kapkomet

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) Ah, jesus, developers vs analysts. Whats next, a DB admin coming in here saying that it wasnt SQL's fault Soxtalk went down? Yup.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 08:15 PM) The simple answer is that you're always going to find more qualified white guys...because the system as it stands is set to churn out qualified white guys, and qualified non-white non-guys aren't the norm in our system. So, what step can we take to fix that? This is where you and I go different paths on this one. On day one of your college, you make your own path. So, I decide to study my ass off and get a 4.0. An asian woman decides to party, she gets a 2.7. I get an internship and kick ass, she does moderately well. SHE decided what she could and could not do, she decided how to spend her time. And yet, she's got an advantage over me because she's an asian woman but I'm more "qualified" because I chose a different path. I know that's not every situation. But, with AA in place, this example strongly benefits a less qualified person to getting a job. This is what differentiates our country, and the advantages we have if people choose to take it. You're going to tell me that a socioeconomic path of an inner city leads to less success. I've experienced this, I didn't grow up with a whole lot, and I went to a pretty racially divided school system with frankly a pretty crappy academic environment. So what makes me "successful", I'm white? I just don't buy it, because that's what opportunity of this country is, IMO. When you begin to push less qualifications it degrades your whole society over time, and we are just starting to get to that shift. Is it there yet? No, but you can start to see it. Edit, you edited your response, . You started to go down where I did, sort of... but ultimately there's enough socioeconomical brainwashing that occurs in inner cities to teach that minorities get more by staying disadvantaged. That's an ugly reality and one that really disappoints me.

That's a good point on people not being able to handle it until they're 25. It's a lot for anyone to handle. The flip side of my "argument" I just said was (and I've always thought this about higher education) - it's to teach you how to learn, not necessarily the subject matter.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 06:36 PM) In a nutshell, it's because education (prior to the about 1900 in this country) was NOT to prepare you for a trade. Prior to the last century the point of education was to prepare men to be good citizens. So, they were instructed in ethics, philosophies, art, history (what we now consider the humanities) in the hopes of preparing the citizenry. If you think about the Liberal Arts (or a Liberal education) you can see the direct descendent of this type of educational philosophy. The belief was that this broad education would allow men (WEALTHY men) to lead effectively. Now, around 1865 or so there was the start of a new trend: land grant colleges. The point of a landgrant college was to educate one and all. (Even today landgrant colleges have guidelines about majors and whom they may admit.) The landgrant colleges often began as teaching schools or trade schools. As time went on they were often enveloped or taken over or joined with more "traditional" universities. They were more career oriented and more science (and around the midwest: agriculturally) minded. So, the reason that "tech schools" are mostly looked down upon is probably because they are new and they are affiliated with less wealthy students/alumni than say Harvard or other private institutions. In fact, if you look at cheap schools (i.e. your state schools) you will usually see them being much more comprehensive and less focused on education for education's sake (more career oriented). (One exception to this would be the rather new Public Liberal Arts colleges represented together as COPLAC.) The more select and expensive the school (in general) the closer the tie to the old philosophy of education as a way to provide a broad general education for creating a moral citizenry. For more on the history you can check out Derek Bok's book about how america's colleges suck ass (not the title, but i can't remember it). QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 06:54 PM) it would be interesting to see a technical school in the US with curriculum as challenging as a good program at a major university. I don't buy genius, I really don't. There are some technical schools out there that teach trades incredibly well. So, here's a thought, a great trade school that teach doctors and nurses vs. 4+4+4 year institutions... when in reality none of it matters until the last 4 years. So, why isn't there a kick butt 4 year doctor school that teaches the technical stuff and then we won't have to have physicians owing $250K right out of school? Machinery and equipment. Liberal arts schools aren't going to teach that. It's how they are branded, and Soxy, you go into that somewhat (interesting read, thanks). Harvard is always going to be the best, even if private money were to fund the best technical school in the world regarding (xyz) trade. I totally disagree with it, but it's where the money and prestige is, so it won't change... unless it gets rebranded. Isn't that what no child left behind (sic) should be about?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 04:59 PM) The problem we've got right now is we're out of the situation where every minority applicant is unqualified...but the inherent disadvantage hasn't been removed, so it sets up the scenario Kap cites here. I think the salary data right now clearly suggests that even with guys like Kap being passed over for positions, no one can argue effectively that we've reached a position of true "equality" in employment/hiring practices. The problem is...no matter what we do, it's totally unfair to someone and it's going to piss some people off. If you get rid of all AA programs, then when an African American gets turned down for a job at some bank or some company by a guy who happens to not like White People, he or she is going to be just as angry as Kap. Or, if the minority applicant just can't get into a top college because he or she didn't go to an exclusive enough high school, same boat. Balta, seriously for a moment, I'm not angry. I'm really not. I understand how the game is played. I've been on the other side of the management table and I've been told that I have to hire certain "qualifications" - and that always meant hire a woman over a man - but then make sure she's not going to get pregnant and leave us... how crappy is that? I think that's a travesty. I absolutely agree with the point you were trying to make about minorities being even more qualfied. Guess what? I want them in my department, in a heartbeat. And it's not because of woman, black, white, purple, gay, whatever... they are QUALIFIED. Is it right, though, that I have to hire a less qualified woman or hispanic or african american then the white guy? Like I said, I've been on both sides of the table. I know all the tricks, games, and crap that goes on out there. And I HATE the regulations telling me what I have to do. THAT makes me angry - I don't get angry when it's me being passed over, because if that manager is bound to that, the company sucks anyway because they're too much into the game playing, whether "mandated" or not.

Alllrighty then.

Be honest - is Sotomayyyyyyyyor or Kagan an "average legal mind"?

QUOTE (Soxy @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 04:28 PM) Genuinely curious: like what? An AA? Technical school? Some other country's model? In the next 30 years the only changes I see are a shift to online schools and more jobs requiring a BA or more. One thing that I have NEVER understood is why a technical school education is not given more consideration and value in our society.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 02:57 PM) And I think mr genius (i think) raises a better point about socioeconomic status being a barrier more than race itself. And bmags (i think) raises a good point about how the education system itself precludes equal access to education in general. What are the educational attainment rates for African Americans? For whites? For latinos? For Asians? For men? For women? I have been thinking about it. But I keep coming back to what you said about how white people (I won't even say men here) have a sense of entitlement. What we have because of AA is (potentially) minorities that are able (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY) to actually COMPETE with white people for jobs. Compete not because they are minorities but because it's illegal to throw their application in the bin (although it still happens). So, if you see more minorities getting jobs maybe it is because we are finally in a place where we view minorities as competetive competent additions to the workforce. Maybe the reason you see more women getting jobs is because we aren't regulated only to be a nurse or teacher (which, btw, was still told to women in the 70s and 80s). So, maybe it's not that white men are being discriminated against--it's that they are no longer being handed jobs simply because they are there and white and dudes. Maybe now they actually have to f***ing compete with people that 50 years ago would have been laughed out of the office. How is AA more expensive? Because of the hiring practices and the extra steps in the process? The way I have seen AA enforced to me it seems more like they check the pool to certify that it's representative and that there wasn't discrimination in the process. I have had this conversation a million times with my dad. He's in construction and was, until recently, unemployed for about 18 months. It was hard, he couldn't get a job for love or for money. Was it because he was a white man? Or was it because he is highly skilled and expensive ($40/hr) and too old to be a good investment for an employer? All of this bulls*** about the "mancession" or whatever. My dad had done well for himself for so long that he thought that was how it would always be. That he would always be able to get a job with healthcare and pension and long term security. Well guess what, it's cheaper to higher someone without experience, without a family and someone who doesn't know his own worth. But it's easier to say that "mexicans are taking his job." Or that white men are being oppressed. No. I'm sorry I don't buy it. Well, to be fair, I did say that in my post a couple back - white guys do think they're entitled, and I don't like that point. For me, it's not that "mexicans are taking the white guy's job", it's that they have positions held for them for one of two reasons: the law makes you, or they're cheaper. I said and I agree that white guys, especially older ones, think that they are entitled to walk up and get crap handed to them. I have NEVER thought that way, I think that the best applicant should get the position. When I just went through my 18 month fiasco, I know for a fact that I was a finalist for two positions that I didn't get the job because I wasn't a minority. I was told that - should I go sue? It's against what I'm about - so I don't - but I know the predetermined minority hiring happens. AA is one of those things that was needed, and in a lot of cases unfortunately still is needed. But my entire point is in any situation like this, you've now changed the mindset to where white guys get passed over just so AA is met, and that is just as discriminatory in practice as the crap that AA is supposed to prevent.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Aug 7, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) Well, I honestly don't know what to say to that. I had a post all written in my head about examples demonstrating otherwise, but meh. I'm too tired and I know that it wouldn't matter. On a lighter note, this must make AA the MUST EFFECTIVE law ever in the history of time. In 20 years it completely undid 200 years worth of f***ery. I'm not saying that minorities are not discriminated against - and of course they shouldn't be. But I am saying that everyone's being discriminated against because everyone's trying so hard to not discriminate. I know that's almost bad logic, but think about it. To bmags's point, so some white kid gets knocked out because a college has to accept a certain amount of minorities, okay... but maybe that asian should have tried a little harder as well so they wouldn't have been accepted over someone who is more qualified just because they're asian. Wrong is wrong. Lost, people get awarded business or do not get awarded business EVERY DAY because X women and X minorities are or are not part of an organization, and the LAW says business can or cannot be awared on this basis. Again, wrong is wrong. My business can do something for half the cost, but let's spend more money because AA laws say so. Hell, you could cut 5% of the government on this alone, which is a trillion of the deficit. I know, though, we can't do that, now can we?

History tells me no, but today tells me yes, because I see it every day. It was needed at one point, now it's blown clear out of proportion and I think today it has put white men at a disadvantage. Now, this also cuts both ways, because white men think they're entitled to more, which bothers me. The job market right now is a pretty good example. This is truely a double edge sword kind of a problem.

Do you all want to seriously argue that all these laws that force quotas (lost, um, yes, they are enforceable) in hiring, wages, what businesses get what, who can marry, etc. are NON discriminatory? REVERSE discrimination is just as bad as discrimination, yet you all want to make it this nice pretty bow and talk about equal rights for all. If you want to marry your partner, your choice. If a purple, yellow, black, gray, woman, trisexual rabbit looking person gets something through hard work and not just simply because the law calls for a purple, yellow, black, gray, woman, trisexual rabbit looking person gets some entitlement, I have no problem with that. Equal rights means equal rights, not just because you think someone / something is discriminated against. Bigotry has no place in our society, yet it gets bigoted more and more every day, and that cuts both ways the more laws that have to be made and put in place.

I'm pretty consistent when it comes to "states rights advocacy", you have to admit that. I think it's a central tenet of the law system we have, whether you all do or not when you want to choose what's best for you.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 02:29 PM) Aside from me and Kap? Okay, that's worth about 100 's.

Hello, speculators.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 01:11 PM) Minorities White men are at a systematic disadvantage. AA-type programs aren't perfect but they're not "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination". The justification is that there's a lot of single mothers out there who can't afford health care for them or their children. It's not fair to punish children for their parents' lack of financial success and if that parent becomes too ill to work, they'll be screwed. Fixed that for you. That's why I have a problem with "discrimination" and its definition. ANYONE is discriminated against depending on what slippery slope you want to go down, and why the 14th amendment is pretty much bastardized to fit whatever social injustice you want to pick today.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 07:36 AM) Here's how it works: Some senators agreed with your interpretation at the time. Others did not. The SCOTUS's interpretation is the one that matters, and this was settled in 1898. So, the clause does not limit naturalization like you would want it to. Your child does have citizenship just because you "spit out a baby in the US". Your interpretation of that clause is simply wrong based on long-standing precedent. What case?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 08:28 PM) When I read the second part I see "in the United States and subject to American laws" The clause is important because to me it technically limits the naturalization (aka, hop plane, spit the baby out, fly back to said country and now you have an American) process. You do not have jurisdiction or the rights of an American citizen just because you spit out a baby in the US. That's my problem with it, and my interpretation of that clause. The whole point of putting it there was because they wanted to ensure that slaves were covered - as they were NATURAL citizens, not because momma came and spit you out just to go back home somewhere else.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 08:27 PM) They'd scream fascism? Over a decision that increases freedoms? I don't recall any of the most ardent gun control advocates saying the recent ruling which removed handgun restrictions was 'fascism'. I don't disagree with your specific point, but pick the word that fits. The larger point here is that federalism has gone WAY too far. It started by what cases the supreme court even chooses to take up. They took up the cases to set the tone for the federal level to define what marriage is, and that's just plain wrong and totally should not be the point in this case. You're not married by the "power vested in xxxxx by the United States of Socialism, er I mean, Amerikkka,", it's the state. And they should be able to define what that is. Explain to me again how that's discriminatory in nature? You discriminate me by trivializing the definition of marriage. Now what? And for the record, I'm not against "gay marriage" even though I totally disagree with it morally, but that is not for me to judge the person/people.

That's there for a reason. And was written there for a reason. I know, only pay attention to the constitution that matters to you. I understand.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 08:21 PM) STATES RIGHTS Go ahead and piss all over it. You're all fine with it until a decision goes against you, and then you'll scream facism. The more control over "local" law a place has, the closer to a constitutional republic you have, which you're obviously against.

AF1 is equipped with modified engines and systems that make it to where it can take off and land on some VERY short runways. And yes, I know something about this since A.) I've worked for an airline that had many different fleet types B.) I work for an airplane parts manufacturer now. The way that plane is designed it can do tons of stuff that other planes can't.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 11:01 AM) I'll never understand how somebody can be against same sex marriage being legal. If you're not gay or morally against it, don't do it! But to want to withhold rights to a group of people because you think it's different or you think it's weird or even due to it being against your beliefs is kind of silly. As a straight person who goes to church, I just don't see how allowing gay people to get married impacts me negatively (or at all, really). My only issue with it is that it is a state issue, not a federal issue. So, let's get this straight, pardon the pun. Straight people are discriminatory no matter what now. 14th amendment isn't the point here, but now it has become one when it should have never been in the first place.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 09:14 PM) All persons born or naturalized in the united states are citizens. Really...there are some vague things in the constitution...That's not one of them. What else does it say? Those words are there for a reason.

It's not an equal protection issue. But court decisions have now made it one with the language on the outcomes. Decisions matter, and this is the web that's been setting up for 25 years now.