StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) People have flipped once they got into power. Romney seems like a guy who will put anything next to his name if he thinks it will get him further in his career. Part of me thinks the only reason he went Republican to start is that it gave him a chance to put his name in lights against Kennedy, where as if he was a Democrat he just would have been another guy. Im not overly concerned, I also dont have any real role in what happens. My state will go Obama, so my vote in essence is meaningless He grew up as the son of a prominent Republican politician and went on to become a wealthy financier. While I agree that he's willing to claim any stance to get ahead, I don't think being a Republican was one of those choices. The man has convictions that he lets slip out every now and then, he's just willing to claim they're something else publicly. Which is part of why he's so dangerous. If he's willing to sign on to whatever nutball idea the GOP comes up with next, it could be disastrous.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:23 AM) Here is the problem, and it was in edited into my post: * The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race". * The U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race." * This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. In addition, both the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Conference include representatives of both Spanish and Portuguese descent. The U.S. government pretty much agrees with me that the definition of "Hispanic" isn't what it once was and it's now a very general term...much like you pointed out with the word Asian. Edit: And we agree, it doesn't excuse racism toward others, at least, not in my opinion. But society, in general, tends to let people get away with it. Well indigenous non-Hispanics are pretty small and impoverished minorities, so it's not surprising that they get lumped into broad categories. Technically it's not correct.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) Ill be voting for Obama, but Romney would probably be okay too. Really doesnt matter to me as Romney is a businessman so I assume he understands how to put all of the social aspects of the Republican party to the background and focus on what really matters. Who knows. Romney may not focus on the social issues himself, but he won't do anything to stand in the way of a GOP-controlled House and Senate. Plus potential SCOTUS appointments, and the court already has a bunch of young, hard-right conservatives.

This is one of the two major parties in our country. WTF is wrong with us.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 3, 2012 -> 09:48 AM) You're purposefully being overly technical and while that may be correct (on that technical but not universally accepted basis), you are also ignoring the fact that over the years that the word Hispanic has become a very generalized term, much like "Latino", often used to avoid mistaking a Mexican for a puerto rican, etc...which they tend to get REALLY offended by. Definition of Hispanic: Adjective: Of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, esp. those of Latin America. Noun: A Spanish-speaking person living in the US, esp. one of Latin American descent. Mexicans speak a dialect of Spanish. Also note that the word "Latin American" is used, also known as "Latino", which is also a generalized term. I maintain that while I don't agree with it, what I said IS widely accepted by society, whether it's right or not. It IS accepted that if a Hispanic rags on Mexicans, it's okay. There are numerous examples of very popular stand up acts that show it. I'd love to see you go on stage and perform Chris Rock's "n****s vs Black People" routine. Meanwhile, Chris Rock did it and people laughed. Hispanic refers to an ethnic background that is not shared by indigenous people in majority-Hispanic countries. Given its wide-spread nature and how it is the result of centuries-long mixing of multiple ethnic blood lines, Hispanic is more akin to Asian than to a nationality like Mexican. Being Hispanic doesn't excuse racism towards Mexicans any more than being Asian would excuse a Chinese person's racist statements about Japanese people. Hell, even being Mexican doesn't really excuse racist statements against Mexicans. Comedy and satire like Chris Rock is distinctly different from an American of Hispanic dissent making broad condemnations of Mexicans. edit: Charles Mann's 1493 has an interesting section that examines how obsessed with categorizing all the different ethnic breeding possibilities. edit2: the wiki on indigenous peoples of Mexico. Yes, this is a pedantic quibble.

I think he's legitimately confused as to what you are talking about because your reply to him didn't make a whole lot of sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) Well obviously. She's a Democrat and that means she gets the "Not a racist" for life card. There are plenty of racist Democrats.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ May 3, 2012 -> 09:19 AM) I was just about to post this... I'd be surprised if their contracts limited any sort of physical activity like that in the offseason. You'd want them exercising and staying in top shape. It'd be different if he was playing professionally, but even then, you've had Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders in the past. I know CJ Wilson races cars (non-professionally) in the off-season, and many athletes get involved in charity sporting events.

TNC says this better than I could: I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with. The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic. This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters. That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis.

I'm part-potato-eating Mc myself so it's ok!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 3, 2012 -> 08:49 AM) Lastly, to answer someone elses question, not all Hispanics are Mexican, but all Mexicans are Hispanics. False. Though their numbers are low, there are indigenous non-Hispanic populations in Mexico and throughout the rest of the Americas. You can also contrast the silly idea that it's not racial profiling because "it's just one Hispanic dude ragging on Mexicans, fellow Hispanics!" with the treatment of those potato-eating Mc's stealing all the good protestant man's jobs.

The One-Drop Rule

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ May 2, 2012 -> 09:03 PM) Meh. I'm not a race obsessed lefty so I wouldn't know. I take this as an admission that your ideology leaves you blind to any racial issues. You made the claim that it isn't racial profiling.how did you conclude that.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ May 2, 2012 -> 06:13 PM) Racial profiling? Nah. He's Hispanic, and he's making fun of other Hispanics for acting thuggish. It's more immature than anything else. I know those guys who post statuses with "txt" type and a bajillion exclamation points. They're annoying. I tend to defriend them. how is it not racial profiling? "hispanic" is not a homogenous group.

Chuck Assay is literally the worst cartoonist in the world.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) Jenks, I agree that football is inherently violent. I just believe that if the NFL purposefully lied to players about the risks they may be entitled to some sort of compensation. My main statement was that the NFL should get their act together and start being proactive, because ex-NFL players killing themselves isnt good regardless of the cause. Exactly. You can't argue informed consent if one party is deliberately withholding or distorting vital info.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:41 PM) No one here is going to sit here and say that "Brain injuries are the only cause of depression and suicide", but the original statement was the opposite, that these guys having their brains turned to mush has no impact. I'm 100% in agreement with you so far in this thread?

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) I think sometimes just the star treatment and being forgotten after your career is a bigger factor than concussions especially with the ego's athletes in general tend to have... Are concussions a factor, maybe but imo the type of people these people or are have become thanks to being a pro athlete are the reasons. Do other celebrities face similar rates of depression? Eg nba players? Seems like an ready comparison that wouldn't make it past peer review if celebrity status was a likely factor. Everyday people face a whole host of issues as well. Actual clinical depression is more involved than being bummed out that your spouse left you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:15 PM) I thought you were too? And I don't, but millions of people suffer from depression and don't off themselves. To me concussions create a condition. They're not specifically the cause. Something pushed these people over the edge. End of the day I don't really care one way or the other. I think this entire story is sad, but it's not changing my views of football. As i've said before, these guys get paid more money in a couple of years than i'll every make in my lifetime. It's an inherently dangerous game. To sue the NFL over this stuff is dumb. I'm an engineer. Right now we are discussing the increased risk of depression, not just suicide. I don't believe depression and suicide are that simple, either, with something pushing someone over the edge. There is a large physiological component.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:53 PM) I love how the scientists often stick together on this site. Anyhoo, I agree with Steve. Are the concussions a factor? Sure. But so is your wife leaving you and taking your kids away. I think Balta's the only scientist itt. Spouses leave people and take their children in the control population, too. That's the point of trying to isolate variables. What reason do you have to conclude that concussions (read: brain injuries) aren't a significant risk factor for depression?:

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:02 PM) And I would say Obama wasted resources. Ok, but whether or not you agree with their policies doesn't mean that it was inaccurate to say Bush didn't give a s***.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) I just am not super impressed with Bin Laden. I dont think he was some sort of mastermind who was irreplaceable. If anything (imo) he was a complete failure. He had tons of money, tons of support and at the end of the day his greatest achievement was the twin towers? Im pretty sure I could get that type of death toll with considerably less funding. All it really took was convincing a handful of people to die for their cause and taking advantage of system where you were instructed to not confront a terrorist and to placate them. Well, he also got his enemies to get involved in a couple 10+ years wars and expend a large amount of money doing so while also fundamentally changing their culture.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) Which was smart because pouring resources into capturing 1 individual is a poor use of resources. (haha used pour and poor in the same sentence) Bin Laden was good for national pride, but his death likely accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things. Obama would be perfectly right to claim that he cared more about capturing or killing Osama than Bush. Their use of resources demonstrates this.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) I read that as he's not concerned about his activities (not fearful of another attack), not that he's done looking for him. The Bush WH shifted a substantial amount of resources away from Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Pakistani border in favor of Iraq. I don't think it's unfair to say that he really didn't care about finding bin laden that much. Would he have taken him out given a good opportunity? Sure, but they weren't pouring resources into finding him at the time.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) explain then please, because to the average meatball if we look at that study were getting the idea that the other 80 percent of the 595 are perfectly fine and dandy. This is correct. The other 80% did not suffer from depression. When you are speaking about rates of a disease, you are speaking about population sets, not individuals. The incidence rate of depression is three times higher in the 3+ concussion population than it is in the non-3+ concussion population. That is a HUGE leap. I believe asbestos has a similar effect on increasing cancer rates, and there's essentially no doubt that asbestos exposure increases the likelihood of developing cancer. Saying that "concussions cause depression" is short-hand, but it isn't the same as "everyone who has 3+ concussions kills themselves," just as not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.