iamshack

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 11:03 PM) That single issue does not connect the dots to make her a racist. The whole body of my post that you quoted does indicate that there is a strong possibility that there is some racist sentiments. Clear enough? No, it is not clear enough for me. For one moment, take the participation in the church out of the equation. Now explain to me, using the other things you use in your post, that there is a strong possibility that there is some racist sentiments. I don't see the connection between not being proud of your country and being a racist. I also don't see why simply because one was a benefactor of a system put in place by our federal government that they therefore must be proud of this country. I also don't see why being a benefactor of such a system therefore precludes one from discussing how one felt at an institution, even if the mere fact that that person was at that institution at all may have been because they were a benefactor of the aforementioned system. Please, someone, explain this to me.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:44 PM) Whether or not Michelle Obama can be slam dunk proven to be a racist is not the point. Jeremiah Wright is on the record as saying some very hateful things with racial overtones to them. That is a fact. The Obamas were members of his church. That's an established fact. Wright performed the Obamas' marriage ceremony. That's a fact. Wright performed the Obama children's bartismal ceremonies. That's a fact. He was also named godfather to those children. Another fact. Michelle Obama recently stated that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. Again, fact. She stated so after probably getting into Princeton due to AA, based on the posted Newsweek story. That is a logical conclusion at this point, but has not been established as hard fact. Based on all of the above, there is plenty there to raise a red flag to the possibly that this lady may very well harbor some racist pov's and by logical extension, her husband as well. There is too much smoke for there not to be some fire, imho, and I do not want this couple in the White House. Of course, even with all of the above, they aren't being called racist in every venue of the national media. They'd have to do something like jokingly calling someone a nappy headed ho for that to happen. One incident like that will get you labeled a racist. An entire adult lifetime of actions affiliated with a proven racist doesn't 'prove' anything. Well, I, for one, don't understand alot of things that people do for religion, so I can't speak for them in that regard. I can see how their affiliation with that church could be interpreted, and so I won't jump into that argument. And we do have a 25 page thread on that, so I'll save that discussion for that thread. But as for the Affirmative Action issue, her senior thesis, her comment about being proud of her country, I ask you to respond to this post I made a few hours ago and connect the dots for me, because I'm just not able to make or even see the logical leap some of you are making in suggesting she is racist.

Hah. Honestly, DO NOT try to get on her friend...you seem WAY too sensitive to try and pull that move off....

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 08:59 PM) I agree with Balta about the purpose of Obamas speech being to try to discuss resentments people have about others. However your last post is absolutely to a tee what I am talking about in terms of the problem. That whole post was blatant racism but you seem to think its ok because its geared towards white people. When people say things like that it sets this conversation back decades. We will never be able to move on and get past all the resentment when people continue to say in this day and age that resentment towards white is justified because they were born at the top of a totem pole. By law, straight white males under 55 are the only group of people that arent protected by law from discrimination which is bulls*** Well, I am not in the business of calling other people racists, and I certainly will refrain from doing so in this case. But I have to question if you really understand the meaning of the term racist as you use it and how serious an accusation that is to make... As I failed to understand your logic in describing how Michelle Obama must be racist because of what she said in her senior thesis or in what she said about not being proud of America, I once again fail to understand how pointing out that whites have significant societal advantages over minority groups in this country makes me racist. For the sake of argument, this is the definition of "racist" according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination If you review my post from above that you are commenting on, you'll notice that not once did I claim white people enjoy advantages in this country because of any human trait or capacity or any racial differences that exist between the races in this country. Neither did I make any judgments based upon racial prejudice or discrimination. On the contrary, I mentioned socioeconomic advantages that whites have that produce an inherently superior opportunity to "succeed" in this country (at least according to the commonly accepted notion of what "success" in America is). Balta elaborated upon those advantages in his post, and I believe they would be fairly impossible to dispute, in general. So while it may be unfortunate that Affirmative Action is an end-result attempt at evening the score a bit, it is a much less daunting and more immediate method of giving minorities a chance to overcome the aforementioned socioeconomic disadvantages they face. So how exactly does acknowledging that make me racist, or make it a racist point of view?

I'm having a really difficult time understanding how the last two posts in this thread came from the same person...

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 07:40 PM) The majority of the time its discussed it is geared towards the minority end of it. Hell, look through this thread. People like lostfan saying that affirmative action worked because she graduated with honors without mentioning the person who didnt get in. I agree with you that it is a shame that some white students who might have otherwise been accepted to a university were not because of artificial quotas instituted into the application process. And I don't necessarily agree that Affirmative Action is the best solution to the problem, if it is a solution at all. However, you seem to be discounting a whole host of societal advantages that work in the favor of whites, beginning at birth. I just think some people really hesitate to sympathize with the plight of a people who've been at the top of the totem pole throughout this nation's history.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 07:36 PM) I know its my opinion. I have said that time and time again. Im just expressing it and its ridiculous for people to say that their opinions are more justified than mine. That wasnt aimed at you either. I don't think a whole lot of people are trying to change your opinion. Myself (and others) are challenging your logical process of coming to the conclusions that you have come to.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 07:35 PM) Yes and no. Ive seen the affect that affirmative action can have on someones life and future from the side of the person that is never really discussed in the matter and IMO the way she carries herself and the things said in her thesis are a slap in the face to the real victims of race in that situation. Affirmative Action has been an extremely controversial subject in this country since it's inception. To claim that the affect this has on qualified white people is "never really discussed" is one of the more inaccurate statements one can make.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 07:30 PM) First of all its not just because of her pastor. This guy is one of the most racist people I have heard speak in a long time and the fact that they went there for such a long time and were married by him and that they let him be the godfather to their children. So, if something happened to them they would want him to raise their kids. Thats not just a pastor to someone. I have other thoughts about it but theyre just opinions, the one reason should be enough for now. Im not trying to rate her level of racism, just showing that its there. Well that's your opinion. I don't want to get into an argument about whether the fact that they went to that church makes them racist or not because there is already another thread on that. What I am challenging is the other logical leaps that you've made.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 07:25 PM) I would also like to point out that I am very aware of how the process works because my brother who is 18 months older than me had to go to Western Illinois even though he had already gotten into U of I and got a letter saying they regretted to inform him that the school had not reached their obligatory racial quotas at the time of his acceptance but he was welcome to apply the following semester. So is this where your bitterness towards her lies?

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 07:05 PM) First off, I think her involvement with that church and pastor alone makes her a racist. I think trying to use the race card on a school that let her in because of her race makes her a racist. Also, I never said she slammed affirmative action, I said she slammed the system that she benefited from and I think thats disrespectful to the people who didnt get in that were more qualified than her. If you believe she is a racist because her pastor is, than just say that, don't reach for other things that don't imply anything close to her being racist. Secondly, even I did accept that she "played the race card on a school that let her in because of her race" (which I don't), I really fail to see how that makes her a racist. Can you explain the logical connection you are making? Saying that she felt she was looked-upon differently at Princeton than other students because of her race does not mean she is a racist. It means she felt uncomfortable there. Because she may have been accepted at Princeton due to Affirmative Action she is not allowed to comment on how she felt she was treated there? Thirdly, you said she "slammed the system that she benefitted from." What system is that other than Affirmative Action? Are you implying she slammed the US and that's disrespectful to the students who did not get into Princeton because of the quotas necessary to fulfill because of Affirmative Action? Are you saying that you have never slammed any federal system? You've never complained about taxes or medicare or anything? And if you did, does that make you unpatriotic or homophobic or sexist or racist?

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 06:36 PM) Thats not what Im trying to do. Im saying that if there is the possibility that she got into school because of AA and then said she hasnt been proud of her country until now then she is racist. Then to write a whole thesis basically calling everyone at the school racist then that reflects poorly on her as well. The system that she slammed is the one that gave her an unfair advantage and for her to dismiss that fact now and act as if she was some sort of victim of discrimination at Princeton when in actuality the person that didnt get into Princeton was the only victim in this case. Why, if even she did get into Princeton because of Affirmative Action, and she wasn't proud of her country until now, does that make her a racist? Secondly, just because she may have gotten into Princeton because of Affirmative Action, does that preclude her from commenting on how she felt as a member of the student body there? Thirdly, at what point did she slam Affirmative Action? Fourthly, even if she did claim she was a victim of discrimination at Princeton, how does that make the white person that didn't get into Princeton the "only" victim?

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 06:09 PM) I'm not actually even convinced she meant to say "I haven't been proud of my country." I know what the exact quote is, but I've seen/read about her giving basically that same speech a few other times, and they all have the same theme. She goes from talking about being disillusioned with American politics to how her husband's campaign makes her feel proud of American politics because of all the energy and passion and everything. Nowhere does she imply "I"ve never really liked America until now" so I'm thinking that one time is the anomaly and she crossed up her words. I don't doubt that. What I am arguing though is that even if you take the worse case scenarios- she has not been proud of her country and she got into both schools solely based upon affirmative action- those two things still do not lead me to believe the two are mutually exclusive.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 05:33 PM) If you're not on spring break right now...then this isn't healthy. Or a college student...you don't have to be on break to get drunk any afternoon in college...

I'm going to take this one step further, lost. Even if she came out and stated that she got into Princeton AND Harvard because of Affirmative Action, how are those facts and the fact that she may not have been proud of her country somehow mutually exclusive? So because she qualified to get into two of our best universities because of a law which favors her race, she is somehow also required to be proud of her country? I don't see the logical connection. I am the beneficiary of all sorts of advantages by living in this country alone, but they certainly don't require me to be proud of the country for all my years living here. There are plenty of things I am proud of currently that are related to my country, such as what my grandfathers did in World Wars I and II, what my mother does every day of her life, how this nation developed out of a melting pot of immigrants, to name a few. But how does that require me to be proud of this nation as a whole? And if I wasn't proud of this nation as a whole, would I be somehow rascist, sexist, a homophobe, or some other ridiculous, all-encompassing generalization?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) That trend is well underway. I think companies are often a little leery of losing the control, for much the same reasons as they are often leery of true results-only work environments. Also, in this era of data security, there will be some fear associated with what is basically a distributed network model. But as fuel costs increase, and people move more to companies that allow it... I think you will see a continued increase in working at home (at least some of the time). Yeah, I've heard/seen the trend to some degree. But to me, it seems like the most obvious (and realistic) steps that can be taken to reduce transportation costs, reliance on oil, stress on mass transit, traffic, quality of life, etc. And yet it doesn't seem to be an option discussed nearly as much as it should (IMO).

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 01:14 PM) I think we should hope it will lead to better urban planning. More mass transit, more businesses setting up shop in business centers, more people living in communities that aren't just endless sprawl... urban planning in this case is two-sided. People will try to live closer to work, and try to live in towns that are actual towns, with services nearby. Developers and politicians should think in terms of more efficient plans for cities. Well, one thing I rarely, if ever hear mentioned is the fact that many people, in all reality, do not HAVE to even commute to their jobs. There is absolutely no reason I can really think of why we cannot drastically increase the number of jobs which allow people to work from their homes. Other than a lack of direct supervision, which could be countered by work or project quotas, I don't understand why at least 20-30% of American workers cannot work from their homes and thereby eliminate all those miles driven or riding mass transit for a commute to work.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) i really don't think that demand will ever decrease substantially with price increases. as a society, our framework depends upon vehicular transportation. anyone who works in the suburbs, pretty much has to drive to work, grocery stores, doctors, etc. On the flip side, maybe an increase in gas prices, leads to more people moving into the city then away from it? I disagree. I'm not saying that substantial behavioral change will occur quickly, but we are not as dependent on our current transportation practices as one might think. Necessity is the mother of invention.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 11:19 AM) Was he tapping his foot? Hah, is that a Boston Legal/Denny Crane reference?

QUOTE(Disco72 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Ozzie may not be perfect, but I find it interesting (disappointing?) that so many people do not want to hold Brian Anderson accountable for his own actions (performance, behavior, and attitude). If he had been above average on one of those three items, none of this discussion would be happening. The two things under his control: behavior and attitude; it is his responsibility to take his job seriously. The great thing about this Spring Training is that BA seems to be finally excelling at all three. That speaks highly of his maturation and emotional intelligence. If it continues, it'll be a great win-win for the Sox and Anderson. If not, I'm sure some will find a way to blame it on someone else. He's already been held accountable for his actions. In fact, other than Sean Tracy, I'm not sure I can think of a guy who's been held more accountable for his actions. How has he not been held accountable?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) Doubtful. Most crimes are committed with semi-automatic handguns, not rifles. I'm sure some crimes are committed with illegally-modified guns, but making it illegal to modify a gun isn't going to stop someone who is going to use that gun to commit a crime anyway. My point was that you can get an automatic weapon and if you're going through all of the BS to get one, you're not going to be the type of person using it for the wrong reason. Bingo. Time and time again, empirical evidence shows that gun bans just don't really work. A majority of crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns anyway, so making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns doesn't do much of anything to stop criminals from getting their hands on them. Oh I don't doubt you for a minute. The problem isn't so much in creating the red tape necessary to get them as it is somehow stemming the flow of them.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:13 AM) You can still have them, there's just a decent amount of red tape to go through first . They're not illegal by any means. There's also been only 1 or two crimes committed with legally-owned automatic weapons in the past 70 years. Yeah, and how many committed with illegally owned automatic weapons? Thousands?

QUOTE(almagest @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 02:06 AM) I really think Anderson should be the starting CF. His improved attitude, approach, and the fantastic numbers he's put up this spring have earned him a starting job, at least in my book. I think we should let Ozzie know that if he really wants to build the Sox like the '03 Marlins, he should focus on getting more Josh Becketts, and less Juan Pierres. I couldn't agree with you more, but it seems as though Ozzie simply does not agree with us. I think our only hope now is that Kenny (and perhaps some other coaches) intervene on Brian's behalf (during this supposed meeting scheduled for Tuesday) and they convince Ozzie to slot BA in as the starting CF. Otherwise, I'll be hoping for an Jerry Owens groin tweak or for BA to simply take the job from Owens via taking the most advantage of his sparing playing time...

Great thread here guys. Some very interesting stuff in here. As for your interpretations of the Constitution, my experience with it (as an attorney who has been through law school) are that the Supreme Court or the Powers that Be (that influence the Supreme Court) will find a way to construct an argument for an interpretation that supports their viewpoint or favorable result. The letter of the law is often manipulated backwards (from a results-oriented approach) to make the language support whatever they want it to support rather than truly trying to interpret the language as it is to support a a result unbiasedly. I suppose it's human nature, and it's also realism for the world we live in today, but it's a shame sometimes (and awfully confusing!). I only say this because I've learned it's often pointless to try and analyze the language to understand the result reached. The better approach is usually to analyze the result reached (or desired) and attempt to understand how the language can be manipulated or interpreted to support such a result. My personal opinion on gun control and the 2nd Amendment is that regardless of what the Framers meant or intended or flat-out stated, the world has changed enough to where reason must prevail (which is ALWAYS the largest underlying consideration in our method of government) and gun manufacture, marketing, and usage must be massively regulated and constantly revised. And as a person who has little experience with guns, the most obvious first step is no automatic weapons. But that's just my humble opinion.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 10:07 AM) These economists seem to think that gas prices, nationally, will spike to around $3.50 to $3.75 per gallon by May, with some areas paying over $4. But, they say it will likely settle back to $3.25-ish, due to the decreased demand that goes with those price levels. I hate to even go here, being not an expert but... I think I see a problem in that assumption. People's demand for gas is only variable on elective use - vacations and road trips, basically. They will still go to work, still go to the store, etc. So the variable part is only a very small fraction of the demand. The rest is almost static*. * = the caveat here is that as prices go really high, people will start to do things like buy more hybrids and electric cars, get jobs closer to home, etc. But those sorts of things don't happen over a period of weeks. They take years to change enough for major effect to be felt. Well, there has to be a breaking point somewhere, as you are alluding to in your caveat. Where exactly is it, I'll bet we are still a ways away before we see significant behavioral change. However, it is true that mass transit users are beginning to steadily increase, so that decrease in demand for gas may be linked to this as gas prices continue their slow ascent...