|fedex - 2015-12-10 |
I was trying to explain this today to someone.
Racism and bigotry are funny things. People who honestly think of themselves as un-biased non-racists will sometimes, in times of national debate on race, suddenly publicly espouse a subtly racist opinion they consider to be "normal" or "part of the fabric of public conscience", expecting it to be confirmed by their (online) friends and associates. Uniformly, they almost always seem very surprised when the inevitable uproar erupts in righteous outrage over their statements. They seem shaken, even shocked to realize that they are REGARDED as racist or biases. Interestingly, they are not shaken or shocked to realize that they ARE bigots or racists, but then thats just human nature for you.
Scalia, however, probably IS aware but just doesn't give a fuck.
Five stars for evil either way.
Usually they seem to call everyone who points out their racism "racists".
The Washington Post had an interesting editorial on his comments that noted some academic scholarship to back up his general remarks. The idea simply is that the good intentions to help our disadvantaged black brothers and sisters in the US by placing them in highly competitive universities not-fully prepared often leads to poor outcomes.
I can't claim any authority of the sources or actual scholarly work. Just providing a pointer:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/10/ where-justice-scalias-got-the-idea-that-african-americans-might-be -better-off-at-slower-track-universities/
Boenews actually has a good discussion on it
and after reading that and checking some of the sources, there are at least three or four vetted studies that contradict the entire postulate that Scalia references.
|SolRo - 2015-12-10 |
Needs to be an upper age limit for all political offices.
Past a certain point your views are too irrelevant to society and you're too crotchety to change them.
^I wish I had more stars to give.
I don't know, I'm pretty satisfied with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
|That guy - 2015-12-10 |
This is more of a general wondering, but I don't understand what part of a justice's opinion has them opine on things outside the law on one occasion, and then refuse to on another occasion. It's very strange.
just keeping you on your toes!
|Nominal - 2015-12-11 |
Exhibit W in why the presidential election matters.
No fucking way maaaan! It's gotta be Bernie, and if not Bernie then any Republican. Because that's how principles work.
Somewhat-related: Can some of you stateside folks tell me if the european perspective I've been seeing of Bern being basically Ron Paul for the online left/centre-left is close to accurate and if not why not?
Genuinely curious. I have my own unwarranted opinions on it but I'm curious to hear American perspectives on the possibility that he will poll massively well with the internet set but be eclipsed ultimately by the large voting bloc of 'don't give a fuck about the internet' people-who-answer-landline-polls.
Ron Paul was a crank with more bad ideas than good. Bernie has pretty good ideas all around, but without any way to implement them: even President Sanders would find himself blocked by a hostile Congress the way Clinton did and Obama does. (Fairly or not, I blame his fan base for that: I assume that a great many Sanders fans are also the sort of tools who sat out the 2010 and 2014 elections and thus handed Congress to the Republicans.)
The biggest problem in Bernie's worldview is that he sees everything through the lens of economic inequality, and he downplays how much racism / xenophobia is a driving force in American politics. But the Republicans have been able to prosper for 50 years now because they've positioned themselves as the champions of white Christian America against everyone who's not a white Christian. You can't beat that by proposing an increase to the minimum wage, because the Republicans will do what they always do: they'll say / imply / dogwhistle that the minimum wage increase is really a giveaway to "those people" and the Republican fan base will vote against their best interests. As usual.
I think Sanders is going to run into trouble when he's held to actual scrutiny, which hs really has not been thus far. He's had the opportunity to speak his mind and nobody's really challenged him on his views, but I expect the sparks to fly when someone asks him why single payer failed in his home state just last year and yet he wants to nationalize it. Those are the sorts of hard questions I don't think Bernie is prepared to answer.
Well put Bort, thank you. This is why I come here.
Well, it's AN opinion, and the best one I'm capable of mustering. Much of what I said is open to furious debate.
But in the end, I think Bernie Sanders proposes actual solutions to problems, while Ron Paul did not. I don't think all of Bernie's solutions are workable given the state of the country, but given the right Congress, they would be workable.
One thing Bernie said that troubles me about him and makes me question how serious he is. In answer to the question of Republican obstruction, he said he would summon protesters to Washington DC to march in the streets and make the Republicans change their minds whenever he wanted them to pass a bill. I hope he's not really planning to do that, but if he is, you know what that sounds like to me? We'd recognize it if it happened in any other country: a political strongman trying to subvert the democratic process. I think Bernie's supporters are generally too lazy to actually make it a workable plan, but goddamn Bernie, don't be saying shit like that.
Also very true and sure to put off more moderate votes that are desperately needed.
Bernie is a true left wing progressive. The democrats have been mostly fielding center/slightly-left-of-center (and in some state elections, slightly right-of-center) candidates since the Bill Clinton years. A lot of people were hoping that Obama was going to be a true leftist, but he's a lot more centric than many realized. Traditionally the country has been mostly close to center over the last 30 or so years, but recently is becoming more politically polarized.
Conservatives are pushing harder right, and correspondingly a lot of liberals have been pushing harder left (particularly among the young). On the conservative side, that has lead to the rise of Trump which would have been unthinkable even 5 or 6 years ago. On the liberal side, you see the rising popularity of Bernie who, as a self declared socialist, had been considered a novelty in the past.
As far as Ron Paul, I'll just echo Bort. He's always been considered a crank and always will, god willing.
FUCK YOU BORT BOTH PARTIES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME I REFUSE TO BUY INTO THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM LET IT COLLAPSE AND BE REBORN INTO MY PERFECT IMAGE!!!
Raggamuffin - I believe that the system selects in favor of what voters are voting for. When I put it that way it's pretty circular, I guess; but in my estimation the problem starts with the Left failing to turn out to vote, rather than their low turnout being a consequence of the problem. This is where I get frustrated with a lot of Bernie supporters, who feel the system owes them the policies they are in favor of, yet have been ass at voting Republicans out of office (which they've started to feel might be a problem only because it could mean trouble for President Sanders).
The public option is a perfect illustration of the problem. Democrats were overwhelmingly in favor of a public option; the House Democrats passed an ACA with a public option, and the Senate Democrats (all 58 of them) were either unanimously or almost unanimously in favor as well ... the problem was that Senate Democrats couldn't find enough non-Democrats to hit the magic 60 vote threshold. As a result the public option went down, the Left perversely decided the Democrats had betrayed them, and so the Left sat home in 2010 and made sure there would never be another shot at a public option for at least a decade. The system honored the wishes of those who bothered to vote and gave Republicans sweeping majorities, which is to say, the system worked perfectly.
More recently, in my own state of Ohio, the pot legalization measure had been polling at something like ~46% in favor, but when it came to a vote it scored only 36%. Look guys, if you're not willing to roll out of bed and vote for your own best interests, whose fault is it that assholes are making the decisions for you?
|gmol - 2015-12-11 |
The thing that really hit me about this was that it was an open admission of America's stratified university system. Is computer science 101 so different between MIT and BFU?
I can't think of a country in the world (that has universities) where there aren't massive quality differences between programs.
Canadians like to believe their institute is the 'Harvard of the North', but there is no difference or not a significant one compared to differences across time/instructions at the same institute.
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2015-12-11 |
This potato headed motherfucker needs to fuck off to an Alzheimer's farm in the middle of a fucking landmine field.
Well put RoUS, thank you. This is why I come here.
|Binro the Heretic - 2015-12-12 |
What really made this clip stand out for me was the blond-haired blue-eyed white lady and her apologist viewpoint.
There is no "context" that makes Scalia's statement okay.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|