Texsox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 26, 2008 -> 08:22 PM) So because they tend to be lighthearted, they can't be serious this one time? They finally did one for Veteran's Day, I don't recall that one being cartoonish. Is the Yahoo one cartoonish and/or disrespectful? With all the changing they do, how could they not do this one. "Don't be evil" is their motto. How about "Don't be stupid."? Or "Don't be short-sighted"? I am not 'deeply offended', no 'manufactured outrage' or going to start a boycot, I just find this sad. I guess they could have. In the wake of Memorial Day being mostly about grilling hotdogs and big sales at Macy's, I'm thinking not using it to increase business is more respectful. It would seem that you wanted them to make a special banner that drives traffic to the site, that just feels wrong to me.

Wow Alpha, we came to almost exact opposite conclusions when looking at our search pages. I thought, wow, Google has enough respect to not turn it into a cartoon, which is how I remember all of their other special logos.

I'll be burning some flags later.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 26, 2008 -> 09:26 AM) bite off a head of herring... make 30 grand. yep, i'd do it. Yep, I'll even chew and swallow.

TV Sit Coms

Is it safe to say that the Bears have an amazing tradition an Middle Linebacker? It's interesting that the Bears seem to be so heavily represented.

Another classy image for Sox fans to be proud of . . .

There are precious few games on "real tv" and usually we suck during them. This was great.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 25, 2008 -> 08:47 PM) Damn tasty and if you are eating for yourself just make a little extra and have it two nights. Damn delicous and I don't know how Salmon prices are around you, but over here its usually on sale for pretty cheap (and is such a tasty/easy fish to cook). Takes about 30 minutes of overall work (including cooking time). Salmon is also excellent the next day cold on a salad. I also like to make a fresh herb rub and press that onto the fish before cooking on the grill. Usually cilantro, lemon zest, sea salt, perhaps some dill or rosemary.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 25, 2008 -> 11:46 PM) sig. duh. I guess as the greenhorn, we'd all be biting the head off a herring for good luck . . .

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 25, 2008 -> 09:29 PM) Tex, in the last 2 months, I have had to cal AT&T, SBC, Wells Fargo and Adobe several times. 3 different times, i have talked to someone named 'Mitch' who is no more a 'Mitch' than I am a 'Mary'. I don't care that they are told to adopt an American name, and you can say that they can 'speak' English. I cna't understand a damn word they say, or at least only every third one. I have gotten to the point that I refuse to talk with them, and ask for a manager. And when I get a manager that I can't understand (yes, SBC, I am talking about you!) I just go ballistic. As for what is better, the one that keeps dollars here in the states is better. I would never use any of those 4 I listed above again if I had a choice, but I don't. Well, the Wells Fargo I DO have a choice, and I am researcghing switching that one right now, but may take a bit. Same problem with Time Warner. I'm having an intermittent problem with my Internet and phone. 1-800-222-5355 1 1 956 XXX-XXXX Hello I am "fake name" how can I help you? Your service sucks "I am sorry you are having this problem? For security reasons, may I have your phone number, address, and last four digits of your social security. I've been calling you people every day for the past month. I am so f***ing sick of repeating my address, phone number, and social for security reasons. I just transfer $3,000 between my bank account and my mutual fund and all they required for security was a four digit pin. I understand sir, thank you. Now may I have your phone number? I have caller ID, why the hell can't y'all afford caller ID? Give them number to home Is there an alternative number? That is my alternative because your service sucks. I never give out the number because during the day, it never works. I understand you are having a problem with your telephone service. I can help you. Arggggh

If you love the outdoors, it's hard to beat Utah.

I have this nasty chest cold and coughing my lungs out. I was walking back and forth and kind of half watching an episode. How sad is that I look up, see a deck shot of a crab pot and think, that's the Time Bandit?

This is one of those instances where each step seems logical and fair but brings us to a result that seems really unfair. And it would be unfair to whomever was fired. Since the requirement has not been challenged in court, it appears that it is a valid requirement. To me it all goes back to the job. In a community where 99% of the people speak English only, a residential fire fighter, EMT, Police officer, etc, better speak English. That isn't discrimination, it is a logical requirement for the job. Likewise here, a store clerk who does not speak Spanish hurts that business. So we see many ads that state applicants must speak Spanish, or bilingual preferred. Thanks for the debate.

Further, One role I think is legitimate for the government to be involved in is the safety of people within their borders. I support OSHA's mission, as long as it leaves the smallest necessary footprint. To add requirements to jobs outside of safety, is an area that should be treated very cautiously. Imagine if now employees have to prove some level of literacy before being hired. Do we create a standardized test? Have one set of requirements for professionals and another for common laborers? Who decides what literacy is required? A new government agency? No thanks.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 25, 2008 -> 03:21 PM) No, I dont agree because there are other things that they could have done instead of firing people for not speaking Spanish. Spanish was not a requirement for this job. In the description of the what violates language discrimination it says what you can and cannot do. The issue here is, that law might say that they have to speak the same language, but it doesnt say anything about being allowed to fire them. If they were that concerned they could have put forth an effort to help the two groups communicate with each other instead of firing one side and not the other, or in the least divided the groups by language. Now since the *new* rule doesnt mention *firing* anyone and only says they have to speak the same language either one of these options would be the LEGAL way to do it. Nowhere in the new rule does it say to fire anyone or say that they are exempt from discrimination laws. So unless you saw something that says to *fire* anyone who doesnt speak Spanish, it is still language discrimination. Also, you keep talking about not *hiring* certain people, save it, these people were already employed and met all the criteria for the position and they tried to make a BS loophole to allow discrimination but it still doesnt permit firing. For how much this country bends over backwards to try to accommodate everyone its amazing how people will all of a sudden turn around and say something like this is OK because the victims arent what people would like to traditionally consider victims. At the drop of a hat liberals want people fired for saying something on the radio, or jobs and spots at schools reserved for minorities and whatever else the flavor of the week cause is. Then, regular English speaking Americans are fired for not speaking Spanish in the U.S. and we get a liberal to say, well thats ok, its survival of the fittest. Its the most hypocritical argument Ive ever heard. Since safety is the default argument you guys have I would like to know why Spanish speaking firefighters are safer than English speaking ones. Would it not be *safe* to divide them into different groups by language? Is that not safe? It shouldnt matter who you are or what you believe politically, these people were fired unjustly, and by definition it is against the law. If you want to defend firing these people for whatever reason thats your choice, but in this country, no person should ever have to go home and face their family and have to figure out how to put food on the table because they were fired for speaking English. Also, that wheelchair argument is still ridiculous. Are you really going to try and say that a fireman who only speaks English is as unsafe as an NFL ref in a wheelchair? Ill be sitting by my mailbox waiting to get my handicapped parking pass because I only speak English in America. Do you even acknowledge there was a safety concern that prompted this? Allow me again try to explain why it is legal to lay someone off who does not speak a language. Let's pretend you own a software company and offer technical support. You have a customer in Canada who you have a contract to supply support for one year. They are acquired by a Quebec firm and moved where they only speak French. Are you seriously telling me that you could never lay off these people, even though you no longer have a position for them? This contract was changed. Because, as you noted, Spanish is not safer than English, it was left up to the private company to meet the new requirements any way they could. The state gave them an opportunity to require English only and for whatever reason they elected to go this route. You believe the state should have required English only. That would be the greatest burden to place, the most intrusive demand the government could make, typical for do gooder liberals. They can always run a business better than the actual owners. I believe that government, when given a choice, should always chose the smallest burden on businesses. I know that is very conservative and I've said many times, when it comes to business and guns, I'm clearly with the GOP. I never said it was a handicap. You keep talking about discrimination, again, I used the wheelchair as an example that discrimination is based on the requirements of the job. You never countered it, only misstated the intent of the remark. When it is a legitimate requirement, it is allowed. Yes, there is other things the private company could have done, but they chose not to. Requirements change for positions all the time. Imagine the morse code operator who lost his job. The requirements for the contract changed. They change all the time to adapt to technology, to discovered hazards, etc. Are you suggesting the government should never change the specs and never change vendors because someone will lose their job? If they did require English only, what level of literacy would you require? There are plenty of illiterates that were born in the US. Would you also exclude them from the job force? Would you set different levels based on jobs? Should the government say what level of literacy is required to run a printing press or Alpha (he owns a printing company)? I for one trust Alpha to make that decision, not some Senator with no experience in printing.

It is probably porn for a dentist, thinking about all those bad teeth. Seriously, is there another show on television more in need of a good orthodontist and hygenist?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 25, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) Texas ix killing em too. Danks is 3-3. Augie has the Longhorns playing well the past couple weeks. I'll forgive them the aluminium bats because when two top tier college baseball teams play, you see some great fundamental baseball. The College World Series has quickly moved way up my list of favorite sporting events. I do not have the time to really follow the regular season, but this time of year, I jump on the bandwagon.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 25, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) That is a guilty pleasure show. It's real life action. AMazing what those guys do and they get paid big bucks as well. Show looks sweet in HD. I agree, and I've watched so many episodes, hell I know the Apelio season is after the King Crab season. But how many crab pots have we watched come over the rail? How many tosses of the hook? But Texas is up 8-1 on KSU for the Big 12 Title, (I love the P i n g of college baseball), and there just isn't much else to watch.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ May 25, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) No. But, it worked pretty well, huh? I was impressed, especially since it seems the last thing you did before bed as post and the first thing when waking up was post. We're going to start a 12 Step program, but SS is too busy getting to 100,000.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 25, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) The class in in Spanish, theres no English speaking people lined up for the job. There are firefighters that speak English that had the job though. You actually proved my point even more. The guidelines book is in English and the test is in English so why should it be illegal to require people to speak English? Also, I hope you realized you compared speaking English in the U.S. to being in a wheelchair. Then you missed my comparison. I noted that what would be discrimination in one setting, would not be discrimination in another. Not hiring someone in a wheelchair as a NFL ref, is not discrimination. Not hiring someone in a wheelchair as an accountant, is discrimination. The demonstrated requirements for the job determined what is, and is not, discrimination. Using your argument, if someone applied to the Bible Institute who only spoke English, and they were not hired, it would be discrimination. Likewise if the school lost their contracts and switched their focus and decided on an English only curriculum, firing those who only spoke Spanish would not be permissible. That's crazy. People are laid off all the time. Changing business conditions is one of them. When the business conditions changed , people lost their jobs. Guess what, happens all the time. If Oregon switched vendors, there is a good chance people would have lost their jobs.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 25, 2008 -> 01:59 PM) It doesnt matter. You keep saying the same thing but it simply doesnt apply. Since neither language is "safer" than the other there is no legal way to use that as a reason why its ok. The law is cut and dry. YOU CANNOT FIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF WHAT LANGUAGE THEY SPEAK. As NSS said in the beginning of the thread you could have put the English speakers in one group and Spanish in the other. Since Spanish isnt a necessity in firefighting you cannot fire someone for not speaking it, its against the law. There is no way anyone can say that Spanish is more important to firefighting than English so firing either one is discrimination. Its amazing how liberals will defend laws like this till theyre blue in the face when it is convenient for them but all of a sudden it backfires and we get "what would you have done?" Person in a wheelchair as an NFL ref? Is that a joke? Unless you can somehow prove that Spanish is safer than English your argument is a joke. Speaking English isnt a disability like being in a wheelchair. So again, it is language discrimination to fire people for not speaking Spanish. Since English speaking firefighters can do the same job as Spanish speaking ones it is impossible to say one is better or more qualified than the other. Speaking English doesnt make working conditions more dangerous. They could just of easily fired the Spanish speakers and not skipped a beat. So firing them because of their language is in fact discrimination and in fact illegal. Yes, you can fire someone for not speaking a language. If you can legally not hire them for a reason, you can fire them for the same reason. I have posted several jobs that require speaking a foreign language, I could also post some jobs where speaking English would be a requirement. For most of the country, it would be a natural requirement for a police dispatcher to speak English. If that person suddenly decided they would only speak French, they could, and should, be fired. The ability to coimmunicate over the phone with the residents of that town as a police dispatcher would outweigh their legal right to work. Why does that not make sense to you? Two decisions were made. 1. Oregon required that Firefighting Crews must speak a common language. Legal. Do you disagree? 2. Companies were required to meet that law. *They* decided how to do that. Again, Legal. Do you disagree? The companies could have offered language training, they could have fired specific workers who did not meet the requirements. They could have insisted everyone learn French. Disagree all you want how those private companies met that requirement, but the requirement to me seems necessary. Unless you can demonstrate that speaking different language is as safe as speaking the same, you argument doesn't hold water. All it will take is a company to sue that crews speaking the same language is not necessary to safely perform that job and the law would be changed. So far, that has not happened.

I'm laying here with a nasty chest cold and desperate for anything on TV. I'm watching Deadliest Catch and realized I have spent hours in my life watching crab pots come up over the rail. Look, there's another one! Look there's a tired crew member! It's the same show over and over again. And I'm watching. I know Sig on the Northwestern is so hot, but would it hurt to have some female crew members?