"Activist Judges"

[JoeWeber 2,330]

53 minutes ago, airdvr said:

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=cecr

I've given my thoughts.  Let me leave you with one final thought.

When people lay blame for their problems on others they surrender the ability to solve them for themselves.  Government cannot, has not, and will not solve this problem.  The only people who can are the individuals.

Should wheel chair users be forced to build their own ramps? That shouldn't take too much gumption and ingenuity and just think how proud they'd be of their accomplishments. Why it might even inspire kids to learn on their own;  we'd save even more tax dollars from being wasted and, with fewer schools, there'd be fewer school shootings, too. It's a big mistake to believe we need to apply ointment to any festering and suppurating sore for it to heal when all we need to do is demand personal responsibility and wave the wand of Reaganomics over the problem.

[billvon 2,435]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Should wheel chair users be forced to build their own ramps? That shouldn't take too much gumption and ingenuity and just think how proud they'd be of their accomplishments. Why it might even inspire kids to learn on their own;  we'd save even more tax dollars from being wasted and, with fewer schools, there'd be fewer school shootings, too.

I am SICK AND TIRED of being discriminated against, and having the government reach into my wallet to redistribute MY wealth to those wheelchair-bound losers and whiny vets!  So what if you don't have any legs; here is a heartwarming story of a vet with no legs who learned to walk on his hands.  We should be supporting those independent winners who can solve their own problems, not the whiny losers who blame the government for their problems!  Only individuals can do this.

[/s]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Wieland

[airdvr 200]

45 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Should wheel chair users be forced to build their own ramps? That shouldn't take too much gumption and ingenuity and just think how proud they'd be of their accomplishments. Why it might even inspire kids to learn on their own;  we'd save even more tax dollars from being wasted and, with fewer schools, there'd be fewer school shootings, too. It's a big mistake to believe we need to apply ointment to any festering and suppurating sore for it to heal when all we need to do is demand personal responsibility and wave the wand of Reaganomics over the problem.

Near as I can tell we aren’t talking about wheelchairs. You want to make lite of it?  Fine by me. 

[JoeWeber 2,330]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

Near as I can tell

Well stated.

[normiss 622]

3 hours ago, ryoder said:

And now Harvard gets sued for their program of "Affirmative Action for Rich People with Dumb Kids":

AP: Activists spurred by affirmative action ruling challenge legacy admissions at Harvard

Outstanding. This is the perfect response.

[wolfriverjoe 1,353]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

That is most definitely  privilege.  Is Harvard the only school one can attend?  Had I wanted to go to Harvard I would not have been accepted either.

No. There are other schools

 However,  a Harvard degree will open doors that a degree from elsewhere would not. 

 

To pretend that it's not important for ALL PEOPLE to have equal access to that degree is as stupid as pretending that they do have that access, or that they would without 'government intervention '.

Edited July 3, 2023 by wolfriverjoe

[JoeWeber 2,330]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I am SICK AND TIRED of being discriminated against, and having the government reach into my wallet to redistribute MY wealth to those wheelchair-bound losers and whiny vets!  So what if you don't have any legs; here is a heartwarming story of a vet with no legs who learned to walk on his hands.  We should be supporting those independent winners who can solve their own problems, not the whiny losers who blame the government for their problems!  Only individuals can do this.

[/s]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Wieland

Every last bit of this could have ended 200 years ago if those enslaved people would have just grabbed their bootstraps and told those plantation owners that they didn't want to be slaves anymore. They could have but they obviously didn't so it's on them, plain and simple.

[wolfriverjoe 1,353]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Near as I can tell we aren’t talking about wheelchairs. You want to make lite of it?  Fine by me. 

Are you trying to pretend that the 'government intervention' requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people through the ADA is different than the 'government intervention' where Affirmative Action' provides access to minorities? 

Or that the ADA wasn't opposed by the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who opposed Affirmative Action?

 

This is what my edited/deleted post was supposed to be.  I accidentally quoted Joe instead if Airdvr. 

[jakee 1,260]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

I've given my thoughts.  Let me leave you with one final thought.

When people lay blame for their problems on others they surrender the ability to solve them for themselves.  Government cannot, has not, and will not solve this problem.  The only people who can are the individuals.

Interesting thought, Airdvr. Hey Airdvr, would you like to offer a counter?

9 hours ago, airdvr said:

Intentionally antiracist policies are needed to counter the racist impacts of past and present policies. 

Riiiiight.

[lippy 779]

It's a bit fucked up that it's totally fine if one applicant's got a leg-up in getting admitted purely because his great-great grandfather was alumni, but it's expressly prohibited to consider the fact that another applicant's great-great grandfather was explicitly not eligible to attend.  Is that not the definition of tilting the playing field?

[billvon 2,435]

36 minutes ago, lippy said:

It's a bit fucked up that it's totally fine if one applicant's got a leg-up in getting admitted purely because his great-great grandfather was alumni, but it's expressly prohibited to consider the fact that another applicant's great-great grandfather was explicitly not eligible to attend.  Is that not the definition of tilting the playing field?

Yep.  And apparently to conservatives, one is just business as usual - and the other is racist.

[wolfriverjoe 1,353]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And apparently to conservatives, one is just business as usual - and the other is racist.

Well yeah. 

 

One benefits conservatives and one benefits those people. 

[brenthutch 388]

On 6/30/2023 at 8:19 AM, kallend said:

Well, we have three Supreme Court justices appointed by a president who had 4 million fewer votes than his opponent, confirmed by a Senate majority representing  way fewer than half the population.  One of those justices was appointed in a rush right before an election, while another only made it because a Senator from a tiny state, the same Senator that rushed through the Barrett confrmation, chose to delay and delay and delay  the hearings on another well quailfied candidate for no reason other than it was an election year.

Isn't the US Constitution a wonderful thing?  

If you don’t like it you can always move back.

[lippy 779]

27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If you don’t like it you can always move back.

So we've arrived at 'Go Back Where You Came From'.  Happy 4th of July, 'Murica!

[jakee 1,260]

14 hours ago, airdvr said:

That is most definitely white privilege.  Is Harvard the only school one can attend?  Had I wanted to go to Harvard I would not have been accepted either.

Is Harvard the only school that operates that way? Obviously not.

How many schools need to have white privilege baked into their admissions system before you concede that the university system as a whole has a problem with white privilege? After all, you can keep looking at every individual school and say 'meritorious black candidates can just go somewhere else' but when you examine them all together there comes a point you can't squeeze all the meritorious candidates into the number of schools which admit on merit. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by jakee

[billeisele 122]

Interesting article providing more points on the topic. In the 4th paragraph it says: "The end of affirmative action really started in 1978, with Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.,’s opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke—the first Supreme Court case on the matter—which tried to split the difference between a divided Court by arguing that the race of a candidate could be considered, but not as part of a reparative, quota-based program that tried to reduce the harms of slavery and injustice. Rather, race could only be considered by an admissions office that wanted, for the benefit of itself and its students, to produce a “diverse” student body."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-champions-of-affirmative-action-had-to-leave-asian-americans-behind?mbid=social_twitter&utm_brand=tny&utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter

[billeisele 122]

21 hours ago, ryoder said:

And now Harvard gets sued for their program of "Affirmative Action for Rich People with Dumb Kids":

AP: Activists spurred by affirmative action ruling challenge legacy admissions at Harvard

Interesting turn of events. One of the articles stated that Harvard admitted 34% of the legacy applicants. So 66% didn't get in. One-third is an unusually high acceptance rate. It would be interesting to know how many of these, and of the general student body, either don't graduate or flunk out.

No doubt that money is the or one of the drivers. Their trust/endowment fund is $53 billion. The sum of the endowments of the top ten schools is approximately $2.5 trillion.  https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/10-universities-with-the-biggest-endowments

One quote, "... from 2014, a men’s tennis coach thanked the admissions dean for meeting with a possible recruit whose family had given $1.1 million, noting that officials “rolled out the red carpet” for the family. He added that “it would mean a great deal” to see the student at Harvard."  Translated that could mean that it would mean a great deal of money.

[billeisele 122]

On 7/2/2023 at 3:52 AM, jakee said:

That's ironic. The topic here is you assuming that a black employee you didn't like was promoted because of affirmative action, but you think I'm reading between the lines?

Look, I get that you're just lashing out because you're embarrassed - but you have to understand that everyone else can see the same things that I'm pointing out.

You just continue to bury yourself. Not one thing in your reply is accurate. It's all assumptions, that are wrong.

[billeisele 122]

On 7/2/2023 at 3:54 AM, jakee said:

So why did he get promoted in the first place?

Another wrong assumption.

He wasn't promoted. He was hired from the outside. He had a successful track record in marketing, specifically in a new area the company was wanting to move in to. Long story ... short version is there were 3 VPs, not that it matters, but because you will ask, all were white, 2 males and 1 female.  The VP that hired him was a hands-off guy, except with the ladies, and he let the manager get too far out of bounds of the culture of the company and outside of spending guidelines. The VP let it continue and he covered it up because the guy was successful. The VP was fired for sexual harassment. Again, not relevant but because you'll ask.

Apparently it's not OK for a married VP to have a pool party with his employees, that was on the expense account, drink too much, have a younger married woman sit in your lap and pull down one side of her bikini top. He had also done the lap sitting thing in the office. The girl didn't complain but others, male and female, in the department did. He had other infractions but that one stuck, too many witnesses. That was around 1995 when things were different than they are now. 

The next VP took awhile to learn how far out of bounds the guy was without permission. He tried to reel him in but got caught up in rope-a-dope stuff. He just couldn't keep up with how fast this guy moved and where he was hiding his actions. He was fired and the Exec VP told the guy to "stop it."

The next VP, the female, had a much different idea of how things should be done. Those two had heated arguments in the office. Loud enough that anyone could hear it through the walls. The problem for all the VPs was that he was quite successful and he made them look good. She eventually fired him, it was loud. It was bad enough that Corp Security escorted him out then brought him back in after hours to clean out his office.

[jakee 1,260]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

You just continue to bury yourself. Not one thing in your reply is accurate. It's all assumptions, that are wrong.

There’s an easy thing for you to do here - say how you know the black woman was promoted for affirmative action reasons. 
 

Without that the only rational conclusion is that you’re just assuming.

Edited July 4, 2023 by jakee

[jakee 1,260]

42 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Another wrong assumption.

He wasn't promoted. He was hired from the outside. 

Where he had obviously been promoted previously, despite being the same person he was when he worked with you. How is that possible?