jackie hayes

QUOTE (JFields27 @ May 29, 2008 -> 12:15 PM) I was just saying how I would trust Collins a lot more with the decision of Rose or Beasely over a young guy, I am sure he could make the pick but he would get a lot of pressure. This way people arent going to question Collins as much, and I think he'll make the right pick, hopefully Rose. But what I'm saying is, Collins is not making the pick. Paxson said it would be his (Paxson's) choice, and that the coach he hires would not have any influence over the pick. (Which makes sense -- with a team that's in the middle of a big transition, you have no idea who the coach'll be in a few years, so you don't want to take a guy who just fits some system better, you want the best player, period.)

QUOTE (JFields27 @ May 29, 2008 -> 12:04 PM) when i said "good signing" i was referring to Collins I know, I meant where you said he is "a guy we can trust to make a good pick". I assumed you meant the draft pick, and I don't think he'll have much input on that. If you meant something else, my bad. (But in that case, I'm still not sure what kind of a "pick" you meant.)

QUOTE (JFields27 @ May 29, 2008 -> 10:56 AM) Yeah it comes down to who will be the young assistant they hire to take over has Head Coach. It wont be Bostons Thibodeau but its a good signing a guy we can trust to make a good pick and make the right cuts to clean up the team Paxson's said that the coach will have almost no impact on the pick, and while that might be just posturing in some cases, considering where the Bulls are at, I believe him.

I thought I read that she went after someone's pit crew, not a driver -- but I very well could have read it wrong. Anyway, as for what a guy should do -- I sort of agree with juddling. If she pushes someone and gets pushed back, fine. If she throws a punch, she better be ready to take one. If it were me, I'd probably try to stay one level below. If a girl pushes me, I'd try to restrain her, maybe push back, but not too hard. If a girl threw a punch, I'd try to push her to the ground. But when we're talking about professional athletes, I wouldn't blame a guy who matches whatever she throws at him. And if it were actually Danica, I'd try to turn it into a wrestling match...

I did not see that coming. So the plan is for Rose to become a star in 2 or 3 years, and fire Collins then?

Oh, man... This guy just dropped Erik Bedard. That's so frustrating, when someone drops a guy you'd love to trade for. And there's no damn chance I get him, especially since I just grabbed Kershaw off waivers. Fiddlesticks!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 28, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) Enforced loneliness? If you move to a community, or a country, where the dominant language isn't one you know... you can learn it if you make the effort. Or, you can choose loneliness. But here in this case, we have a community who speaks majority Spanish, in a county/state/country that is majority English. So it goes beyond just that. A choice has to be made about how to bridge the gap, or whether to bridge it at all. Any path you take will have costs and issues - but IMO, the path of English will cause the fewest problems in the long run, for government purposes. Or...you can move to a community where the dominant language is the one you know, within the country that has a different dominant language. I don't see how simply demanding that hundreds, maybe thousands of people do something quite difficult involves fewer problems or lower costs than making available one person with the ability to translate. More generally, you have a community that is "overwhelmingly" Spanish-speaking. Instead of asking the government to serve its community -- an idea that strikes me as being more fundamentally American than the English language -- you're asking the community to serve the government. That (and the impracticality) is what bothers me about your position, not anything about "culture".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 28, 2008 -> 11:13 AM) I don't think you can look at this issue in a community-level vacuum. The reality nowadays is that people are more transient, and get around a lot more. I'd bet that in that county, and that state, English is far and away the primary language. If communities start cobbling together different primary languages as an expectation of base communication, that will start to add enormous costs and problems to businesses all over the country. But the statement was that Tex would learn Spanish adequately because he was surrounded with it. If he moved to an area with a large English-speaking community, went to bars that beamed English-language broadcasts on the tvs, and had access to English-language newspapers at the Siete-Once every morning, I don't see how he would be surrounded by Spanish, at all. No little once-weekly English (or Spanish) class is going to overcome that. We can criticize people for living in such a community, but asking people to live in enforced loneliness is something I could never honestly demand of anyone.

In that sense, it doesn't bother me at all. They are playing by the same tax rules as every American, so I don't see what the issue is. Those that own a home pay property taxes, and those who work pay income taxes. Same as everyone else.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 28, 2008 -> 11:00 AM) The solution is them making an effort to fit into the society they have chosen to live in and learn enough of the language to get by. You don't have to be university educated to pick up enough to survive. You had difficulty learning Spanish. If you decided to actually live there, surrounded by it all day, you would learn it, or at least enough to get by. Huh? The society they are surrounded by uses Spanish "overwhelmingly", according to the article. It is a much bigger challenge than you are letting on. I've known people who took such courses, and really they still can't function without a translator. Languages are very tough to pick up as an adult.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 27, 2008 -> 10:47 PM) Can police be next? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...ilingual26.html Again, why aren't these people learning English? Since they are called 'permananet' residents there, they are not migratory. They live here, do not pay taxes, use government services, and then need special treatment also? Not right. I'm almost certain permanent residents pay taxes.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 26, 2008 -> 04:39 PM) They changes their logo to honor the 50th anniversary of Sputnik! They did it to honor Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's birthday! On April 20 (420) they changed it to some sort of trippy-looking artwork. They have done MLK day and even Halloween. Last year after some bloggers made a stink about it, they did Veterans Day. This just seems like a curious omission. Sure, but that doesn't mean they think those are more important days. They are interesting & less well-known, which make the graphic surprising. They aren't saying that Doyle is more important than soldiers who gave their lives for the US, any more than they're saying he's more important than US workers. It's just a little, Hey, isn't this cool? They don't line up the days by importance and take the top 20, 30, whatever. They pick some very strange ones to 'celebrate' just for the whimsy of it. It makes the whole idea more fun.

They also don't have Labor Day logos, so they hate workers, too. As much as you might not like the answer, it's probably just an attempt to maintain variety. They regularly change logos for only a handful of holidays (Thanksgiving, Halloween, July 4th, MLK's birth, Earth Day -- not Arbor Day -- some others). Then they do it occasionally for random holidays and other events. They probably figure Independence Day is the big one, Memorial Day is too close. It becomes trite and unsurprising if you do it for everything. I wouldn't take it as a political statement or political cowering. Note that they did use a special logo for Veteran's Day in November.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 11:55 PM) No Im not insulting anyone, Im saying that the info you are spewing is along the lines of something you would learn in a political science class. Who said I was a conservative anyway. Theres something to be said about irony when someone goes on a tangent about how much smarter they are and more education theyve received and you go to the point of correcting word usage and then you start a sentence with And. If anyone reads through this thread they will see that your first contribution was blatant sarcasm with no merit, which as I posted was supposed to be out of bounds in the buster. That didnt stop you from continuing with the juvenile tactics and eventual insults and threats. To which finally I responded. Over the course of the thread I tried to use articles, examples and clear points to explain my stance and all I get is BS from you. You complain about liberal stereotypes but you use conservative stereotypes. You skipped over everything I said to explain myself just to try and discredit my points. You twisted my statements around to try and make me look like I was saying things that could be viewed as bigotry. Time and time again I TRIED to stick to the point of the thread and say that I dont think the situation was fair because by definition its discrimination. Then I get an answer like, well its a private company so they can fire whoever they want. Theres no real way to respond to that because its painfully obvious you dont understand whats being discussed. Private company or not, you are not allowed to discriminate in the work place and language discrimination is illegal. Yes, even in private companies. So I post why its illegal, show an exact copy of the law and definition and then explain that it isnt fair when its overlooked because the tables were turned on someone not speaking Spanish. Thats it, thats my whole point. If language discrimination is being enforced, than it should apply to everyone including people that only speak English. Im not even sure if you agree or disagree with that because you werent even in the realm of the topic. So as I try to explain why I feel a certain way about it I get called the tongue in cheek term "ghey." I have my intelligence and education questioned. I get threatened, over a message board ) Now, if I were the one to start the nonsense you did in this thread Im sure I would hear about it from a mod because even your first post violated the rules we were supposed to agree to. Since it was being tolerated for a few days I get goated into a pissing contest with you, which is over because there isnt a thing in the world I would want to do less than have someone hide behind a cpu and tell me to "watch out who I talk down to." So congratulations, you win, youre smarter, better, more educated and whatever else you want to throw in there... My first post in this thread: QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 21, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) Why not require the firefighters to speak English? Presumably because you need 20x as many, so you can't pick and choose as much as you would in an ideal world. If that's the case, having supervisors who speak Spanish becomes a critical issue in terms of job performance and safety, so I wouldn't really have a problem with this. You can be as shrill as you like. I haven't once threatened you, I only mentioned education after you tried to belittle me with your ridiculous, repeated "community college" comments, and all I did was state a fact. You wanted to make my education an issue, not me. And save your boo hoo, poor me routine. The only one goading here is you.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 09:51 PM) --Couching an insulting statement, i.e. "if you think/do X, you must be an idiot". This is the same thing as calling someone and idiot, and is not OK. --Baiting or pushing people over the line, i.e. posting the same silly request repeatedly, as if they didn't hear you the first time. --The use of ridiculous hyperbolic statements that are so far over the top, that no resonable response of discussion can follow them. --Sarcasm as a way of insulting other posters, like saying "oh yes, because so-and-so knows everything, we must bow to his wisdom!!!!11!1!1!!" --Making threatening or questionable statements about elected officials or others in the public eye, i.e. "someone needs to assasinate that SOB" I guess this stuff only applies when someone who sees it disagrees with who is saying it. You're just throwing s*** to see if something sticks. Seriously, threatening public figures? Are you f***ing kidding?

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 09:46 PM) Is it too early for nominess for post of the year? Thread title: Firefighters Being Fired For Not Speaking Spanish Quote: As for your mewling about English being the "unofficial language", it has nothing to do with anything that's been discussed. So...that's nice? Key word is "unofficial". If someone reads the discussion, they'll understand pretty clearly what I mean.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 09:43 PM) An insult and a threat in one post not bad. English doesnt have anything to do with a thread about people losing their jobs for not speaking spanish? I think you have this thread confused with your discussions about Oprahs book club. So you and your community college cronies can continue fighting the good fight one rainbow at a time. Im assuming the substance you were looking for was something like you calling me gay, saying you are more educated than me, telling me to stfu or calling me insensitive for not caring about your feminist rally but just know...you have reached one person at least. I now realize that its ok to fire people because they dont speak spanish because its cheaper and safer. No threat. Merely pointing out that you might want to be careful who you talk down to. It's hard to discuss anything with true conservatives. For many reasons, but most of all, because they can't read. "Ghey" is not "gay", it's a common tongue-in-cheek phrase. If you don't know it, look it up. And I am more educated than you, for what that's worth -- you are the one insulting community college kids, when, personally, I've met some math whizzes there. And, yeah, I think you should stfu when you're drawing on your inane liberal stereotypes. If they were original, fine, but as it is...nah.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 09:03 PM) In response to the bold are you being serious? As Ive said THE WHOLE TIME, language discrimination IS illegal but they overlook it when its against the demographic Im talking about. That doesnt mean its not illegal does it? That just means its tolerated to much because you Paris Hilton and P Diddy are busy burning flags for the little guy. No, you said "There are no discrimination laws...", you didn't say they weren't enforced. I mean, f***, when I quote your EXACT WORDS, you still deny it. Now, "Paris Hilton and P Diddy"? You claim I watch too much MTV?

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 08:59 PM) Ive tried to avoid having to use this because I know its very hard to defend, and believe it or not I do put thought into things I stand up for or that Im against. But seriously, the unofficial language of this country is English, I know it, you know it and everyone else knows it. In this country, if you speak English, you should never be fired because of communication issues involving language. Signs are in English, Emergency broadcasts are in English. Now you can go ahead and say that it isnt the official language, Im sure its coming which is why I didnt bring it up till now but it would only be a poor argument chip because if you say that you dont think English is the national language here you are either severely naive or lying. Someone has to walk you through this because what your saying is ridiculous, Im actually embarrassed for you if you think what youre saying makes any sense. Just because you avoid anything that you cant answer and keep eluding to non-issues doesnt mean youre proving anything. Bottom line, you saw the definition of language discrimination. What happened is language discrimination. just because 'private companies" hire them doesnt mean they are pardoned from obeying discrimination laws. We can go through the process of elimination to figure out where you get your facts...you say it wasnt MTV. That leaves a semester of poly sci at community college or off a pamphlet from a feminist rally. I'm a dude, so I'm not exactly familiar with feminist rallies. And I guarantee I have a better education than you. That said, I've known many people who went only to community college, or had no college, and the vast majority of them could distinguish "elude" from "allude", so I'd think twice the next time you think about talking down to people. You said absolutely nothing substantive in this post, so there's really nothing to respond to. As for your mewling about English being the "unofficial language", it has nothing to do with anything that's been discussed. So...that's nice?

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 08:25 PM) If the law was enforced both ways it wouldnt be bad but its not and thats the problem that I have with it. It says in black and white what language discrimination is and this case is a perfect example of it. However, because the language is Spanish and not English its ok? If the law worked both ways I would have no problem with it but it doesnt. You jump around from point to point because every circumstance you use contradicts something you said earlier. First its safety, than its cost. Well which is it? What makes this fair? I hate to break it to you but English is the predominant language in this country and should suffice any job. Than you try and manipulate things that I say and twist them around in another poor attempt at validating yourself. Find where I said its only OK to fire people that dont speak English and not Spanish. You use it as a point over and over so please show me where I said that. All I said is that if there are going to be laws protecting people from discrimination than they should work all the way around and not stop at the minority because you and MTV say so. Substitute Spanish for English. So not speaking Spanish because your native language (from that small country called the U.S.) is English so you are treated differently makes you a victim of discrimination. This means that it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their national origin. Even if it is that third world sewer the U.S. This says, having exclusive language policies are illegal unless: it is a business necessity (to save you, Spanish wasnt a business necessity in this case, it was a choice) the employer notifies the employees and tells them they are required to abide by them (obviously not the case here either) So let me grab your hand and stroll you through this: We figured out what language discrimination is: Since the English speakers were treated differently because of their national origin they were discriminated against then we learned about discrimination laws and how they apply to this case: the English speakers were treated differently because their nation of origin had a different language than the employer wanted...thus, being illegal because... ...Spanish is not a NECESSITY for firefighters (I googled elementary debate tactics so I already know youre going to try and say that Spanish was in fact a necessity, and you will be wrong so save it) This brings us to the grand finale. Firing people because they dont speak spanish when it is not a necessity is in fact discrimination, and is in fact illegal, and is in fact being overlooked because drumrolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll There are no discrimination laws protecting straight, white, english speaking men between the ages of 18 -59. You say something is "illegal", then say there are no laws against it. And you claim to be promoting English. Alrighty, then. Spanish is not a necessity. English is not a necessity. Agreement of languages IS a necessity. In that situation, the firm is free to choose whatever course they find preferable that fulfills the requirement. If someone were fired because his boss just dislikes non-Spanish speakers, that would be illegal. If, however, a particular person were fired because someone(s) has to be fired and firing him is the most efficient way for the firm to meet the legal requirement, that would not be illegal. You keep saying, Spanish was not a necessity! Spanish was not a necessity! At least I do know you're a Chicagoan, because you graduated from the Daley School Of Debate -- scream something loud enough and long enough, and you'll win. But the "business necessity" is agreement of the languages (do you disagree that this is a "business necessity"?), which can't be accomplished if the supervisors can't communicate with their crews. Now, the bolded part. Maybe that would be, oh, I dunno: QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) Do you not think that in this country if a situation arises like this that 100/100 times the English speakers should keep their jobs? You set up a choice between the two, then you say that the English (which I assume means non-Spanish -- since speaking English does not really preclude speaking Spanish -- but anyway) speaker "should" keep his job -- always. Finally, f***, man, I haven't ever watched MTV. I didn't even have it growing up, even though all my friends did. (That SUCKED when Michael Jackson was big, I will say.) I sure as f*** don't watch it now. So, one, don't tell me where the f*** I'm getting my ideas from. I haven't classified you as drooling, slack-jawed, Rush-worshipping hick, so why don't you save your f***ed-up stereotypes of liberals for someone else? And, two, if you're going to do the 'hand-holding' bit, which is pretty ghey (message board "ghey" -- totally different than "gay", of course), you could at least address what I actually argued instead of just repeating the hackneyed s*** you just regurgitated for the millionth time. Address what I actually say, or stfu.

QUOTE (3E8 @ May 24, 2008 -> 07:43 PM) I suggest chili. It is nearly impossible to screw up, cheap to make, delicious/filling, and will last you a few meals. Just sweat the vegetables you like (I use onion, bell peppers, jalepenos) in a huge pot with some oil, then throw in the ground beef and brown that, and finally toss in a couple big cans of whole tomatoes which you have already crushed. Along the way you can/should add spices to make it your own like cinnamon, beer, garlic, chocolate, cilantro etc. Bring everything to a boil and simmer for an hour or so, then pour yourself a bowl and top with shredded cheese That. (Although you really should have some cumin for chili...)

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 05:20 PM) When the application, training information and tests for a profession are in English that is the language that is expected to be used. The reason why its wrong is because its discrimination. I posted that article talking about how companies are no longer protected from law suits if they try to fire someone that doesnt speak english. All things being fair, do you think that any company should be allowed to fire employees if they dont speak English? If its OK to fire people for not speaking Spanish than it should be OK to fire them for not speaking English but Nancy Pelosi is making a s*** about that not being fair. Which brings me back to my original point, when it becomes ok to fire people that dont speak English than something like would be more acceptable, but its not because its DISCRIMINATION. Also, I love the logic of using safety as a guideline and then jumping immediately to saying that they should do it because its cheaper. Maybe when these CHEAP non-English speaking fireman are in a situation where they have to communicate with civilians that dont speak Spanish and someones safety is compromised than youll realize cheap labor might not be the best idea for all jobs. You say it's wrong because it's discrimination. But if you define it that way and object to any such firing, you must say either that the law is bad or that discrimination is okay for other people (non-English speakers), just not non-Spanish speakers. So morality's applicability to you depends on the language you use, which strikes me as a sick morality, but you're clearly an authority on such things. You then rant about something else you posted, which has nothing to do with anything I've said, but you're on your own personal crusade, so you go girl. Then you talk about civilians, which is odd, given that these are forestry firefighters. But since you don't want anyone to be required to know Spanish, I guess it would be just dandy with you if non-Spanish speaking city firefighters were unable to help Spanish speaking civilians in the same way. I mean, requiring Spanish language skills would be discrimination! Better to let those people burn to a cinder, right? Do not bring up the SA case again. The whole point of that is that it was NOT job-related, and I've consistently said that language requirements are just fine when they are job-related. Either address the argument I ACTUALLY MADE or don't bother, but don't go off on these ridiculous tangents.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 24, 2008 -> 05:19 PM) Gordon's problem is that he isn't set up to be a number one scoring option. He's not great at creating his own shot. The Bulls offense was at its best in 06-07 when they had the ball moving around like crazy, because no one was really good at creating shots for anyone else, so Skiles's offense played in to that and created open looks by moving the ball around more. We saw the occasional game where Deng or Gordon would get hot and start creating, but when that wasn't happening and the ball wasn't moving was when they struggled. But, IMO, if you stick Gordon in as a number 2 option...where even if he's off with the jumper, you have someone else, say a driving and slashing point guard who can push the lane and break down a defense, creating open looks for Gordon, you might see him as a lot more effective. When he's your number one scoring option, you're in trouble. When he's your number 2, you're in much better shape. Gordon, btw, is to my eyes the big reason people have wanted "a low post threat" the last few years, because a solid low post threat would have done exactly that, given us someone who could create open looks for Gordon on the outside. I think better slashing and driving PG play will do so even better in this league, which is why I lean to rose. You're right, those things would make him more dangerous. But I'd add a few more problems, like his lack of size, his terrible defense, his even worse ball handling. (I cringe every time he handles the point.) He's a useful player, he can do some ridiculous things. But, man, paying him $10+ mil a year for 5 years plus scares me. Having your off-the-bench shooter making core group money doesn't help the cap situation, even though he is one of the best off-the-bench shooters.

I can't say I'd be heartbroken if Gordon is dealt at some point.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 24, 2008 -> 03:46 PM) Spanish isnt s skill that theyre lacking and isnt required of them to do their job. Nobody should have to learn a different language because foreigners are coming here and cant conform. The application is in English and the test is in English so why would someone think they would have to learn another language in a country where English is the norm. So youre saying that it would be fair if I went to a country that didnt speak English and became a fireman, and there were only a handful of people that spoke English and since we coulnt communicate with anyone else that they should fire everyone except us? No other countries do anything this stupid and theres a reason for it. Nobody that lives in the US should have to learn a second language for a job to conform to people that havent learned English. Also, firefighters arent private companies so this isnt a situation like that. Also, if you dont know what the f*** the job description says than how about not using it as an example to prove a point. I showed you what it said and it was nothing about having to learn Spanish. *to save you, the state is still responsible for whoever any private company chooses to hire and they still have to meet the states requirements. What is so hard to understand here? The state sets a basic safety requirement that nobody in his right mind could object to. It leaves it up to contracted (private) companies to implement that requirement as they see fit. So "firefighters arent private companies" is just flat wrong, whatever disclaimers you put after it. Spanish is a skill and anyone who would be fired (again, I don't know if anyone has or hasn't been) is lacking that skill. So that's wrong, too. And it is required for their jobs, because the crews speak Spanish and they must have the ability to communicate with them. You will say that it is not required, they could just fire all the non-English speakers. Okay, then you could use the same logic to argue that the non-English speakers can not be fired, since they could just fire all the non-Spanish speakers. One side has to lose. You simply assume that it has to be the non-English speakers. Why that is, I don't know. If you want to explain your moral theory of language, go right ahead. I won't care, but feel free. Personally, if someone can do the job, I don't care if they speak Aramaic or Pig Latin. If hiring firefighters who speak English is considerably more expensive (which I'd guess is the case here), I'd hire (legal) non-English speakers, too. And I'd sleep damn well, thank you very much.