow Joe Biden[8] Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia[8] Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia[8] Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia[8] Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia

When I was there (2010–2015) I think I was certainly in the far right end of the age bell curve. When I looked at the Intern(al) Org Tool, the entire chain, from me all the way to Zuck was one person younger than the one below them. Me (50s), my manager to the top of my org were progressively younger 40s, then 30s, then 20s. That was … weird. I have always worked for people older than myself, since I started working in my teens. I helped startup a company in the 90s and my partners were younger than I, but I've always been an Ops person and it is pretty normal to skew towards experience in those roles.I can recall perhaps only three employees at Facebook that were older than me during my tenure. One was in a technical (hardware engineering role) and really knew his craft. He really balanced out the very young team with a lot of hard-earned knowledge that prevented them from (re)making mistakes that other companies had made in decades past.Another was a project/program manager who also mastered her craft at previous Silly Valley companies and was a joy to work with as she had far better focus than any of her 20/30-something peers. Sadly, she had a hard time keeping managers and seemed to get shuffled often (a common phenomenon at Facebook as teams gel and dissolve at the rate of Petrie dishes in a high school science lab.)The one other person I worked with that was my senior in age had a role that was largely perceived as “ceremonial” …. Basically a title that made for good external appearances. This person, to my astonishment never actually accomplished anything concrete, but somehow managed to accumulate a large staff in a very short amount of time. They successfully performed their ceremonial appearances-driven kabuki theatre with aplomb and polish. I imagine that person, despite their age, is collecting huge bonuses and stock refreshers despite doing little beyond a grandiose puppet show.Overall, what I saw was a company of twenty- and thirty-somethings who thought they were changing the external world, while making the same organizational/internal mistakes you would expect when you let kids run the store, or inmates run the asylum. The company has great technical chops, and have built themselves such a lead in the marketplace that no external threat can derail them. But internally they have a serious problem with immaturity and a lack of professionalism. I imagine Facebook HR, Security, and Legal work overtime to clean up messes that Mr. Wolf would find a significant challenge. I personally witnessed behaviors and actions that would warrant immediate termination in a well-run company that seemingly had no negative impact on the offenders, and conversely minor things that lead to firings. I saw astounding (internal, not external. The latter is taken VERY seriously) privacy violations go unnoticed and unpunished. Plenty of shady ethical behavior, especially conflicts of interest, one of which I reported and had quickly squashed, leading to me completely losing all faith and trust in a vital member of my management hierarchy.Finally the whole outlook of the company is very core to its young demographic, so heavily skewed to the needs of a twenty- thirty-something person. Great gym, food, and parental leave benefits, but crappy retirement plans (until recently no 401k matching) and medical insurance that was wholly inadequate in my experience. I swear I spent more time fighting claim denials than I did in my doctor’s care. Aetna performs more as a default-deny firewall than an actual health plan. (Ironically this will improve as the company grows larger and starts choking on its own size culturally.)It is a great company to work for overall, but certainly not without its flaws. As somebody with decades of experience there were times I found it amusing, almost as much as frustrating. I worked with a lot of brilliant people of all ages, and a few complete douchebags. You'll find that anywhere if you dig hard enough though. As it grows older, the demographics of Facebook’s staff will skew older as well, just as every tech company before it did starting with IBM, through Apple/Microsoft/Sun, and Google.The great thing about age discrimination is it eventually gets back to those who practice it in a very shadenfruede-y way. Too bad I'll be too dead to enjoy it when it happens to Facebook.As to the actual age of the oldest employee? I haven't a clue but early to mid 60s would be my guess. But they are an oddity. A statistical outlier.