http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/03/palins-resignation-stirs-debate-political-future/

Unknown Scandal?
Shrewd move in the run for president in 12?
More chaos from a real idiot?

If somebody knows how to create a poll...this would be a good one.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

Its amazing how much the so called "Tolerant Left" have attacked her and her kids, even after the election. It just shows what character they have and what we can expect from them in their eventual take over of this country.

I was surprised that no one posted this earlier.

It could be A or B or both. The likelihood of a scandal in Alaska's political system isn't too far fetched, but the prevailing thought is more that Palin will be running for the Republican nomination. She would have a chance, which goes to show just how pathetic the GOP is at this point, but she would right now be running slightly behind the likes of Mitt Romney unless someone else emerges from that party.

Simply put, if it is Obama vs. Palin, we will have another landslide in the electoral votes. The solid south and the bible belt will stick with their bible thumping Palin while all of the states that went for Obama obviously will not vote for a 1/4 wit like Palin.

Let's hope that the GOP puts up SOMEONE woth voting for. Palin is not the person.

I usually don't bother with you homey but i'm constantly taken with your ignorance.
you act as though being tolerant means being a doormat. that it means that you overlook
hypocrisy, accept injustice and generally don't defend yourself.

Tolerance means respect for other cultures and other peoples, respect for basic human rights and respect for others mores and folkways. Tolerance has as much in common with libertarianism as it does with liberalism.

Tolerance recognizes that there are injustices in the world that create a cascade of events that puts those not in the privileged classes at risk at greater risk of ... well not acting like those in the privileged classes.... and that if one is in a privileged class, it is a worthy endeavor to work to be more culturally competent in understanding the values of other cultural perspectives.

People that are tolerant are most defensive around people in the privileged classes that are not tolerant. why is that??? well because people in that class that are not tolerant are ignorant, selfish, and self righteous... see mirror. Behaviors such as hate, self imposed ignorance, self righteousness, selfishness and hypocrisy are in my opinion intolerable.

I can be tolerant of people like archie bunker... I can not be tolerant of people like Sara Palin... do you see a difference?

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

Sarah Palin has zero chance at being elected President. This is a dodge for future investigation or a run at the Senate. Anyone who thinks she is a viable Presidential hopeful is absurd.

The left has had her targeted since August, and will hammer her much like they did Quayle.

In all honesty, I think she is a remarkable lady for having accomplished all that she has with limited means. However, if she lived in any state other than Alaska, I find it inredibly difficult to imagine her rising to the governor's mansion.

As far as why she is stepping down, I have no clue, but I dont think its the usual "because she can no longer perform her duties as expected" b.s.

I will always remember her for her interview on where she "discussed" foreign policy and her debate with Biden when she refused to answer questions...

I think she is doing this so she can run for the Senate.

The media treated this woman worst than the millitary.
It was a pathetic witch hunt.

I am not saying she is perfect...but the unfairness was brutal.

They will not leave her alone either.



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Murf, she wants to be in the news. have you noticed how many "press conferences" and "statements" she has give out over the past 4 months? Hilarious.

Quit defending her. She couldnt even name one US Supreme Court case she disagreed with. If you are running for the second highest office in the land, we expect you to know something (jesus, anything) about Constiutional precedent."The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Murph,
I don't hear you crying for Sotomayer.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

Politics has always been about who can dig up the most dirt on the other candidate and less about the issues or the candidates believes. People are more interested in individuals personal lives than the believes they stand for.

 

I liked Sarah Palin at first but now she has become more and more political. I listened to her speech Friday and it held no real meaning. Nothing more than a typical political speech where you jabber on for a half hour with ought saying nothing. I do think she will run in 12 but dont see her getting the nominee

Murph,
I don't hear you crying for Sotomayer.
~~~~~~~~

Have yet to hear anyone call her daughters sluts and rip her family apart.

The Sotomayer sh!t, will be held to a minimum by the media.

The only thing I have seen on the woman, is the fact that she ruled against an obvious racist act.
The Court just ruled against her, but she has a trac record of going agaisnt white people on racial issues.
That and she was an "outside" member of same radical group...not shocking.
Yet, the media will protect her, b/c she is a liberal and the media is in bed with the left.

Oh, well.


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Murph,
Sodomayer has only been up for supreme court for a couple of months. Already they are calling her a racist and saying she has ties with fringe groups. Sodomayer has the education and the experience to do the job she has been nominated for. Sodomayer does not preach abstinence and god when she has a pregnant daughter.

I'd say that Sodomayer is getting as much flack as Palin did on about the same timeline. Biggest difference is that Sodomayer is not funny so so Tina Fey.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

Racist act?

A disproportionate number of whites passed compared to blacks and latinos. I dont necessarily think the test was racist as written, but I would label the result as a "disparate impact" of some sort. In any event, the Supremes decided it 5-4, so I dont think any of us can definitively say it is "obviously" a racist act or "obviously" not racist.

Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion. here has to be a reason for this odd result. I dont know what it is.

It is my understanding the minority firefighters were upset about the tests before they were taken. For this type of job why promote firefighters based on a written test rather than their performance in the field? Why favor arbitrary multiple-choice questions over evaluations of leadership and execution? It's like giving out a driver's license based solely on the written test and no driving exam, only with much higher stakes, right?



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Sotomayor's problems are much deeper than just the decision about the firefighters. 5 of her 7 reviewed cases have now been overturned. Her own law clerks have said she doesn't have the temperament to be on the Supreme Court. She's lost her temper in court many times and even some Democrats are worried about this. With her replacing David Souter the makeup of the court will move further to the left but the decisions aren't likely to change much because Souter was a Liberal justice too. The difference is that Souter was much better qualified with the experience, good judgment and temperament and disciplined judicial approach to be a Supreme Court Justice. My arguments against Sotomayor have nothing to do with her personally and the criticisms of her that I've heard have had nothing to do with her personal life or her family. Even Republicans have said she's a personable person. So comparing her treatment to Sarah Palin's is way off base...not even close! But she's a poor choice, plain and simple. She shouldn't be confirmed. She thinks the constitution is something to be rewritten at her whim and this type of judicial activism is dangerous to the country regardless of which idealogical side it's coming from.

**************************************************************************************

"Half the lies they've said about me aren't true."

Yogi Berra

Not to burst your bubble as well JB, but you are way off base. Quit listening to blowhards Hannity and Cunningham - and read up on the woman.

Its a well known fact (at least among attorneys) that not every law clerk gets along with every judge. In fact, some of the nicest and most intelligent justices I have been before have law clerks that (normally behind closed doors) would horrify you with their opinions and recollections of these much loved justices tempers and "Senior Moments".

Not sure where you get that she is unqualified. She is an ivy leaguer with more judicial experience than anyone on the current Supreme Court at the time of confirmation. If she is unqualified, the entire Supreme Court is unqualified. LOL, but sorry buddy, but you are about as wrong as wrong can be on that issue.

Second, whether or not you think of a judge as an "activist" depends on what side of the aisle you vote. Some of us believe the Consitution is a living, breathing document that was intended to change as our country changes. Some people do not. Some people it is a dead document that the founding fathers intended to provide a basic set of guidelines to run the country and that is it. I think some of the basic protections (Buill of Rights) should not be eliminated, but they should and can be interpreted differently depending on the era and society. I have some Conservtive and some liberal views on the Constitution - I dont think there should be a Constitional right to abortion, but I do think the right to bear arms can be limited (not eliminated) depending on the weapon.

Republicans can be such jackasses about this kind of thing as well as having such a short freaking memory... I personally detested Alito's and Roberts' politics and allegiances, but I never doubted their qualifications. The same should be done with Sotomayor.

I am still laughing that you are convinced she is not fit based on what a 20 year old law clerk says in his first or second "real" internship (and likely before he/she is a lawyer). Its not only ridiculous, but its laughable that this is one of the "things" the conservatives came up with. Trust me, out of every office, there is always one or two people that dont like a particular person. Its human nature and has nothing to do with their ability to write decisions.

Lastly, you boys might want to do some fact checking. She isnt quite as liberal as you think on many issues. I can remember her backing Bush on the Mexico City Abortion issue to name one.

I HAVE read up on this woman. And what I've read only reinforces my opinion. And for the record the law clerks (plural) who have criticized her temperament are also joined by at least two of her collegues on the 2nd Circuit. Other law clerks who work for other judges in the 2nd circuit have joined with this criticism. She's been called a "bully on the bench", a "blowhard", "not very brainy" and not always able to grasp the underlying principles of the arguments among other things.

Several former prosecutors have criticized her opinions, although competent, as not being clean or tight and that sometimes she misses the forest for the trees. Others have said she has an "inflated opinion of herself" and is "domineering during oral arguments." During one argument one of her judicial colleagues is said to have leaned over to her and said "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?"

So you call these issues laughable and claim they come from Sean Hannity or Bill Cunningham. But these are the issues that will be brought up in her confirmation hearings and they are certainly not trivial. I won't accuse you of standing up for her because you listen to Keith Olberman too much. And regarding her past political affiliations, I'd say this; If Judge Alito had been a past member of some right wing extremist group the lefties would have crapped a squealing blue goose and he wouldn't have even made it into the Senate chambers let alone being confirmed. So let's treat her with the same scrutiny that conservative judges had to endure from the lefties on the Judiciary Committee. If it was good for them it's good for her. She doesn't get a free pass.

Like I said before, most of her decisions have been competent even if her narratives have missed the underlying constitutional points and even though 5 out of her 7 reviewed decisions have been overturned. So let's give her a fair hearing and see how she answers some hard questions. Surely you won't suggest the Senate rubber stamp her confirmation just because worshipful leader chose her? Laughable? Baloney!

"I HAVE read up on this woman. And what I've read only reinforces my opinion. And for the record the law clerks (plural) who have criticized her temperament are also joined by at least two of her collegues on the 2nd Circuit. Other law clerks who work for other judges in the 2nd circuit have joined with this criticism. She's been called a "bully on the bench", a "blowhard", "not very brainy" and not always able to grasp the underlying principles of the arguments among other things."

Links with names of the clerks and judges please. Why do I think this won't happen?

"Others have said she has an "inflated opinion of herself" and is "domineering during oral arguments." During one argument one of her judicial colleagues is said to have leaned over to her and said "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?"

LOL, this happens to every justice at one point or another. Do you really think these are isolated Sotomayor events?

Also, it means zero if the current Supreme Court (or the Supreme Court for the last 10 years) has overturned her decisions. The Supreme Court for the last 20 years or so has been conservative. If I remember correctly weren't a lot of the decisions against her 5-4? That is not that hrd to believe and hardly a reason to criticize her.

Lastly, its well known amongst lawyers that the opinions of Prosecutors means exactly ZILCH. They are normally the least creative and least diverse group of attorneys. They know ZERO about civil litigation (for the most part) and the public elects them judges based on their criminal experience (never mind that they have no clue what to do in civil litigation matters which is a majority of their workload).

Also did you say "extreme group"?

Are you referring to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund? Oh good god, let me guess, another guilt by association because of something one of its members did? LOL

When will you guys on the right quit with your guilt by association horse sh!t? It makes you look like such idiots.

This is a group that provides legal defense for Hispanic Indigent folks and poor people.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

ahhhh...now I get it... criticizing Palin is just being mean... while going after Sotomayer is really about educating the public.... got it.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

When will you guys on the right quit with your guilt by association horse sh!t? It makes you look like such idiots.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Now that is funny.


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Belko, I should start by saying that I don't think Palin has the polish to be POTUS. She's a good person with a great handle on national energy issues but she isn't a Washingon type and I don't think she'll do well if she tries to make a run at POTUS. But in my opinion the criticism of Palin has largely been of a personal nature, and yes very mean-spirited and meant to ridicule her. This isn't the case with Sotomayor.

Bronco, I haven't accused Sotomayor of anything regarding her past political affiliations. What I did was draw a parallel to what would happen to a conservative judge if he had those same type affiliations. The point was that she should be held to the same standards.

And the same old worn out Liberal tactic of attacking the source rears it's ugly head once again. You don't like the opinion of Prosecutors so you attack them. Brilliant. You don't like the opinion of the law clerks so you ridicule them. You don't like the criticisms of Sotomayor I forwarded in a previous post so you imply I made them up and can't support them with a link. Well here's one link for you... (I've got more)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

I can predict your next tactic will be to attack this source too, but I've come to expect that now.

Here's some more facts I probably made up. This is on record in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments. That's what makes the discussion of Sotomayor's temperament so striking. (previous 3 sentences taken from another article on the same subject) Here it is:


Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."

Gee, I just can't wait to have this judge throwing hissy fits from the hallowed chambers of the United States Supreme Court. Maybe she can throw a gavel at someone or pound her fist on the table and start berating lawyers on a personal level when they say something not in line with her predisposed notions instead of calmly asking a probative question that gets to the substantive issue at the core of the argument. Maybe she can make more decisions based on what kind of mood she's in that day. That would be great for the country wouldn't it.

I found this interesting rebuttal to Jeffrey Rosen's piece of "journalism":

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/

"The amazing speed with which so many people who know absolutely nothing about her are willing, indeed eager, to assume that she's stupid and doesn't deserve her achievements -- based on the fact that she's Puerto Rican and female and Rosen published some trashy, unaccountable gossip feeding that perception -- is really remarkable."

Apparently Rosen's brother-in-law is in line for a promotion if Solicitor General Elena Kagan gets the nomination instead of Sotomayor?

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

JB,
i'm trying not to get too into the this person is good this person is bad thing, I'm just trying to point out that murph complaining about Palin getting such a hard time from the media is part of being political.

I do however find some of your arguments worth questioning. The last ones re: what assistants said about Sotomayer... If I remember correctly, without doing a google search, wasn't the same exact thing said about Palin??? I could swear I remember a good number of her staffers saying that she was difficult to work for and bossy.

I don't know anything about Palin... she may be a good person, but she may not be. I don't know how you deduce that she is a good person based on what you know of her...

Finally, I give it to you that she sat on the Energy commission up in Alaska for a couple of years. I don't know that her experience there gives her vast experience on energy issues for the entire country. I would instead say that she has a couple of years experience working with oil companies on the north slope.... I would be willing to wager that she knows virtually nothing about imported oil, about coal, or about alternative energy sources.

I would think that Palin was difficult in the sense that she does not have a long track record to examine. Her experience is incredibly limited. What do you do with that in a political situation? You work with what you have and what the candidate gives you. Palin handed the media herself on a platter. She preached abstinence, and didn't tell anyone about her daughter until it was inevitably going to be found out... she gave horrible and un-informed interviews that made it plain that she was in over her head. She lauded how she stopped the bridge to nowhere and then everyone found out she kept the money. She highligted her own hypocrisies and pandered to the farthest right of the most polarizing issues in our nature, solidifying her base but also solidifying the points where people were going to come after her in an emotional and personal manner.



"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

This is too damn easy. I was expecting a conservative Op-ed that lacked true sources, names and even specifics Frommthe article:

"Sotomayor's former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness. "She is a rule-bound pragmatist--very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates, but her general approach is, unsurprisingly, influenced by her unique background," says one former clerk. "She grew up in a situation of disadvantage, and was able, by virtue of the system operating in such a fair way, to accomplish what she did. I think she sees the law as an instrument that can accomplish the same thing for other people, a system that, if administered fairly, can give everyone the fair break they deserve, regardless of who they are."

Her former clerks report that because Sotomayor is divorced and has no children, her clerks become like her extended family--working late with her, visiting her apartment once a month for card games (where she remembers their favorite drinks), and taking a field trip together to the premier of a Harry Potter movie. But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative."

Anyone notice what is missing (besides journalistic integrity?)? Yeah, no names, no persons to attribute this to. Hell, I could do this same op-ed. Even Murf could. This is the problem with conservative op-eds and their "studies/polls". You call it "liberal antics", its called attacking the credibility of a piece. I do this everyday when I oppose motions or reply to oppositions. The difference is my opponents are usually correct and accurate in their citations. These guys are pathetic.

Also, 3 of my best friends out here are Prosecutors. They are all pretty talented criminal attorneys (and trial attorneys), but put them in Civil Litigation, and they are a fish out of water. Its not opinion, its fact. Unless a Prosecutor has significant civil litigation experience, he will be a lesser judge than someone who has had both. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Belko, you've made several articulate points and they are well taken. If Palin said she stopped the bridge to nowhere then kept the money anyway I'd say she was more of a Liar than a hypocrite. But regarding her preaching abstinence while her daughter was pregnant I find no hypocrisy in that. It wasn't her that was pregnant it was her daughter. Obviously she still loves her daughter and she has admitted she made a mistake. And yes you migh be correct on her energy experience regarding alternative sources. Her experience has been with oil and natural gas because she's from Alaska where all the oil and natural gas is so it's a natural result.

BA, there is another article linked to the one I posted where Mr. Rosen responds to criticisms similar to the one you raised in your post. He explains why he felt he had to protect the names of some of his sources. And I couldn't care less that she is a woman or a Latino. She could be a Lesbian Eskimo for all I care. I'm interested in what kind of jurist she will be.

Bronco, if Judge Sotomayor argues with lawyers for the reason of arriving at a conclusion via the gathering all points of view then that's a reasonable approach. I do the same thing to arrive at my opinions and sometimes my opinions change because of the arguments others make. But the criticisms of her seem to be much more than just that. I maintain her behavior and temperament are still important considerations and exploring her past temper tantrums and demeanor is fair game and reasonable for the Senate Judiciary Committe.

**************************************************************************************

"Everything you can imagine is real."

Pablo Picasso

So you have issues with lesbian eskimo's????

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

"I maintain her behavior and temperament are still important considerations and exploring her past temper tantrums and demeanor is fair game and reasonable for the Senate Judiciary Committe."

JB, I agree with that statement 100%.

However, you stated in an earlier post that you would vote not to confirm her based on (among stings) that idiotic article that doesnt name names or sources. What kind of periodical allows an entire article to be published without naming a source? The worst part is the writer appears to have gotten the information from another article and is merely pseudo-citing or acting like the sources told him the information. Typical crap citation I expect from the right.

The last case that was decided in the Supreme Court this year (about the white firefighters) had some harsh, albeit veiled things to say about Sotomayor's competence.

Further, when she has spoken she said she does not think the 2nd Ammendment applies to the states. I have always found it curious that judges, even supreme court judges, can find a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights or Constitution, a "penumbra of rights" that gives a right to an abortion, that race based decisions need a "standard scrutiny" while saying the 2nd Ammendment does give me a personal right to own a gun.

However, only the "right to keep and bear arms" is ACTUALLY in there.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

If memory serves, she served on a 3 judge panel that decided the New Haven Case.

And let's be real here, it was a 5-4 decision and 4 of those justices were not as veil to her...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

You can be on the same side on the outcome, but come way short in the legal analysis, and that was my point. She may have had the liberal 4 on her side of the decision, but all four of them came to that conclusion on different legal grounds.

Great judges get reversed by higher all of the time, but rarely, if ever does the SCOTUS hint at incompetence.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

Yeah, but she didn't write the opinion, one of the other two judges on the circuit wrote the opinion.

Also, it appears that she has been reversed 60% of the time by the Supreme Court, this is actually a lower percentage than the average circuit court judges across the country.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270038



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Well, I read the entire Ricci decision.

Draw, the only reference to the Second Circuit I saw was in footnote 10 of Ginsbeg's dissent in which she stated she would have focused less on the City's intent...

Regardless, I did not see any scathing criticism of Sotomayor or the 2nd Circuit. Then again, its after midnight and I could have missed it.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Bronco, I urge you to read the companion article that was linked to the one you read. Reporters protect their sources all the time. I might be wrong but I would imagine you would be one of the first to protect their right to do so in most cases. In this case there is plenty of corroborating data elsewhere that is fully recorded, such as the document I alluded to in my previous post. It just seems to me that where there's smoke, there's fire and we agree it needs to be adequately explored. These criticisms of her demeanor are not new but they've been consistent. Now, if we're talking about her decisions that's a different matter. As you and Draw have been discussing, and as Jeffrey Rosen brought up in his article, many of her decisions have been competent and her written opinions have been lauded in some circles. I think she is more Liberal that David Souter and will move the aggregate idealogical slant of the court to the left. But since the court is divided now between 4 lefties and 4 righties and one centrist/rightie the actual makeup won't appreciably be changed.

I do worry about the current political trend in this country sliding farther and farther to the left though. The POTUS will likely have the opportunity to make at least one more nomination during his term(s) with Justice Ginsburg in poor health and Justice Stevens being about 157 years old.

*************************************************************************************************

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

Margaret Thatcher

Still wondering how she can vote down the race issue.
The mandate is....you have to pass the test to be promoted...

That is about as simple to understand as breathing.
Why on earth, would we want a Supreme Court justice that can't understand the basic concept of the city code.

Her job is not to like or dislike the rule.

Simple...

RULES FOR PROMOTION...
#1---PASS THE WRITTEN EXAM...HIGHER SCORES ADVANCE

What is the problem here?
Oh that's right, they are blue eyed devil white guys...change the rules, ignore common sense, and toss out all rules and regualtions.

Nice choice Obama..whats next...Rev Al and Jesse in charge of the Finance committe?



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"Still wondering how she can vote down the race issue.
The mandate is....you have to pass the test to be promoted..."

Murf, not be disrespectful, but you are out of your league on this one.

The issue is not who gets the better score advances. The issue is whether the test has a discriminatory intent in the way its written or a discriminatory impact (disparate impact) in the way its results ended up.

No racial or ethnic group of similary qualified individuals should pass a test at 50% of what white candidates passed. That is called a disparate impact or the results ended up with unexplained and
illogical results.

Its a Constitutional Law argument and it stems from case law and Title VII, whioch was passed by Congress after the intial Civil Rights Legislation. Its purpose was to remove instances where members of minorities were getting bypassed due to arbitrary exams and b.s. promotions.

In this case, it does not appear to me (at least on its face) that there was a discriminator intent, but the analysis does not stop there. The next hurdle to overcome is whether there were results that could be labeled as discriminatory. When all the black applicants (over 50) take an exam and none gets a promotion even though blacks compromise 40% of the population in New Haven, we have a problem.

However, Justice Kennedy, in his opinion (and arguably from left field) stated that in addition to the tests having a disparate impact there now needs to be a strong basis in evidence that the government entity (New Haven) must also have a strong basis that it will face liability if it certifies the test results (like the ones in New Haven). This standard has never been seen before and is (in my opinion) extremely vague and very arbitrary. In addition, the city was told by severla prominent leaders in the Community that they would be sued if they certifioed the results (damned if they do, damned if they don't).

I have a hard time with Kennedy's opinion based on the fact that there were less discriminatory tests available and the city neglected to use them. To me, that would have solved the problem to begin with. Now we are left with a decision that would appear to me to be useless because it cant or wont be used as precedent (similar to Bush v Gore).

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

The issue is not who gets the better score advances. The issue is whether the test has a discriminatory intent in the way its written or a discriminatory impact (disparate impact) in the way its results ended up.
~~~~~~~~~~~

I will not pretend to understand the details of the debate.
Here is my opinion based on several other of these type of cases.
You have a chance to study the test, there are countless avenues to explore to ready yourself for the tests.
So why special concern on the part of those who failed the test?

the Test is the same for everyone.
You score high...you move on.
You score low.....try again next year.

Pretty simple.
I don't want to hear about racial balance...I took the civil service exam a few times, and that was another test, said to be racialy biased...not a single question that I can remember, had a negative impact on a minority...
That is the victimhood cry.



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

That test is awful and arbitrary because all of the jurisprudence on Title VII is awful and arbitrary.

I can totally see how you could make a test discriminatory and have a disparate impact. However, the standard should be that a potential plaintiff should have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disparate impact was intentional.

I think there is a knee-jerk reaction that because a certain does more poorly than another that it was because of discrimination and not other factors should as the amount of work the candidates did, skill at test-taking, experience, knowledge, or the results of a small sample size.

Here the governmental entity must prove they did nothing wrong (at trial if there is litigation) instead of the plaintiff because of a discriminatory presumption.



There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

Can someone please give me an example of a question that is discriminating? Not saying it is or isn't but just want to know exactly what we are talking about.

Your exact question was a big piece of the lawsuit...nothing was ever proven to be racialy biased.
Most of these test, are simple study test.
You study, you learn the material, you pass the test.

you can't claim racial issues, b/c you can't retain information on a test.

I took the cicninanti police test.
Nothing to study for, basic read and retain information, with a few math questions here and there.
Scored a 91...still not hired...(that is a seperate debate), can I scream racial bais?

FedEx did not hire me b/c of my skin color..should I scream racial bias with them too?

Instead, I move on, and if I feel that I need to take antoher test, then I will take it.
People need to stop looking for the gov't to hold thier hands.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Here is potentially one:

Each team gets 3 outs per inning in a baseball game. If each team plays 6 innings, how many outs are made?

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

"I think there is a knee-jerk reaction that because a certain does more poorly than another that it was because of discrimination and not other factors should as the amount of work the candidates did, skill at test-taking, experience, knowledge, or the results of a small sample size."

there were also issues with the access to the study materials. the cost of the study materials. the fact that many of the white candidates also had access to additional materials from their parents/uncles (who were old captains and lietenants) whereas the blacks did not have access to these things (because the fire department has a relativly long history of disciminating against blacks, especially New Haven).

Some of you might say that you cant punish the white fire fighters for having people in their families that were captains and lieutenants to help them along the process. Well, I say you can'y further the discrimination against blacks by allowing the white firefighters to be able to use this resource (family and some references) not available to blacks. Why? Because it does nothing besides further the discrimination. Becuase blacks were not allowed or granted these promotions and advances years ago (due to racism and discrimination), they lose a valuable resource the white candidates have. Is that fair? How about Constitutional? I dont think so. Apparently, Justice Kennedy does.

20 years ago, there were zero black captains and lieutenants. 30 years ago? Zero. 40 years ago? zero. Title VII passes and the US Supreme Court decides a number of cases in favor of Title VII and against this practice. Now we have this case out of the clear blue sky that does not follow precedent or Stare Decisis (sp?).

I still dont understand why a municipality would use a multiple choice exam to be weighted the heaviest over practical exam or oral exam. Makes no sense.

Murf, you are still missing the point. the discrimination doesnt have to be intentional. It can be a result even without intentional actions. There is a reason for this. Not to get off on a tangent, but studies have shown that people of different backgrounds and races on the average should test about 80% of the highest testing race (usually whites). Any thing lower than that, the testing is faulty in some respect. In this case, the blacks and Hispanics scored a full 50% less on the average than whites. Something is wrong. It doesnt make sense. The testing is faulty or failed to consider a variable somewhere. That is why there was a problem.

Draw, I think an "intentional" standard is ridiculous. Do you realize how difficult it is to prove someone intentionally skewed an exam for discriminatory purposes? Our country has too far of a discrimatory history to let those in charge get off that easy with that ridiculous to prove standard.



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

And now we are seeing that the protections that led to "balancing" the field are going too far. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the standards and make it an intentional one.

I do think it is hard to prove an intentional act. Probably because at that level there would not be one. It would take a grand conspiracy to do so. However the disparate impact would remain and people would be forced to accept it was not the test or method, but they did just did not do as well as the others.

This is the way it is currently:

"We need a way of finding the objective best candidates. We will go to great expense and hire a private to develop a fair test for us."
Test is prepared and administered. Results do not have the right racial mix.
"Our test was obviously flawed, although I not sure why. I will refuse to consider that this disparity was based on ability, but I will instead choose to believe the test was biased, and offer no proof other than the disparity itself."
Results are thrown out

Now if you think the above scenario was reasonable, ask yourself if this could be applied to whites, or Asians at the NFL combine. The 40 times and shuttle times appear to be racially biased.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

"Now if you think the above scenario was reasonable, ask yourself if this could be applied to whites, or Asians at the NFL combine. The 40 times and shuttle times appear to be racially biased."

Comparing 40 yard dash times and analytical (well, pseudo-analystical multiple choice tests) is a bit disingenuous, no? We are talking about a private enterprise (the NFL) and a municipality (New Haven). Its not in the same ball park constitutionally.



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

there were also issues with the access to the study materials. the cost of the study materials. the fact that many of the white candidates also had access to additional materials from their parents/uncles (who were old captains and lietenants) whereas the blacks did not have access to these things (because the fire department has a relativly long history of disciminating against blacks, especially New Haven).
~~~~~~~~~~~
I call bullsh!t on this one Bronco. That is what some albulance chasing lawyer stated, not the truth.
The test material was available, and if these guys who failed the test, were firemen to start with, they could afford anything the other fireman that had white skin, could buy. they don't get paid on seperate scale based on race.

I have friends who are cops, they have had thier fathers/uncles and in one case, mom/dad/uncle at the same time as cops.
He advanced from time to time, but never has made LT. yet, b/c he did not score high enough on the exam.
An exam that has books and tapes and every other resource out there, to give you a chance to study the material.
This is 2009, not some Mayberry hickville in the 60's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any thing lower than that, the testing is faulty in some respect. In this case, the blacks and Hispanics scored a full 50% less on the average than whites.
~~~~~~~

I call bullsh!t on this too.
The testing is not faulty, the people taking the test are at fault.
For example...in highschool, I had science class with several other football/baseball players.
We all failed a midterm. Trust me, it was brutal.
The nerd squad, who followed in thier parents footsteps, all aced the thing and all belong to the "exclusive" group of the science team
Should we have had a special right given to us b/c we did not retain the information, or have parents that played with science that could help us out?
C'mon, Bronco, we need to stop this kind of bullsh!t thinking in this modern day society.
For all of the bullsh!t liberal agenda garbage you spew, and your liberal friends, this is the one subject you guys are stuck in the 60's about.
no matter the color, if you pass the test, you advance, if you fail the test you don't advance.
Resources out the azz, most likely samples of the test on the net, and books based on the material that will be coverd on the test and anything else you can think of.
Multi choice? Are you fricken kidding me?
We have killed the standards in this country from highschool diplomas, to credit, to jobs, to college applications.
Why? Based on some bullsh!t from the 50's and 60's. You treat black people as if they are victims b/c thier grandfathers or great grandfathers were true victims.
My father made 5.00 an hour and raised 4 boys, poor, in the hood, around poverty, drugs, death and violence.
Why not give me a fuching handout? One reason is b/c I refuse to ask for one or accept one.
Why not give me special consideration for scoring a fuching 91 on the CPD test?

That is what you fail to understand, blacks do not own the corner on poverty and little chances in life.
There are a bunch of black people in this country that are raised in great areas, with great education and great connections.
Just like there are many whites.
It is not a race issue, it is an individual issue.
Some people work hard and get rewarded for thier actions, other work hard and get asked to work harder.
It is unfair, but nobody knocked on your door and told you that life was fair and balanced, and the more you give special rights to a certain group of people, the more you create a new attitude towards those people.
Lowering the standards, dumbing down the tests, will not cure anything.
that has been proven for about 50 years now.
Think about...50 years since the Civil rights actions....50 years.
Stop living in the past and holding onto some civil rights march bullsh!t.
The tables are equal now...if you want to research it, the tables are titled more the other way.
Try getting some tution help as a middle class white family compared to a poor black family.

For all fo the new age, feel good, follow the unicorn bullsh!t your party champions, you fail to understand the basic concept of the foundation of this country.
Work hard and promote yourself, not wait for the gov't to provide everything for you and still make excuses for you when you fail.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

I think instead of a stimulus we should have just given reparations to descendants of slaves and American Indians as well as an official apology and maybe a parade or a whole freakin' month named "freedom month" or whatever would be appropriate.

In exchange for the votes for this decidedly left-wing legislation would be legislation to reverse all affirmative action legislation and any legislation that required mandates or race monitoring of any kind. Of course equal protection legislation would be kept in place in cases where the constitution doesn;t make it superfluous.

Many righties would be pissed about the spending but would mostly get over it quickly (while managing to never quite get over it) since its a once only kind of thing, and many lefties will always suspect systematic racism no matter what. It's kind of a lose-lose proposition but it would certainly cut down on the legal paperwork.

For reference on what the scenario might play out like, I reference the genius of Chapelle circa 2003:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=24406&title=reparations-2003

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

I think it would've created more jobs too, lol!

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

"The tables are equal now" - Murf's theory on racism and equality.

Judging by this article, it sure seems equal to me...

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Pool-Boots-Kids-Who-Might-Change-the-Complexion.html

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

You dont seem to get it, Murf. You are the one stuck in the 60's.

I know you dont read up on studies and sociology, but the fact remains that one particular race of applicants should never test less than 80% similar to another set of applicants
(and in this test it happened to TWO races). This is especially true when all these guys have the same minimum qualifications (30 months as firemen, commendations and having taken extra fire dept related courses and CLE's).

Something is wrong with the test...

Anytime a test has all the white guys kick azz and none none of the blacks and only 1% of the hispanics, something is wrong. It should never happen.

Here is a little fact for you 106 out of the 110 US Supreme Court Justices were white males. The reason there are almost no blacks, hispanics or women in that group is due to discrimination prejudice. Now, you could take a Murf argument and say those Justices were the "best people for the job" and you might be right on most of them. However, you are also wrong because minorities and women were never given the same chances as those white men to be the best candidates for the job. Understand how that works?

Listen, I am not a huge Affirmative Action guy. Truth to be told, I think its ridiculous in the private sector and has little or no place in the public sector. However, I am also a student of the law, politics, sociology (mostly for fun) and statistics (real stats, not Gallup polls).

Something is wrong with that test. there is no way Whites should score 50% better on something like that when you similarly situated and experienced examinees...no way...


"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

#1--When were the Supreme Justices appointed?
Again, you are the one living in the 60's. I never said racism was never a part of our culture.

#2--You are basing your opinion on a test taken by how many people total?

#3--We have yet to see any racialy biased questions.

Look, if you are wanting to find a racial issue, you can find one in just about anything by twisting the facts.

The point is, most of these test are simple in nature and have material to study from prior to the test.
I simply don't understand, how dumbed down we need to make things, in order for people to stop calling them racist test.
This has been going on for years and years.

I don't care what color of skin the people have that are firemen/cops/ambulance..whatever...as long as they are doing thier jobs.
If they want to be promoted, the guidlines are set, study, and work hard fo rthe test and the best scores adavance to the next phase.
Pretty simple.

We have become a Dr. Phil society!



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"Now if you think the above scenario was reasonable, ask yourself if this could be applied to whites, or Asians at the NFL combine. The 40 times and shuttle times appear to be racially biased."

Comparing 40 yard dash times and analytical (well, pseudo-analystical multiple choice tests) is a bit disingenuous, no? We are talking about a private enterprise (the NFL) and a municipality (New Haven). Its not in the same ball park constitutionally.

My hypo was to point out that sometimes it is not the test or testing method, but the inherent ability of those who are tested. The governmental/private issue is not relevant for my point.

In fact, the question is are the 40-yard dash and shuttle tests racially biased? Care to answer that?

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

I think you are misusing the term "biased" in your hypo. You are talking about results of a sprint. Plus, you are talking about something that occurs naturally (for the most part) in a person's speed. It cant (for the most part) be improved that much and there is no score of 100% to be achieved. However, if that 40 time is, in fact, the best gauge of speed for all races and there were no other alternative methods to measure quickness in a 40 yard span available and all the races had an equal opportnity (and ability) to improve their speed to gain a "perfect score" then it would not be biased.

Using your hypo, you seem to suggest that white people will naturally score higher on an exam like the firefighters because they are white? Is that what you are saying? You may be treading into some serious waters there, my friend...





"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Murf, I notice you did not respond to my link I posted about what happened in Philadelphis yesterday...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Bronco, that Philidelphia story, you always get on my case for posting a story that is just one example and not a representative of a whole class. Isn't this kinda what you are doing?

It was linked to show Murf the "tables are not equal" (he set himself up for that one).

Also, this wasnt one person, this was a group (several hundred) of rich white scumbags that just got bitch slapped on national tv and media because of their idiot PR actions.

I hope you are right. I hope this is but one isolated incident and nothign else like this happens and it was poorly used as an example.

But seriously, who are we kidding, right?

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"Here is potentially one:
Each team gets 3 outs per inning in a baseball game. If each team plays 6 innings, how many outs are made?"


I don't believe this question to be biased because the variables are outlined for you and you do not need to know the rules of baseball, maybe as a reach, if one does not know how many teams play at the same time. I would actually buy Bronco's reasoning about family history and access, but that isn't about the test per se being biased.

I am simply asking if you think the tests are biased based on the disparate impact. You still have not answered, although it seems you hint that they are not. I am asking you to explicitly state whether you think they are biased or not.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

I know what you are getting at. However, its faulty on a few levels.

1. The 40 yard dash is one of 30 tests used by NFL teams to pick players (as opposed to a written and oral exam in the New Haven case). Obviously, the biggest test they use (besidess Al Davis, who loves the 40 yard dash) is game experience and workouts and combine results.

2. The 40 yard dash is not a test that is applicable to every position (actually I think its useless without pads on, but I digress) on the field.

3. Unlike the New Haven case, some "test takers" of a minority (white) color scored well and earned a starting job.

However, it is a supposedly facially neutral test with disparate results (for the most part). However, as you can probably tell, I dont think its analogous to the firefighter situation at all.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

You STILL have not answered the question. Hide the ball much?

Despite what you have said, it is well documented that 0.1 sec improvement can mean millions. The 40 time is very relevant to rookie pay and who gets drafted. See Darius Heywood-Bay.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

"Despite what you have said, it is well documented that 0.1 sec improvement can mean millions."

Yeah, but slower people still get the same jobs, right? And I said there were disparate results. I dont believe its "biased" as the test was not created by blacks nor is it indicative of the type of player you will be (Darrius Heyward Bet is an outlier - you cant factor in Al Davis to any equation - you lose points on credibility there).

Why dont you address the points I brought up? Your non-analogous hypothetical which has zero comparison to the New Haven issue has ran its course.

Plus, you ignored the point about the 40 not being the test in which to get that job.

I hope you arent relying on Al Davis to make your point. Otherwise, you make it pretty easy to debunk.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I was not ingoring your story, just seemed a bit out of touch with the topic.
A few uptight white idiots at a swim club, is not the same as lowering th standards of testing to allow black people to get a job over a white person, based on skin color.

Of course there is racism in society...read much on the wonderfull world of the nati lately?
Black kids, beating older white people, simply b/c they will not fight back.
A white woman punched in the face for not holding the door open for a black man at a UDF.

I could spend hours, on stories of black people treating white people wrong.

That has nothing to do with lowering the standards of society based on race.





"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

 

One day in beautiful sunny winnemucca and this thread goes crazy...

 

Murph...

your nerd vs. jocks hypo is flawed.  In your example jocks put less emphasis on studies than the nerds did.  i.e. of course the nerd's did better, they did what it took to get the grades while the jocks spent more time doing other things.  If you want to call it discrimination it goes like this... there were some jocks that really wanted to get a good grade on the test.  They studied hard.  Even thought they studied hard, they found out that the nerds did well and the jocks did poorely.  When they asked a nerd why...the nerd told them that the teacher had planned a study group for anyone who wanted to do better on the test that ran at the same time as football practice... that would be discrimination.

Or.  this jock went to a school that taught in spanish.  He went to a new school tha taught in german.  When he got an F on the tests he was given in german the school did nothing to give him opportunities to learn german and insted labled him as being stupid.

"Yeah, but slower people still get the same jobs, right?"

sometimes not, and they get paid less when they do. You have two people doing the same job for a team, and one gets paid less. I bet I can give you 1000s of lawsuits on this subject.

"I dont believe its "biased" as the test was not created by blacks nor is it indicative of the type of player you will be "

Wow, I think it is you in dangerous territory. Apparently blacks cannot create a biased test, but Whitey can.

"Plus, you ignored the point about the 40 not being the test in which to get that job."

We both know it is factor, a big factor.

"I hope you arent relying on Al Davis to make your point. Otherwise, you make it pretty easy to debunk"

He is a nut, but relevant. People like Al Davis make hiring decisions on these things. Whether you think (or I) think Al Davis is insane is irrelevant, because those hiring decisions are indeed made.



You call the hypo "non-analogous". Are you sure you know what that means? Of course it has differences, and you use those differences to illustrate a point. It is analogous, it is not congruent.

Furthermore, I think your reply illustrates the dichotomy. You assume the disparate impact in the 40 times is not biased because we inherently know that it is not. But I bet that never even crossed your mind in the New Haven case. In fact, I think you said merely because there was wide disparity it was a problem. But no such problem here.

Is your goal to have a test that finds the best applicants, or to achieve a certain mix?






There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary, and those who do not.

One day in beautiful sunny winnemucca and this thread goes crazy...

 

Murph...

your nerd vs. jocks hypo is flawed.  In your example jocks put less emphasis on studies than the nerds did.  i.e. of course the nerd's did better, they did what it took to get the grades while the jocks spent more time doing other things.  If you want to call it discrimination it goes like this... there were some jocks that really wanted to get a good grade on the test.  They studied hard.  Even thought they studied hard, they found out that the nerds did well and the jocks did poorely.  When they asked a nerd why...the nerd told them that the teacher had planned a study group for anyone who wanted to do better on the test that ran at the same time as football practice... that would be discrimination.

Or.  this jock went to a school that taught in spanish.  He went to a new school tha taught in german.  When he got an F on the tests he was given in german the school did nothing to give him opportunities to learn german and insted labled him as being stupid.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

Draw,

Who cares if its a factor? The test in the New Haven case wasnt a factor. It was 60% weighted on who got the job. 60%!!!!!!!!

Te difference in this case is that I think a true test for firefighters should be real time, real scenario testing. Some B.S. book exam is ridiculous for this particular profession. You agree with that , right?

Also,

"The last case that was decided in the Supreme Court this year (about the white firefighters) had some harsh, albeit veiled things to say about Sotomayor's competence."

You havent retracted that statement yet. I still havent see any harsh or veiled things about Sotomayor in this decision...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"Te difference in this case is that I think a true test for firefighters should be real time, real scenario testing. Some B.S. book exam is ridiculous for this particular profession. You agree with that , right?"

That is how they did it 30 years ago, but only men were being promoted.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

No...2 types of people tookt he science test.
1 group failed big time, the other group scored high.

Same deal here...sorry, but the color of someones skin, does not automaticaly give them a reason for getting special rights.
The minute this nation embraces that, we can turn the corner on racial issues.
The more we create unfair biased laws based on skin color and sexual desires, the more hate will be evident.

We are not talking about the 60's here.
We are talking modern day society.
Where everyone over the past 50 years, has had a chance to better themselves.
Society is not at fault for the failures of the few.
Lowering standards to promote people is wrong. Society gains nothing from it.
The people that got job, did nothing special to get the job, besides take advantage of an ignorant society.
The people who worked hard to past the test, feel unimportant and handcuffed and feel liek they have been spit on by society.
So why teach work ethic?
If your a minority..just cry racism if you fail a test.
If your white, people like Sotomayor will just cut you down b/c of the past history of this nation.

When you protray a race as victims, it is racist.
That is more racist, than saying that evil "n" word.
The entire race, does not need or cry for lawer standards on test.
So why create a law based on a small percentage of people of one race?
Are we not the UNITED STATES of America?
If we are going to start using seperate rules based on race and gender and sexual desires, then we are no better than the African tribes that slaughter eachother everyday....

You can Dr.Phil this sh!t to death, it will not change the basic concept of human rights.
Twisting laws to lower standards is simply wrong!

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

I guess you can scream about this too...
Love the first line...
"THEY ARE NOT CALLING IT A HATE CRIME YET"

If a group of white teens attacked a group of black people and screamed that this is a white world.
Jesse and Al would be walking around in tears, crying for the camera.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

So Murph... you are saying that the Jocks studies and tried just as hard on that test as the nerds?  that means you and your jock friends are just not very intelligent.

 

 

 

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

more whining and moaning over the plight of the working-class white man, as he references Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for the 13,078,324th time.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

Interesting twist to Murf's link -

"The construction worker said he now fears for his family's safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance."

Another lazy person without health insurance. Get a job and get some insurance you deadbeat...wait a minute...

Murf, why dont you let the cops do their job before you criticize them on this one. Al and Jesse are such non-factors, but they bother you so much...so weird...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

No Belko, that is my point.
Part of the debate was based on prior history of the family of the people taking the test.
Bronco said that they white firemen had an advantage b/c they had family in the field and that gave them an unfair advantage.
I called bullsh!t on it.

I never studied hard for any test and most geeks scored alot higher on tests than I did.
My point is, should the testing be tossed out and dumbed down, so that people who play sports, have a better chance at passing the test?

Silly debate, but it is on the same basis of this debate.
~~~~~~~~~~

BA/Bronco---way to avoid the topic. Never shocking when a liberal tries every angle but the facts.
I was surfing around last night on the idiot box, and came across about 3 minutes of Olberman.
Lead story...black kids not allowed in a private swim club.
No story---black kids attacking a white family and screaming it is a black world.

Now, if you are going to show the ignorance on one side, that only hurt feelings, then why not bring up the violent story?

Yes, I bring up Al and Jesse b/c they are racist morons, that run to the camera every single time a black person is treated unfairly and there is money involved. Both are hypocrits, one caused a murder with his pathetic extortion practices.
They both champion equal rights and justice...yet, never seem to hear form them, when a group of out of control animals, attack an innocent family. Black or white!

The swiming pool story is coming from all sides. The violent assualt on a family with racial intent....nothing.
Wonder why that is?

O.K. Murph... I could swear rainman...that this is how I explained it to you...

Jocks didn't study enough = no discrimination

Jocks are stupid = no discrimination

Study time was set up in a way that Jocks could not attend = discrimination

Test was set up in a way that being a Jock made it unlikely that one would know the answer = discrimination

Setting up the test in a way that gives nerds an inherantly better chance of doing better = discrimination

 

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

Murf,

I have heard aboutt he attack on the white family on every news network in the past couple days. Do you live in a cave?



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Now the story is getting some press.
Olberman did not mention 1 single word about this, but went on and on about the private swim club.

It just proves my point more and more.
White racist idiots, get press...the other night, the story about the swim club, was lead in by a clip of a Klan Rally.
The Klan had nothing to do with this story, and according to the new facts comming out, it wasn't as racist as seemed at first and there is no evidence of anyone saying that they hated black kids, as reported.
I was not there, and I am sure the swim club is playing damage control if something did happen, but that does not compare to the black men, attacking a white family and screaming that this is a black world.

Here in good ol' Cincy, black men are attacking white people all of the time.
Of course, it is old couples, little girls and women...not so much the white males.
Now, before any of you Suburban super heroes want to call me out on that...look up the stories yourself...I will give you the headlines.
2 black men beat and rob elderly couple in thier own garage.
7 black men beat a deaf girl outside of the public library.
1 black man and a black woman, punch and kick a woman b/c she did not hold the door for him at a UDF.
5 black men attack a woman at her car in the parking lot of a shoping center.
1 black man punched and snatched a purse outside of Dunkin donuts.
2 black men sexualy assaulted a semi-blind girl 18, in the parking lot of a Biggs.
3 black men attack woman at ATM.
All of these stories are very recent and in one area...my area...
Yet, these stories make the local news for 2 seconds, but never carry the national attention of the poor black kids being mistreated at a swim club, that may or may not be the complete story.
If that swin club did something wrong, then they deserve to feel the backlash, my question is, why is this only a 1 way street in the media?



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

My God you are dumb. How does a black person committing a crime against a white person equal racism? More phony victimization talk by poor oppressed white man murf. You didn't mention Al Sharpton in this post -- what's up?

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

How is dozens of blacks can assault, unprovoked, a white family yelling "This is our world" and "This is a black world" and it not be a hate crime?

BA...I know you are not very bright when it comes to this subject, but you have to explain to me how you fail to see the racist attack here?

Black men, beat a white family, and during the beating, they scream that this is a black world and this is our world.
What other evidence do you need to to grasp the facts here?

The black men that got nailed for beating a white girl...in court, stated, that they attacked the white girl b/c she was white, and they attack white people, b/c white people never fight back.

Yet you fail to see where it is a hate crime and racist?

You do need to seek a serious mental evaluation if you can't understand this.

Al and Jesse failed to show up and cry for the camera holding the white families hands.
Both had opinions on the swim club...amazing...equal justice...lol


For your safety, you should seek help, or stay in your moms house, away from real soceity.

It is amazing the grasp political correctness has on BA and a lot of the left. It is a mental illness that they do not realize they have. A non infected person would know that a bunch of blacks beating an innocent white family is indefensible racism. I bet if BA was there, he would have kicked the white guy in the ribs while he was down instead of calling the police. jk, well sorta.

"2 black men beat and rob elderly couple in thier own garage.
7 black men beat a deaf girl outside of the public library.
1 black man and a black woman, punch and kick a woman b/c she did not hold the door for him at a UDF.
5 black men attack a woman at her car in the parking lot of a shoping center.
1 black man punched and snatched a purse outside of Dunkin donuts.
2 black men sexualy assaulted a semi-blind girl 18, in the parking lot of a Biggs.
3 black men attack woman at ATM."

Where is the evidence of racism here? Yet another example of conservative "proof" to support bigoted views. You give that one case (which you provide zero support for in terms of links, by the way) in which you provide some indication of racism, and then eight more cases of simple assault, all of which you want to assume were racially motivated on your "gut instinct" (the conservative's #1 source of information for decision-making). Then, when criticized for not providing any proof to support your claims, you term it "political correctness". No wonder America is turning away from conservatism in droves. Reasonable people like reasonable thinking, not thinking clouded by bias and hate.
No one said black people can't be racist. Human beings are human beings, and we are all flawed in different ways. The argument here is that black people have suffered infinitely more at the hands of white racism than vice versa, and that black people actually have a REASON to hold those attitudes, however unproductive those attitudes may be in today's world. Until you acknowledge that, you will continue to be relegated to that part of society that is rejected by the majority and that is destined to be banished as we continue to try and build a truly equal society.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

The argument here is that black people have suffered infinitely more at the hands of white racism than vice versa, and that black people actually have a REASON to hold those attitudes,
~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was waiting for this type of a response.
You just proved to me that you are one special kind of idiot.

Provide a link?...I posted the story....lol!

WOW!


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

We all know that your news "stories" are at best factually inaccurate and at worst patently false. There's no end of your "I heard on the news the other day" stories that you can't back up. Its one of the reasons why you are ridiculed endlessly and have no credibility.

The argument here is that black people have suffered infinitely more at the hands of white racism than vice versa, and that black people actually have a REASON to hold those attitudes

You actually deny that is true? I must have forgot those hundreds of years whites were enslaved by blacks, my bad.
The only thing worse than ignorance is willful ignorance. You should keep on the internet and never venture out into the real world. I can only imagine how humorous your ideas sound in person. Perhaps you are one of those guys that loves to spout their wacky thoughts on the web but keep quiet in the general public because they know how stupid they would appear.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

I tend to stay out of these threads, so I only feel the need to jump in when I feel that both sides of an argument might have missed something.

So BA, you missed something. This wasn't just "one dubious source." Look up "Marty Marshall" in quotes in Google News and the story comes up repeatedly.

And murf, you asked "why nothing from Al and Jesse?" I can't say anything for Jesse but this is on the record: "These teens need to be punished as much as any dumb redneck in white sheets," said Richard Jones, a Sharpton spokesman based in Cleveland. "Nobody should be attacked like this, whether they are black or white. These young men who are responsible need to be brought to justice."

Just that I'd clear those two things up. Now carry on with your quarrel.....

BMN

Believe me, I've read up on the story, and reports are quite sketchy and mostly on right-wing websites with rather disturbing comments following. I wonder if it will turn out to be one of these cases:http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d9411r800&show_article=1
Remember that one? The right-wing nuts got wood over this case when it came out, only to promptly lose their erections when it came out that the girl had fabricated the whole thing to try and scare people away from voting for Obama.
The swim club story was more newsworthy because it involved a case where an institution apparently enforced a policy of discrimination on the basis of race. This is more relevant to society than the story of a gang of hooligans allegedly involved in one of the thousands of reported hate crimes that occur yearly in America. My issue with murf's long list of reported assaults of whites by blacks in his local area (the fact that he took the time to compile this list is amusing in itself) is his assumption that these cases were racially motivated simply because one party was white and the other was black. Pure stupidity and par for the course in terms of his reliance on assumptions to form his reality. I also find it plain weird that murf takes objection with the statement that blacks in this country have suffered more from racism than whites have. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since he has such a victim mentality in life.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

Believe me, I've read up on the story, and reports are quite sketchy and mostly on right-wing websites with rather disturbing comments following.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right wing websites? You can't even read the evidence, without trying to deny the facts of the case.
Bringing up an old story about a stupid girl, does not erase the attack, and has nothing to do with this story.




The swim club story was more newsworthy because it involved a case where an institution apparently enforced a policy of discrimination on the basis of race.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wrong, that is what the news stated, not the full story.
Safety was part of the reason...read more about the swim club and what they do for inner city youth...again, the news didn't give the full story at first.

I also find it plain weird that murf takes objection with the statement that blacks in this country have suffered more from racism than whites have.
~~~~~~~~~~

Who takes objection to that?
If you want to live in the past and go back 50 years, then I agree.
You can't use that excuse today.

Here is the point you never seem to understand...
You hate it when an entire race gets lumped together...yet you lump them together when it benefits your goofy thinking.
Is there cases of racism on a dialy basis? Of course there is, on all sides of race.
Slavery has been over for how many years? The racist behavior of this nation up to the 60's, was brutal and wrong in every way, but do the math, those days are long gone.
So you can't erase a blatant racist attack b/c of what happend in this country 50+ years ago.

If you think a PRIVATE swimclub mistreating a few kids is worst than a violent attack on a family...then you are seriously missing a few wires in your brain.
~~~~~~~~~

Was not hard to compile the crimes...I live in area, that was safe enough to sleep with the doors unlocked at night.
Over the past 3 years, this area became the dumping grounds for the CMHA housing..that brought a ton of crime.
I watch my area very close.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"Safety was part of the reason...read more about the swim club and what they do for inner city youth...again, the news didn't give the full story at first."


Murf, do you really beleive that? REALLY? I MEAN COME ON DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only a dumb mother fukker would believe this B.S. explanation from the "Swim Club President" that is released several days after this happened.

I seriously can't believe even you fell for this line of horse sh!t.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

At first, I laughed when I read that.
Then I read the story printed yesterday....are they playing damge control?
Of course they are....but if you read the story and listen to the other side of it, there is something to the safety concerns.
I am not saying that this swim club was not in the wrong or was right, I don't give a rats azz about a yuppie swim club, in a yuppie state...
My point was, this entire nation had pitch forks and ropes out, without all of the facts.
Then when another story pops up, with all kind of facts and sotry lines, the country ignored it.



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Oh boo hoo the media...

in other news, I'd love to rock a 3 way with her 2 daughters

I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino female who hasn't lived that life.

Words of wisdom or racism?

Well Murph I guess it has to do with the question... are they talking about a white issue? Maybe something like... "how is life as a Supreme Court Justice" I think a wise white man with experience (on the court) would have a better answer as of today since there has never been a latino female on the court.

Or what is it like to be President... what is it like to be vice president.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

"" I think a wise white man with experience (on the court) would have a better answer as of today since there has never been a latino female on the court."


Then you're just trying to make a statement then?!?!?!?!??!? WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!? This is just idiocy.





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Its about taking the statement in context. The right loves to do this.

Remember back in the election, when the Hannity's, Cunninghams and Limbaugh's took fragments of sentences from Obama's books and tried (but failed) to make him look like someone he wasn't?

Again, what context are you referring to? Like Belko said,we are talking about a position that has had 106 out of 110 of its members be white males.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Sotomayor is a lock. A shoe-in. This is the worst dirt they can dig up on her, and although the comment did deserve an explanation she did so in an appropriate manner. Pencil her into the spot.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

After reading some of the transcription of Sotomayor's hearing today, I realized I forgot to mention the most persuasive reason why her decision in the firefighter case shouldn't be criticized.

She was following Supreme Court precedent when she agreed with the other judges opinion.

The Supremes came out with a new test and standard in the Ricci case. Sotomayor simply followed their previous rulings on disparate impact. You and I can argue until we are blue in the face about whether disparate impact is a good idea or not, but we cant argue is that she didnt follow what others had decided before her. Stare Decisis does mean something...or at least until it gets overturned by a strange opinion.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I honestly don't care if she is on or not, I think it is set in stone that she is in no matter what.
I would have just loved to hear the outcry if a white man did make that comment.

Bronco, you are correct and I agree, that this is out of context, but how many other times has this gone down and become a huge issue for people?

The Firemen case, she failed to use her brain, no matter what, she was 100% wrong.
Plus, did you ever wonder how much lower the test scores were for the initial hiring?

"The Firemen case, she failed to use her brain, no matter what, she was 100% wrong."

Sorry, I have to disagree. Its opinion and not fact. No matter what you say, I will never give any creedence to a test where that many people of one race score that much better on a mental test than members of two other races. It makes no sense.

Plus, she followed previous Supreme Court ruling, so that, in and of itself, makes her a judge following the law and not an "activist" judge.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

But physical tests are something different, eh? There can be measurable physical differences, but nothing else?

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

O.K. Draw it is kind of like this as I see it. If it is directly necessary to do the job than the test is fine. Some jobs you have to lift 50lbs, that is a requirement of the job and not discrimination. In athletics, physical fitness is a key requirement of the job and therefore it makes sense that testing for that attribute fits the job description. If the job needs specific skills, i.e. a pilot needs to have a pilots license, well than that makes sense as well.

The issue that has to be examined on every discrimination litmus test is ...all things being equal did one group receive preference over the other. When 100 people each -- of 3 races (300 people in all) are working in a professional situation and they met the exact same base requirements for getting the job and they all have the required on the job experience to qualify for a promotion and they all have the service record and the aptitude to be considered for a promotion, but only one racial category passes the promotion test... well that is just means to at least question what exactly is the issue.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

Let's not forget the obvious reason either.

If you take the same 100 people and allow them to prepare for the 40 yard dash, its more likely than not that the average black person (and blacks as a whole) will still run faster than white people no matter how long they prepare for the 40.

The same cannot be said for the mental test. As a whole, whites may score higher on it, but not 50% higher than all other races.

That would be like the average white guy running the 40 yard dash in 5 seconds and the average black guy running it in 2.5 seconds. sorry, not in a million years.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

How about a quote from Bush nominee Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearings,

"But when I look at those (discrimination and immigration) cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country . . . When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...anyone care to notice the big white elephant named "hypocrisy" in the Congressional hearing room?


"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

" its more likely than not that the average black person (and blacks as a whole) will still run faster than white people no matter how long they prepare for the 40. "

Why you say that?



" As a whole, whites may score higher on it,"

Why you say that?

Because genius, Draw and I were talking about NFL players before, I would think (call it a crazy assumption) that the average black player in the NFL can run faster than the average white player.

Whites have scored higher (on the average) than Blacks in standardized testing (ACT, SAT, MCAT, LSAT, ect).

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I'm just saysing, for whatever reason you hold could be the reason for the variations.

"No matter what you say, I will never give any creedence to a test where that many people of one race score that much better on a mental test than members of two other races. It makes no sense."

I don't know the particulars of this case, but with a small enough sample size any result is possible and not necessarily an indication of discrimination.

If Obama, Murf and a Mexican with Down Syndrome all took an IQ test, for example, it is reasonable to assume that one particular "race" would fair significantly better (though Obama has both white and black heritage and race is a human construct with no solid basis to begin with). The result would not be a reflection of inherent racism in the test, but merely a result of the abilities of the test-takers.

Of course if the firegfighters promotion test was given to 1,000 candidates and one particular "race" scored 50% better, that is highly suspicious. If 20 or 30 people took the test, I would not be inclined to jump to the conclusion that the test was racist without some other supporting evidence.

For the 118 firemen who took the exams, the pass rate for black candidates was approximately half that of the corresponding rate for white candidates.

The passage rate for the Captain exam was: 16 (64%) of the 25 whites; 3 (38%) of the 8 blacks; 3 (38%) of the 8 Hispanics[7]. The top 9 scorers included 7 whites and 2 Hispanics; given that there were 7 Captain vacancies when the tests were administered, and that the "Rule of Three" in the City Charter mandates that a civil service position be filled from among the three individuals with the highest scores on the exam, it appeared that no blacks and at most two Hispanics would be eligible for promotion.

The passage rate for the Lieutenant exam was: 25 (58%) of the 43 whites; 6 (32%) of the 19 blacks; 3 (20%) of the 15 Hispanics. All the top 10 scorers were white; given that there were 8 vacancies, under the "Rule of Three" it appeared that no blacks or Hispanics would be eligible for promotion.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I don't care what color of skin the person has...if you pass the test, you move on, you fail the test, you stay at the same level.
Stop trying to make this country retarded!

We lower the standards so we don't hurt feelings...that is only creating generations of stupid people.
Why study? Just tell the white kids to apologize to every single person that is not white, for being white and tell the minority kids that hard work and study is not needed, b/c we need to lower the standards to make everyone happy and equal.

We lower the standards on the housing market to make it nice and easy for everyone and the killed the economy.
We lower the standards on graduation exams...colleges complaining that a certain percentage of a certain population, is testing at an 8th-9th grade level and another certain race, can't even speak English and are being handed highschool diplomas.

Hell in California last year, some launched a lawsuit and got thier diplomas without even passing the test b/c they did not provide enough spanish speaking teachers to teach the illegal kids.

Great Utopian plan you guys have there.
This is going to be the death of the nation.


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Murf

Its not about lowering the standards. Actually, "lowering the standards" is an argument the minorities used in this case because they think the real standards are job performance and the oral exam, not some idiotic multiple choice test.



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"If Obama, Murf and a Mexican with Down Syndrome all took an IQ test"


hahahaha this is funny, then murf would call the test biased because he came in third and it wouldn't even be close.

Speaking as someone who has had some experience taking civil service exams let me offer the following as a typical question:

Which of the following does not belong?

a] Hammer
b] Screwdriver
c] Wrench
d] Rhinocerous

While I don't have any knowledge of the particular questions on this firefighter test, the tests I've seen don't require great intellect to pass. It sounds like some would prefer to keep rewriting these tests until the results equal out. In other words, the only way the results will be acceptable is if all races and cultures score equally well. But unless there is some racial or cultural bias inherent in the questions such an exercise is doomed to perpetual failure. Assuming there is no racial or cultural bias in the questions, another way of stating this would be that the only way we can eliminate bias from the tests is to introduce bias into them? This is nothing more than social engineering. I'm against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise to the top. (I think Robert Frost said that) In the long run we're all better off for it.

Its not about lowering the standards. Actually, "lowering the standards" is an argument the minorities used in this case because they think the real standards are job performance and the oral exam, not some idiotic multiple choice test.
~~~~~~~~~~

It is 100% about lowering the standards.
I don't care what job it is, if the guidelines are set in place that you must pass a test to be promoted, then you must pass the test to be promoted.
You can't cry about the test when you fail the damn thing and scream that the entire system needs to be revamped b/c your dumb ass can't pass the test.

This is insane.
Yes, they are trying to lower the standards, or this would not be an issue.

Pretty simple.



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

People, murf has proven time and time again he is unable to comprehend any but the most simple and concrete concepts. If you as him to try to understand things like cultural bias and institutional racism and he'll just come back with some response worthy of a five-year-old. He is simply incapable or unwilling to open his mind just the tiniest bit to see things from the other perspective, so all we get are assertions that this is "simple" and that no matter what the circumstances the top scorers deserve all the rewards. We are finally at the stage where society is willing to accept the mere IDEA that some groups are at a systemic disadvantage, yet we still have the murf's of the world feeling sorry for themselves and sticking their heads in the sand.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

Speaking of being open-minded, it is amazing how people on here will come out and say the reason for these variances is discrimination, thats it, no other answer will suffice, thank you, good bye. Any other thought, you will be guilty of heresy. You guys are no different than the Catholic Church of the middle ages with your political correctness.

I for one leave all options on the table, after all, nothing has been proven scientifically. Has anyone ever heard about the scientific method? It has advanced mankind so far its amazing you turn your backs on it.

"You can't cry about the test when you fail the damn thing and scream that the entire system needs to be revamped b/c your dumb ass can't pass the test."

You might have a point if there wasnt a huge controversy about how the test was written and how the tests were weighted to reach the coveted "promotion". Unfortunately, there was a controversy. I undertsand you didnt bother to read the Supreme Court decision (no surprise there), but before you start talking out of your azz, you might try to educate yourself on the facts before you go off spouting your ignorant jargon.

There were other tests available that other districts had used (even in Connecticut). These were disregarded event though those tests were proven not to have disparate impact. Also, dont you think the test should be about job performance and who can perform the tasks in life changing seconds?

A multiple choice test is as good a predictor of who will be a good captain of a fire departmwent as the bar exam is a good predictor of who will be a good lawyer (in case you didnt catch that, neither one are good predictors, just so we are clear).

Murf, I understand your a black/white guy when it comes to the law - what I mean is you have simple attitude about whether you think its either right or wrong. That's fine and dandy if you want to live your life like that, but dont try to get involved in big boy Supreme Court decisions if you dont understand the law, the precedent and why decisions are made. In the law, there is a lot more grey than there is black and white and there is a reason for that.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"I for one leave all options on the table, after all, nothing has been proven scientifically. Has anyone ever heard about the scientific method? It has advanced mankind so far its amazing you turn your backs on it." The man with the yellow hat

Yes homey, you sure are Mr. Fair and Balanced. Its one thing to "leave all options on the table" its another to have enough control of your biases that they don't sway all your attitudes and beliefs. You were so upset when "Curious George" was elected you acted like the White House was going to be instantly transformed into P. Diddy's mansion. You have little credibility playing the role of impartial, rational observer.
I have a Ph.D. and have been published in several peer-reviewed journals, so believe me when I say that I understand what the scientific method is.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

all that rant from a guy who cant even read english and he is white....lmmfao. hey dude you need work here i'll toss you a bone come over to my place and cut my grass i'll pay you what the illegals make.

Homey,

That's the problem you aren't grapsing. Before this case was decided, the standard for disparate impact was just that, an unexplained result that allowed a dispropotionate (for whatever reason) amount of whites compared to blacks and latinos.

You are still trying to argue about the why it happened and failing to realize the results of what happened.

In the Ricci case, the Court added a new twist to the SAME TEST. They said the difference now is that the municipality/city/state has to have a "strong basis in evidence" that it could face liability for approving such results. In lay terms, they are saying the city needs to have a real fear of being sued and losing if it wants to decertify the test results. This is an odd decision, because in this case, the city was told, on countless occasions it would be sued if it certified the results. It didnt certify the results and it got sued by the white/mostly italian firefighters.

However, when analyzing this case remember that the facts, however, are considerably more complicated than you think. : not only did the city's test impose a significant disparate impact against firefighters of color, but substantial uncertainty and controversy remain over the availability of less discriminatory, more accurate alternatives as well as the exam's ability to identify successful leaders. Less discriminator, more accurate alternatives did exist.

As Justice GInsburg said so brilliantly in her dissent, "there is a difference between memorizing fire fighting terminology and being a good fire fighter. If the Boston Red Sox recruited players on the basis of their knowledge of baseball history and vocabulary, the team might acquire [players] who could not bat, pitch, or catch."



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I think that you ignore that the city went to a GREAT deal of time, effort, and expense to create an objective test.

The problem with a test that judges firefighting skills is that women would come up way short. And, lets just say for moment that they used a panel to decide who did the best at firefighting exercises and all white got the top 10 positions. What a **** storm that would be. It is hard enough to "prove" that an objective test (again that was independently developed, and a great expense) was not biased.

Bronc, you have said more than once now that the mere results make you sure that there is a problem. Well, that is not the scientific method. A scientist would analyze all of the possible root causes. And among those could be small sample size.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I think the victims of discrimination should have to prove actual intent instead of just holding up disparate results and you did not like that. Let me propose an alternate test:

If the alleged discriminator makes a significant showing that it took great steps to avoid any potential discrimination, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof of intent.

How does that sound?

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

Sometimes the black and white answer, is the correct answer.
We don't have to Dr. Phil everything in life.
BA..stop with the 1960's civil rights march already.
My God son, the playing field has been equal for over 50 years, and in some circles, like a civil service job, like cops/fire/public works ect., the field is against white people.
15 years ago, the city of Cincinnati had to hire a certain amount of minority cops.
No matter how great the white applicants scored, they did not even get a mention, untill someone filed a lawsuit to stop the practice.
A LT in the Cincinnati Fire dept, go this job after suing the city for the same thing in the fire dept.
How many city owned park employees are white?
Nobody is crying vitcimhood here, like a few of you liberal nut jobs love to say, just pointing out the facts of the case.
I know, you hate facts, they get in the way of your opinion and your "open minds"...if a liberal mind is open, that I will gladly keep my mind closed.
You people are a danger to society.

These firemen, did exactly what the guidelines stated.
They scored high on the test, right or wrong, it was the guidelines set in place by the local gov't.
You can't ignore that when a few black guys failed to score high on the test.

A hispanic fella was part of the lawsuit also, he is a minority..and he still got fuched over by some politcal correctness bullsh!t and reverse racism.

If a black man scored high on the test, and the city decided to rewrite the rules after several white guys failed the test, would you still beo nthe side of the idiots that failed the test?

C'mon people, you have to take the t!t out of the mouth at some point.



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"I think that you ignore that the city went to a GREAT deal of time, effort, and expense to create an objective test."

No, I think there were definitely less discriminatory alternatives available...

"the playing field has been equal for over 50 years" - social scientist murf

That statement there says everything you need to know about murfy. Uneducated, out of touch, and willfully ignorant.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

That statement there says everything you need to know about murfy. Uneducated, out of touch, and willfully ignorant.
~~~~~~~~~

Only in your fuched up head.
Do you honestly want to get into this debate over who gets special rights and who gets ignored?

Please, don't even try the history or racism garbage with me, that is nothing but an excuse.

Of course there is racism...on about every single side of life.

That is not the issue here.

Uneducated? lol...at what?
Out of touch?...son you have no idea what you are even talking about.
Willfully ignorant? That is your opinion based on your fuched up mindset.

True or false....
Most civil service jobs give monority applicants a break on their score?
most minority colelge students recieve more gov't grants and private assistance than white middle class students?
White students have been turned down by major colleges to accept lower ranked students that are not white.

2009 there BA...stop living in the 60's.
you can't smoke weed in your parents house for the rest of your life, dreaming about protesting the war and creating some fake anger at whitey.
Some day, you have to grow up and do something in your life outside the suburbs.

Time to wake up an smell the real world.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Murf, you didn't read this?

BA wrote: "I have a Ph.D. and have been published in several peer-reviewed journals"

You would be hard pressed to find someone more impressed with himself than BA, bronco and hooky are tied for second (on this board).

Since I was challenged that I didn't have a proper understanding of the scientific method, I indicated why that in fact is not accurate. If you are made to feel threatened by someone's education credentials, that's your issue not mine.

"Time to wake up an smell the real world."
I laugh at that statement coming from someone who has hardly set foot outside of the Cincinnati city limits. You talk about me living in the 60s, yet you clearly have knowledge or interest in history prior to 1982. You're ignorant, yet you shoot your mouth off as if you actually have the answer to these complex societal issues.

"True or false....
Most civil service jobs give monority applicants a break on their score?
most minority colelge students recieve more gov't grants and private assistance than white middle class students?
White students have been turned down by major colleges to accept lower ranked students that are not white."

Yes, minorities have such an advantage in this country. They've overcome all the adversity you're so quick to discount (with the idiot's cry that "slavery was a long time ago") and now minorities dominate business and academics. Minorities rule the board rooms of the Fortune 500 companies. Very few minorities live in poverty while all the whites are poor and can't get an education. All the oppression of the past and its cultural effects has been reversed by affirmative action. Yeah, right. What a dunce you are.


"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

Education credentials aren't the least bit threatening to me, but apparently they define your worth.

okey dokey

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

Considering that was the first time BA mentioned his PhD on this board, I dont think he defines himself by only that...call me crazy...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"Considering that was the first time BA mentioned his PhD on this board, I dont think he defines himself by only that...call me crazy..."


Smartest dumb kid I know OR
Dumbest smart kid I know.

Which would you rather be, BA?!?!?!????!?!??!?!?!?

LMMFAO.





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Yes, minorities have such an advantage in this country. They've overcome all the adversity you're so quick to discount (with the idiot's cry that "slavery was a long time ago") and now minorities dominate business and academics. Minorities rule the board rooms of the Fortune 500 companies. Very few minorities live in poverty while all the whites are poor and can't get an education. All the oppression of the past and its cultural effects has been reversed by affirmative action. Yeah, right. What a dunce you are.
~~~~~~~~~~~

This is exactly what I am talking about! You are nuts!
What percentage of the entire planet has chance to be a person that sits on the board of a fortune 500 company?
Anyone with the desire can achieve the highest standards of academics.
Who said anything about dominating business?

The majority of white people are in the same boat.
As far as the poverty and education..........
There are reasons for poverty and it has nothing to do with skin color.
Accountability/culture/parasites/govt.

If you want an education, you can get one!
Most of this country is middle class, with blue color jobs and go to work and make sacrafices everyday for thier children.
Very few have a chance to be in the top 30% of earnings.

Yet, that is your litmus test?
A civil service position is a very solid job, with great benefits and you can live a decent life with that salary.
Most of this country lives this way.

Your take on whites getting an education...trust me, as father of a senior in highschool, I have researched about thousand avenues for my boy to get some decent help for college...middle class white kids that need help...good luck!
On the other hand, if you are poor, and part of a minority class, then you have major help from a boat load of programs, so don't preach to me about equality in education.
The pulbic school system sucks in grade school and highschool, but in the state of Ohio, you can send your child for free, with free bus service, to a private school, paid for by tax payers.

You seem to forget, that I did not grow up in the suburbs shielded from poverty...I lived it!
I know first hand what poverty is, what hunger is, what the mindset is and that is why, I refuse to allow the excuses to continue.
There has to be accountability from top to bottom, from the Feds to the parents of a child living in poor conditions.
Yes, slavery was a long time ago, the civil rights protest were 50 years ago...you can't keep using that as an excuse.
Any minority person born in the late 60's, has had every chance they needed to break the cycle of poverty for themselves.
Just takes desire/pride and accountability.




"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

As far as BA and his education...if it is true, glad for him. Congrdulations on his hard work.
Now a few points.....

Do you think that you should feel guilty for working hard and setting goals and achieving those goals?
Do you think that you should have turned down the higher education b/c a minority student from the 60's did not have that chance?
After all, anything a white man accaomplishes in his life, must have been a hand me down education from the evil white devils before him, since there is instituational racism dating back to the 1700's and we need to lower the standards to balance the playing field.
How did you achieve your degree? Let me guess, by passing a test! I take it that test is not racialy or culturely biased and written and pulbished based on the fact that a minority student would be held to a huge disadvantage b/c his ancestors were not in that field?
Have you ever attempted to break down the numbers and disect the amount of people that took the test and failed it or atleast score low on it, compared to the people that passed it, and researched thier fmaily history to determine if they had family members in that field that could have given them an advantage over the people that did not?
What is the racial breakdown of your field, should the testing standards be lowered, so that minority students have a chance to balance out the racial equation?
Why don't you publish these answers in your next peer-journals.

IF it is not, then oh well, some men love to live out trophies they never won, I don't care either way.

I do believe that BA has a degree and have a hunch, that he is in the Dr. Phil field or some liberal social economics field.
I am not attempting to degrade you BA on your education, seriously, I applaud you for getting a good education.
My point in all of this is to show you that, not everything in society can be based on race and economics.

Some people work hard and achieve things, some people don't.
I never achieved a higher education, never gave it much effort, had a ton of roadblocks in my way and allowed myself to be sidetracked at what I wanted.
Not b!tching about it, I live a very solid life, raising 2 boys and have been married for 15 years and with the same woman for 19.
Make sacrafices every other day to give my boys a better chance at things that I did not have.

My opinions are based on my life, not reading some headline and going off on a rant...I lived poor, I lived in one of the most distrubing areas of town, as a white kid, and let me tell you something, it is not that easy for a white kid to live in a minority filled nieghborhood.
I have lifelong friends from that area, and they worked harder than most in highschool and college to change their lives. Some made it, some did not.
I watched a good friend of mine die in his front yard in 9th grade, have antoher friend spending another 13 years in the state pen. for making stupid mistakes.
Sometimes the answer to lifes biggest and hardest questions are not found in a textbook and when you try to disect them, you only make it harder on everyone else. I do believe in the simple answers.
I do believe there is racism and some people don't get a fair shake at things after working hard, but I also believe in this day and age, that there is more oppurtunity for anyone who wants to find it and not back down from the first set back, and if you try and make the system idiot proof, then the system becomes idiotic.

I don't claim to be some social scholar, I just lived a life that is a tad bit more complicated than most and shake my head at people who did not live that life, but have all of the answers to the people living that life.

The firefighters were treated unfairly and you can't judge todays society on yesterdays mistakes.
50 years since we started getting things right, no, it is not perfect and the system will never be perfect, but denying hard work no matter the color, will never erase the past, only ignite more hate and devide the people even more.
That is my simplistic rant of the day.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

First of all, I apologize for name-calling and personal attacks. Obviously, these matters are close to my heart and I hate bigotry with a passion. I've learned a lot over the years about sociocultural issues, and I've taken that learning and applied it to my work in the real world. As much as we value "free will" in America, in many ways we are controlled largely by the society and culture we are immersed in from birth. The ability of parents to raise their children effectively depends much on how well the society prepares them to do so. In America, some groups are at a distinct disadvantage compared to others, whether you are willing to accept that or not. So when you say "its simple, all you have to do is work hard at school and don't do drugs" many aren't taught those lessons and have no reason to believe they can succeed in the straight world because they see nothing but chaos surrounding them. Often they don't believe they will be able to achieve certain things in life because no one who looks and talks like they do achieves those things. Murf, maybe you should take a moment to try and consider that things are not quite as easy as you would like them to be. It doesn't mean that members of disadvantaged groups can't succeed. Of course they can, and do. Everyone is indeed an individual, and there are countless examples in our history of people rising above circumstances to achieve their dreams. That said, we have to acknowledge that despite token efforts made to even out centuries of oppression, we are not there yet. Its true we didn't create this problem, but we are the ones who have to deal with it. Pointing fingers and insinuating that laziness or stupidity are the reasons for failure get us nowhere. Sometimes a little compassion is needed, even when we feel that life hasn't been fair to us either.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

Just reading in between the lines, it appears Murf thinks the reason the majority of Fortune 500 CEO's are white is because they work harder than blacks.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Bronco...you are reading between the wrong lines...

BA...Look, I understand that it is harder for a poor child to advance in life.
The resources, the family, the daily life, is 50X harder than your average middle class to rich kid.
Trust me, when I tell you that I have seen it, I truly honest to God have lived it.
I get it....and I agree with you to a certain point, not everything in life is simple and there will not be a simple answer to the hardest issues in life.
I do not believe that every single child that is poor, has an excuse to fail either.
Your upbringing can create your path of success or failure if you allow it.

I don't like making excuses for people or creating special rules and rights for people.
I believe in my heart that is very degrading to some people.
I have friends who hate the affrimative action garbage and the lower test scores.
We grew up together, so why do they get special rights...I agree with them.

You can't erase the past, you just have to move forward and when you see things like the firemen case, it just shows how ignorant society is.


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

BA, just curious, but in which field of study is your degree? Maybe I could guess if I read the political threads more closely, so forgive me if you mentioned something already that should make it obvious. If you'd rather not say, that's fine.

Feel free to email me if you're interested, psycho. I try to minimize the information I reveal on the internet as its easily used against you. I've been guilty of that myself.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32160610/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Good bits of info here. Basically, the guy was sick to his stomach to do the bailouts but reiterated it was necessary. He also said (like a few of us on here have been saying) that look to 2010 for the economy to improve on a larger scale.

Good article...

"Falc, just because I respond, please dont take it to mean that I give a sh!t about you. I respond because you are the type of person that needs to be told what a whack job you are or else you will go on thinking your behavior is normal and accepted. "