StrangeSox

I know what their line of questioning was, and it later gets stated by Kennedy in a way that doesn't sound like it's coming from a teenager who just took their first civics class. They kept asking him to tell them what their quote would be when they know full-well that there cannot be a quota. Should the individual determination of university admissions policies be left up to the SC? Would an answer of "5%" of the student body be ok but "5.1%" is a violation of this middle-of-the-pack applicant's constitutional rights to be rejected anyway, regardless of racial consideration?

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 11:40 AM) That's all fine and well, but it doesn't have this paragraph: "So having failed to work hard enough in high school to get into the University of Texas directly, Fisher was unwilling to do the work to win a transfer slot there. When will white people stop wallowing in their victim status and put some effort into improving themselves, like regular Americans do? It will be a shame if the Supreme Court chooses to reward this kind of dysfunctional identity politics." I just read through the oral arguments for the case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments...ipts/11-345.pdf Scalia and Roberts open up the questioning of the school's lawyer with 7th-grade level questions that show they have no comprehension of racial identity. "How would a 1/4 Hispanic fill out the form? How about 1/8???" :smug: How can we ever know demographics??? Can we even trust the US Census data??????????????? edit: this is an example of why I respect Thomas's view that oral arguments at the SC are mostly just dumb grandstanding and not worth the effort of engaging in.

Maybe at the AP-level that's true, but it doesn't seem that way in daily classroom work (second-hand, my wife is a Language Arts teacher). That goes for their Common Core assessments, too, which has an incredibly vague rubric. btw I think the cancellation and the stated reasons are pretty silly, but so are people who obsess over that sort of stuff.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 12:36 PM) That's a failure of the teacher to explain themselves, not some inherent unfairness in the grading process. I wasn't arguing for some inherent unfairness, I'm not exactly following everywhere sb's going, just saying that even with straight-forward math problems, there's some level of subjectivity that creeps in once you move past the most basic levels. Having to write proofs in geometry (UGH) is a good example.

"Know the solution" to a problem with multiple steps and point values for each step requires some level of interpretation on the grader's part.

Common Core is doing away with "attendance"-type grades and busywork like worksheets.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 12:28 PM) How can a math or science teacher do this when you're given a problem with only one correct answer? Except for english teachers who may or may not like your writing style (and again, that's not the entirety of the grade), who else can be manipulated? Partial credits.

But learning isn't rote memorization of facts or algorithms to solve math problems. Any problem beyond very basic mathematics or "fill in the blank" is going to be subjective and evaluate the student's abilities in multiple ways. Common Core, for all of its faults, gets away from not-exactly-useful testing and evaluation along those simplistic lines. A writing assignment is still going to be subjective, too. Interpretation and application of the grading rubric as well as any quality assessment is going to vary for every individual grader.

Thog: But they make fun women's basketball. Femputer: What? Did you explain how the women's good fundamentals make up for their inability to dunk? Ornik: Yes. They still laugh. Femputer: The men must die.

Not sure you should be letting the US off the hook there, the State and Defense departments were really s***ty when it came to doing anything about the plight of the Jews. Treasury had to work as hard as they possibly could to get them to do anything, and even then, they couldn't be bothered to bomb the rail tracks leading into Auschwitz as they flew over the camp towards another target.

there's a whole niche field of people examining just how effectively reactionary conservatives have co-opted leftist rhetoric over the decades. edit: agreed that the gawker article is better

I linked this similar-but-less-caustic article yesterday: QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 08:19 PM) The affirmative action case from Texas is going to be in front of the SC soon. Important to note that the plaintiff really wasn't impacted by affirmative action. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/20...ty-texas/63247/ This court seems likely to strike down Affirmative Action and, possibly, any policies that consider race with it as now and forever unconstitutional, and they'll probably gut the VRA, too. What a legacy.

He's good for this, too:

Bears players can live off of media exposure for the rest of their lives. If Brian wants money, he'll be back in Chicago doing endorsements and interviews pretty quickly.

Brian's burning bridges. Why would a new coaching staff want that attitude in the locker room?

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) Urlacher was a much better player years 4 and on (especially starting 2004), however, my favorite years were his first two. He was running around solely off of athleticism and instinct. And the plays he made were insane (though often out of position). Him chasing down some of the fastest players in the league, cutting off passing lanes, and coming out of nowhere for sacks. He was so much fun for his career. But also there was that awful period where he was dating paris hilton and kind of sucked.

Cable News is Terrible Good time to post The Daily Show's segment on investigative journalism, focusing on CNN The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 08:03 AM) I agree with this, oddly. Yes, I know Urlacher sucks. But on passing downs he still had pretty decent value. If we had anything resembling a second linebacker beyond Briggs I could give a s*** - but we don't. His biggest liability was on passing downs?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 07:52 AM) Urlacher's quotes were pretty brutal. "Two million isn't enough to put my body through an NFL season" - but 3.5 is? It is what it is, and it made the Bears' choice easier. I don't get why this thread can show Urlacher no appreciation for 13 years of mostly awesome football, though. Urlacher was the face of the franchise for 13 years, a dominate force on the field and a lock for the Hall of Fame. But he didn't have it anymore and he didn't really have a place on this team. New coaching staff, new GM, time for a fresh start.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 12:55 AM) We don't even know if Urlacher can run at this point. Just because you know where you should be doesn't mean you can get there. See last season. So he was indeed out of position many times. Just because you don't know what the solution is doesn't mean you stick with a current problem. He was a liability last year. It will be hard not to upgrade at mlb.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) This is literally become the dumbest argument ever. hi, welcome to the internet

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:50 PM) I'm sure we can create a factual scenario that would stretch the bounds of the Illinois law that I saw. But if they're just posting that on facebook or twitter (and apologized for it) then no I don't think that would be reasonable to fear that. Like I said, if they showed up at her door in addition to sending it out? Cornered her at school? Sure, that I could see being a reasonable apprehension of fear of imminent peril. the ohio law you posted doesn't contain that phrase. It seems to me, based on the name of the charge and the wording, that the intention was to cover threats that weren't necessarily imminent.

I'm sort of at a loss how hypothetical juror jenks couldn't find it reasonable that this rape victim at the center of a national story who's been the target of a lot of animosity (as rape victims usually are!) could feel legitimately threatened when girls from her town related to her attackers send her a threatening message.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:46 PM) http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.21 (A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family. Sounds a lot like Illinois' assault law, but Penn is a different state with different precedent so maybe it works there. It's OHIO. But it seems like a blatantly clear violation. They told her they were going to harm her. They have a reason to be mad at her, they know her, they live in the same town. Seems like they very clearly knowingly caused the victim to believe that the offenders were going to cause serious physical harm. Do you think that law is unconstitutional?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) Well we're having the discussion, but this is pretty basic criminal law from what I read in those cases. Words are not enough. Period. You're citing Illinois law for assault. These girls were charged in Ohio under a different sort of law.