by Charles
…structurally flawed (apologies to Don McLean). It’s a monumental task, building levees. You can have hundreds of miles of them, but if a 100-foot section is poorly designed and poorly built, disaster awaits. In the case of New Orleans, poor design and poor construction and poor monitoring were all over the place, which in turn caused one of the worst floods in American history. The New Orleans Times-Picayune:
Experts say the New Orleans flood of 2005 should join the space shuttle explosions and the sinking of the Titanic on history’s list of ill-fated disasters attributable to human mistakes.
The evidence points to critical failures in design and construction, as well as a lack of project oversight and responsibility that allowed small problems to metastasize into fatal errors. Twisted lines of authority led to cursory inspections, communications snafus and even confusion about such basic information as wall dimensions.
The spotlight is on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for levee design, oversight and monitoring, but we won’t know more until the forensic investigation is further along.
It will takes months, and possibly years, to arrive at a detailed assessment of what went wrong and assess responsibility, engineers familiar with the situation say. Investigators must determine not only why individual wall sections failed, but they also must trace the roots of decisions, untangling overlapping responsibilities of the corps, private contractors and local agencies. A federal interagency team investigating the system won’t make its report until June. A National Research Council team is only now being formed.
Sad and tragic, but I think inevitable, at some point a levee was going to break.
Off Topic – is there a way to appeal a banning at redstate?
Off Topic – is there a way to appeal a banning at redstate?
Appeal it?
Your banning from Redstate is a badge of honor, reddstaty, one that marks you as a person of reason and taste. Pin it to your chest and stand tall and proud!
One thing that struck me about the NO levees was the total lack of secondary containment. I know nothing about levee design, but I design lots of critical equipment in my day job, and one of the most fundamental principles is graceful failure. Things must break in a way that minimizes damage, and ideally in a way that is immediately evident. My first thought for levee design in a city like NO would be to section the city with levees between sections. A well designed levee could easily be prime real estate as well as a flood control structure. Additionally, well designed secondary levees could serve as places of refuge in the event of large scale levee failure, with provision for short term shelter and places for rescue such as prepared locations for helicopter landing and boat landings. Designed solely as emergency structures this would be inordinately expensive, but designed as dual function structures the defenses could be significantly cheaper.
Your banning from Redstate is a badge of honor, reddstaty, one that marks you as a person of reason and taste. Pin it to your chest and stand tall and proud!
For this comment?(link to comment with my response & explanation(s) that follow)
reddstaty,
That is just sad. Apparently, defending Europeans against baseless slurs is unacceptable behavior…
So, why would you want to post there? Just to see how much of a tiny deviation from the goosestep-of-the-day you can get away with?
I like the title of the banning post, too- “I like to keep things quick and simple”- yeah, that explains a great deal about the thought processes over at redstate.
reddstaty:
Change your name to Obsidianwingy and comment here. Become what we have become. Well, what I have become, whatever that is. Everyone else is just like they always were, which no one really minds.
Besides, you really were too easy on the crew at Redstate. Santiago, Nick Danger, Streiff, Hunter, and Erick the Red really should have their visa expiration dates checked because they’ve been in my United States too long.
The political correctness at Redstate really is astounding. I’m surprised Paul Cella isn’t outraged.
Slightly topically, over to dKos there was some diarying about the levees being blown up. I didn’t wait around to see the conspiracy clean-up crew arrive and explain they had to be vaguely reality-based or find a new blog.
Anyway, I’ll be interested to see if my suspicion that more money would have helped in NOLA is borne out or not.
I thought the big diary “on the levees being blown up” was specifically debunking that story?
Sure, dKos is strongly against free-floating conspiracy-theorizing. Just trying to seque from RS to the post topic.
Okay.
The levees of New Orleans: a flawed design maintained poorly.
Concur.
reddstaty: Off Topic – is there a way to appeal a banning at redstate?
Just when I think RedState has destroyed the last shred of its collective integrity, folks like Nick Danger and Streiff dig up some overlooked scrap, burn it, relieve themselves on the charred remains, and dance around the soggy, smoking heap of ashes. Then it’s high fives all around.
I suppose if their goal is to raise their relative intellectual standing at the site without the hard work of demonstrating clarity of thought, then their strategy of banning those who make them look bad is a means to this end. It is easy to see why they feel kinship with the Bush administration.
Just when I think RedState has destroyed the last shred of its collective integrity
Oh, now, just a minute. Narnia Hate Watch was a triumph of reasoning. They even made a slick little graphic n’everything for the future web campaign.
My impression was that the levees failed because they weren’t built to spec. I have an earthen levee behind my house that has saved me from floods twice. The floods would be rather small, but still would have been a major hassle for me personally and the 100 or so other homes in the neighboorhood. We pay for this on the water and sewer bill. I’m not sure how this works, because I believe it was a Corps of Engineers project.
spartikus: Oh, now, just a minute. Narnia Hate Watch was a triumph of reasoning. They even made a slick little graphic n’everything for the future web campaign.
Oh dear. Please tell me that’s a joke. If not, how deeply embarrassing!
I concur – banning from Redstate.org is a badge of honor.
All snark aside, is it OK, with the Obsidian Wings’ managers, if many of us start calling the right-wingers and Republican activists “authoritarian”?
I realize that fascist is not considered polite, however “authoritarian” seems to capture this American right-wing movement.
And all appeals to “small-government/anti-state” are just dressing to say “government should never have liberals and progressives in it”?
So is authoritarians OK for the pluralists at Obsidian Wings?
The political correctness at Redstate really is astounding
it shouldn’t be. the desired PC-ness is explicit in the posting rules:
Pursuant to the mission statement, this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of “disruptive behavior” and will result in banning.
(emphasis in the original)
Oh dear. Please tell me that’s a joke. If not, how deeply embarrassing!
And deeply embarrassing it is.
however “authoritarian” seems to capture this American right-wing movement.
Keeping on the “deeply” theme, I think “deeply insecure” is more accurate. It all leads to the same place, however.
Thanks, Charles.
Maybe now we can stop blaming the disaster on the residents, who thought the Corps of Engineers knew something about levees.
New Orleans is, as today’s NYT says, dying. what little help it is getting is inadequate. The government, as hilzoy pointed out in her post on the topic, seems unwilling even think about the problem. So much for Bush’s promises. Big surprise, though I guess Trent Lott’s house will get rebuilt.
Meanwhile, many who left are settling elsewhere, and those who would like to stay, or return, are getting no indication whether doing so is a reasonable risk or an absurd idea. Why rebuid when there is no way to know that you will be safe from even ordinary hurricanes next year? The city is losing its tax base, as business activity and property values are a fraction of pre-Katrina levels. Tulane, the city’s largest employer, has announced big cutbacks in staff and programs.
It could be rebuilt, if there was more than hot air behind the promises. But there’s not, so a unique place, a city hugely important in American history and culture, is being left to die.
As someone who was also banned from Redstate earlier this year, let me extend the hand of fraternal greeting to redstatey. My advice for those not yet familiar with that pro-torture, big-government, anti-privacy swamp: set up a timer on your desk, as you read Redstate. Tote up the time you spend there. Mark your results.
And then you know: you’re that many minutes closer to the grave, with nothing to show for them.
Regarding Nawlins, we all knew the city was dead the moment Bush told Brownie he was doin’ a heckuva job. Didn’t we? Come on, be honest.
N.O. local news article about residents in limbo, waiting for the Corps:
Link
Off Topic – is there a way to appeal a banning at redstate?
Send an e-mail and see what happens, reddstaty. Quite frankly, there are a few on the RS board who are quick (too quick in my opinion) in pulling the finger, and it hurts the quality of debate. But at the same time, I wouldn’t too derisive of RS, given that a co-founder of ObWi is now fully immersed there.
As far as I’m concerned, no, even if that makes me authoritarian. There’s still a rather wide swath of water between “some conservatives” and “all conservatives”, however much you may wish otherwise. You’re welcome to generalize in this way on your own blog, of course, just not here.
Plus, there’s that little thingy about not disrupting the conversation for the sake of disruption, which is what this is really all about.
Charles Bird: But at the same time, I wouldn’t too derisive of RS, given that a co-founder of ObWi is now fully immersed there.
Sorry, Charles, he’s not going to lift that sordid lot up on his mighty shoulders, however mighty they be.
There’s still a rather wide swath of water between “some conservatives” and “all conservatives”
I don’t think NeoDude was referring to conservatives, but to Republicans. There being an ever increasing difference b/w the two in the opinion of many……
Same answer, spartikus. Although I do agree heartily with you on that last point, the motion to permit the referring of Republicans or any sort of Right-thinking person as “authoritarian” as a sort of euphemism for “fascist” is still tabled without a vote, as far as I’m concerned. Certainly NeoDude is still (as ever) free to refer to individual authoritarians as authoritarians, or refer to all of those politically to the right of Lenin as fascists on his/her own blog.
And, BTW, the motion to refer to liberals in general as “shrieking moonbats” remains tabled as well, for the same reasons. Any and all petitions for the granting of dispensations relative to the posting rules will get the same kind of deaf-ear treatment from me. If the rules only apply sometimes and to some people, why, we might as well be the corrupt politicians we love to hate.
My opinion, only, mind you, and as a junior and very infrequent poster here, I yield to the greater consensus in such matters.
it hurts the quality of debate.
Well, yes. Banning someone for challenging facts will do that. Still, given the quote provided by cleek it seems that debate is the last thing redstate is after.
And, BTW, the motion to refer to liberals in general as “shrieking moonbats” remains tabled as well, for the same reasons.
While I appreciate the intent of your point, Slarti, there’s a rather serious asymmetry between referring to conservatives or Republicans as “authoritarian” (irrespective of any hypothesized covert reference to fascism) and liberals as “shrieking moonbats”.
I would offer such labels as “pro-abortion” or “anti-religion” as better analogs. The subject might have good reason to disagree passionately with the labels, but would they merit a ban?
I’m with Anarch. I’m a liberal, but a fairly moderate one in many ways. I find ‘left’ an offensive description for my position, and am certain that it is a much poorer fit than ‘authoritarian’ for a great many supporters of the present US administration.
Not that I’m trying to expand the scope of censorship or anything . . .
Anarch: While I appreciate the intent of your point, Slarti, there’s a rather serious asymmetry between referring to conservatives or Republicans as “authoritarian” (irrespective of any hypothesized covert reference to fascism) and liberals as “shrieking moonbats”.
From Slarti’s POV, there would be no asymmetry if Slarti thinks that both labels are impolite but perfectly accurate descriptions. Would that be the case, Slarti?
Gromit: I would offer such labels as “pro-abortion” or “anti-religion” as better analogs. The subject might have good reason to disagree passionately with the labels, but would they merit a ban?
Or “pro-war”, which Von and I already debated.
I’m all about asymmetric response, Anarch. And in this case, “authoritarian” was quite obviously the more respectable cousin of “fascist”.
Not quite. Try: both impolite, and both inaccurate. Not necessarily equally so, though, as noted above. One could argue that some Republicans/rightwingers/whatever are authoritarian, but that’s not the request.
OT: You’ve been away for a while…anything new to report? I was going to put out an APB on you.
I guess it ought to be perfectly obvious by now that I’m not a big fan of generalizations, even if I inadvertently indulge in them myself, from time to time.
Slarti: OT: You’ve been away for a while…anything new to report? I was going to put out an APB on you.
Thank you, Slarti: I’m touched. 🙂 I’m fine: I was busy, then I was on holiday, without access to the Internet. I went for long walks. I sat with a cat purring on my lap and a dog comfortably ensconced on my feet. I had face-to-face conversations with real people. I did not drink coffee. It was great. *sighs happily* Now, back in the real world…
could argue that some Republicans/rightwingers/whatever are authoritarian, but that’s not the request.
I think it’s fair to say that some Republicans are authoritarian – and that this isn’t the same thing as saying that they’re fascist. That Bush & Co are authoritarian is a reasonable description of their attitude to dissent or disagreement. (I would say the same thing of any administration, regardless of party, who were behaving in the way that the Bush administration does: but the current big examples in the US are all Republican. You can’t be authoritarian if you’re out of power.)
It is equally fair to say that some people, either side of the political fence, are “shrieking moonbats”. But that’s not politically descriptive: it’s straightforwardly insulting.
I believe many right-wingers, during the cold war argued, “authoritarianism vs. totalitarianism”
Some definitions:
Glossary of Sociological Terms
Authoritarianism
The imposition of power in ways that subordinates cannot control or resist; the celebration of a strong authority. [Tony Bilton et al., Introductory Sociology. 3rd edition. London: Macmillan, 1996:654]
or
Definition:
In political theory, “authoritarianism” is a label for the idea that a political community is best managed by a strong governmental authority which is not subject to very far reaching popular controls by the people who live in that community.
Aren’t the Republican activists around here always pretending to be disgusted with the “state-as-truth” philosophy of the Bush regime?
But…surprise! all these “moderates” have no influence over their own political elites?
Sounds lovely; I could use a week or two of that.
Quick, how many Republicans posting here hold some sort of public office? Alternately, one could imagine authoritarians frustrated by their lack of access to power from which to excercise authority…anyway, not convincing.
What’s “politically descriptive” mean, and why is “authoritarian” more apt of a description of the far right than of the far left? For all that, why is “fascist” no longer considered an insult if “authoritarian” is used as a placeholder? Perhaps you may be excused for missing earlier exchanges with Neodude on this very topic; go read the last week or so worth of threads or wait until I can post links to the comments in question. There is in fact some context to this discussion that’s absent from this thread.
ND: just to get at the heart of this attempt at licensed ad hominem, if you think Republicans are all authoritarians and don’t care to evidence that thought, a permissible label for them is “Republicans”.
Oh yes…context.
Slarti: What’s “politically descriptive” mean, and why is “authoritarian” more apt of a description of the far right than of the far left?
Answer quick, Slarti: in the US government right now, how many people holding high public office are members of the far left?
Quick, how many Republicans posting here hold some sort of public office?
Ah well now, if you mean that it’s not acceptable to use sweeping labels to refer to people who are actually posting here, I agree in a minute. But if “authoritarian” is only used to refer to Republicans in public office, then plainly, that falls under the exemption of being allowed to criticize and even insult public figures. 🙂
Perhaps you may be excused for missing earlier exchanges with Neodude on this very topic; go read the last week or so worth of threads or wait until I can post links to the comments in question.
I think you have to let me off: I did not attempt to catch up on a week’s worth of blogging. Post links by all means: I’ll be interested to see what I missed.
For the kids:
Old American Century
For the Adults:
Harold Pinter’s Nobel Lecture
Pinter got down, big time.
Quick answer: roughly as many as those that are far right.
Good; this ought to end this disagreement rather tidily.
I think we’ve had this discussion before and concluded that no one needs any permission to apply any label they choose to public figures who don’t ever post here. Why, I don’t even object when NeoDude calls Bush a fascist. He/she could call Bush the very reincarnation of Vlad the Impaler for all the effect it would have on me.
The question at hand is whether NeoDude can use blanket generalization on posters here, and the answer remains: no. Kos still allows that, IIRC, and so do any number of other places that are, happily (at least as far as I’m concerned), not this one.
Nationalistic American right-wingers sure resemble nationalistic German, Spanish, Italian, and Russian right-wingers. Right down to their respect for right-wing governments engaging in authoritarian acts.
Using the power of the state to torture individuals into saying things the right-wing party in charge demands, seems pretty authoritarian.
All in the name of goodness, of course.
The question at hand is whether NeoDude can use blanket generalization on posters here
I thought the question was whether authoritarian had legitimate use in relation to discussions about the Republican/right-wing movement?
As long as you keep individuals out of it, its seems bonafide to me.
One thing that struck me about the NO levees was the total lack of secondary containment.
Even worse, there were many waterways for which levees were built that penetrated into the core of the city — the industrial canal being a prime example. So not only was there no back-up, the levee system was much longer than it needed be in order to accommodate waterways penetrating inward from the lake, etc.
The whole system seems to be a patchwork design that was haphazardly upgraded over time.
Again, NeoDude, you can call specific people whatever you choose. You can’t call Republicans in general or conservatives in general authoritarians, fascists, idiots, whatever, because it’s against the posting rules. The posting rules are there for a reason; if you don’t agree with them, you’re free to post elsewhere.
Slarti: Quick answer: roughly as many as those that are far right.
Funny joke! So no one in the Bush administration really holds high public office, they’re all just faking it and really, it’s moderates who are actually in office whose names and faces we never see? Cheney isn’t really the Vice President? Bush isn’t really the President? Rumsfeld isn’t really the Defense Secretary?
Actually, looking the definition of far-right up in wiki, I find that according to wiki, if you are in national government, by definition you are not far-right… which is paradoxically amusing, in a way, as it means that no matter how far-right the Bush administration gets, it can never be called far-right – because it’s in government!
As long as NeoDude constrains himself from inaccurate characterization of people who post here, he can liken Bush to Pol Pot for all I care. But that’s not what we were talking about.
Dmbeaster: The whole system seems to be a patchwork design that was haphazardly upgraded over time.
Indeed, as tends to happen with a long-term system that was built over centuries. (Well, over more than a century, anyway.) What needs to happen with New Orleans is, well, a complete restructuring, a major construction project, and some major federal investment in the construction project – plus appropriate safeguards to avoid corruption and cronyism. Of course Bush never promised to avoid corruption and cronyism – heaven forbid! – but I rather thought he had promised he was going to see New Orleans rebuilt. But I guess – as I seem to remember saying some months ago – that it really doesn’t matter how much or how often Bush lies or is proven incompetent: he can’t lose the support of his base.
“Nationalistic American right-wingers sure resemble nationalistic German, Spanish, Italian, and Russian right-wingers.”
Is the resemblance more in the eyes or the nose?
As far as authoritarianism goes, critics like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan haven’t had any trouble getting their ideas out. So I’m not particularly worried.
Congress isn’t really high public office? They don’t really make the laws after all? If your argument is that the balance of power in our government is now Republican, well, you’ve been on vacation a bit too long. If you’re thinking Bush is far-right by any reasonable standard, I think you’ve slipped a cog, or have forgotten the Reagan years.
Wiki is not the be-all and end-all. Why, just last month I was Wiki-ing Juan Ponce de Leon, and discovered to my amusement that he had founded the first Taco Charlie’s in Puerto Rico. Or something like that. That one’s gone by now, but it’s still in Wiki’s history.
You can’t call Republicans in general or conservatives in general authoritarians, fascists
I can’t dispute that–it’s just sloppy to refer to people in general of being anything. And I am very much opposed to calling the current Republican administration “fascists”–they’ve never demonstrated the competence to be good fascists for one. As Frank Rich wrote about the administrations sad attempts at propaganda “The propaganda techniques may be echt Goebbels, but they increasingly come off as pure Ali G.” Bushism has never risen to fascism; just low level caudilloism. IMO, the future of the current Republican party looks less like those bad Germans or Italians and increasingly more like the Mexican PRI–corrupt, authoritarian, inefficient, and incompetent.
What Harold Pinter said.
(h/t neodude & thx for the link!)
And with that, I’m done with the OT stuff. Neo, you know the rules. If you’ve got further questions as regards the posting rules, please email the kitty.
Now: I imagine that by now everyone’s aware that signs of defects in the levees were around over a year ago, and ignored. I also expect that everyone’s aware who built them, and that in all likelihood Bush was unable to extend his corrupting influence backward through time to affect their…um…erection, so it’s quite probable that he cannot be blamed for their failure.
What needs to be done now is a thorough survey of the flood-control levees and floodwalls in the area to determine their ACTUAL construction and capabilities, and some proposals for rework and (perhaps) redesign of the whole complex. It’s not going to be cheap; it’s going to be far from cheap. And it’s not going to happen overnight, it’s going to take years, possibly. Finally, I heard last week or so that next year is predicted to be even busier, hurricane-wise, than this year, so this too needs to be considered when deciding the when and how and how much of things.
As far as authoritarianism goes, critics like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan haven’t had any trouble getting their ideas out. So I’m not particularly worried.
So the authoritarian regimes that “allow” dissent are not really authoritarian at all?
Mexico? Egypt? South Korea? Bolivia? Syria? El Salvador? Russia?
Different grades of authoritarianism are actually “freedom loving”?
Sorry Slarti,
Just read your post.
Pardon my flogging a dying, if not deceased, horse, but I’m a little uncertain about the rules here, being a relative newcomer to this blog.
First, let me say that I do not regard “authoritarian” as being a mere “euphemism” or “place-holder” for “fascist,” although I recognize it is sometimes used so. The latter term has a fairly precise definition which is now taken, almost universally, as extremely derogatory. There are very few people/institutions around today who fit the precise definition, so most of the usage can be regarded as almost exclusively rhetorical, and therefore suitable for banning here, if bans there are.
“Authoritarian,” however, is a pretty useful word, even if it is less precisely defined. I refer to two definitions quoted earlier, either of which would do for me:
Authoritarianism
The imposition of power in ways that subordinates cannot control or resist; the celebration of a strong authority. [Tony Bilton et al., Introductory Sociology. 3rd edition. London: Macmillan, 1996:654]
or
Definition:
In political theory, “authoritarianism” is a label for the idea that a political community is best managed by a strong governmental authority which is not subject to very far reaching popular controls by the people who live in that community.
I am not comfortable with restrictions being put on our usage of that term (yes, I know I’m free to post elsewhere, and if I don’t like the rules I can get out, but I presume that means that before I go I can still question the application of the rules).
As I understand it:
1) We’re allowed to say that the current regime in Washington is authoritarian, by the definition above. (Jesurgiac did just that, IIRC.)
2) We’re not, however, allowed to say that someone in this group, who supports the authoritarian principles of this administration, is himself/herself authoritarian.
— Is that correct?
— Could we refer to such a person as a “supporter of authoritarianism”? An “authoritarian-lover”? A “fellow traveler”?
— If not, what language can we use to describe such a person?
Signed,
Curious in Carolina
In the U.S. the lefties are arguable the authoritarians and limit freedoms and the left wing judges are the brown shirts.
In the U.S. the lefties are arguable the authoritarians through over regulation and the left wing judges are the brown shirts.
That’s if we are going to generalize.
I suppose the preceding could be considered an accurate generalization of ‘left wing judges’ – if the term ‘brownshirt’ was synonymous with ‘someone who supports policies that I don’t’.
And that’s the last time I ever feed a troll on ObWi. I feel dirty…
Are those “left-wing” judges torturing individuals into confessing thing which are not true?
Do their followers have to sign contracts, stating that they will stay faithful to the head of a right-wing political party?
credence: In the U.S. the lefties are arguable the authoritarians through over regulation and the left wing judges are the brown shirts.
That’s if we are going to generalize.
That’s problematic in that the left and the right each have libertarian and authoritarian wings.
Which Democratic leader is allowing torture to be used to gather information?
Posted by: Slartibartfast:
“Congress isn’t really high public office? They don’t really make the laws after all? If your argument is that the balance of power in our government is now Republican, well, you’ve been on vacation a bit too long.”
Slart, don’t be ridiculous: Presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority on the SCOTUS, and IMHO, of federal judges in general. Casual rule-changing to a point where Clinton would have been removed from office, not just impeached (again, IMHO). A media which is just now giving hims a small, small taste of what a media should be like, let alone the causal attack-wh*res who went after Clinton. A bunch of military families who are just starting to realize how badly they’ve been disserved by Bush, but who aren’t yet politically mobilized.
Slart: “If you’re thinking Bush is far-right by any reasonable standard, I think you’ve slipped a cog, or have forgotten the Reagan years.”
Slart, compare the Reagan years with the Bush years. You can start with wars started by the US, the Patriot Act, and budget deficits. Those three alone should prove my point.
And what is with this, in particular: “Congress isn’t really high public office? They don’t really make the laws after all?”
Are you reciting Reagan Era talking points? I guess we know who’s truly been out of the country.
Neodude: Which Democratic leader is allowing torture to be used to gather information?
First, all left-wingers aren’t Democrats and vice versa. Second, it is quite possible to have authoritarian leanings and to abstain from committing or allowing torture, even if torture is largely the province of authoritarianism. I doubt anyone is being tortured in California as a result of their public smoking restrictions (nicotine withdrawal pains aside), but I think such laws could be fairly described as authoritarian in nature.
First, all left-wingers aren’t Democrats and vice versa.
I totally agree…. however many here have an aversion to political science glossaries…so I am forced to work with what I got.
And it’s not going to happen overnight, it’s going to take years, possibly.
But something needs to be done short-term. If you tell people it will be years before the city is asafe you might as well do nothing. There will be no city to protect.
Finally, I heard last week or so that next year is predicted to be even busier, hurricane-wise, than this year, so this too needs to be considered when deciding the when and how and how much of things.
I do not know how much stock to put in these predictions, but what is clear is that unless some measures are taken before August New Orleans could be flooded again, even if the hurricanes are only average.
I don’t think NeoDude was referring to conservatives, but to Republicans. There being an ever increasing difference b/w the two in the opinion of many……
Disagree, here is his comment:
from this thread.
Compare to a funny fake rant at Something Awful:
Man, that almost looks authentic.
That’s just fine, but NeoDude does. Fact is, his use of fascist is where this whole conversation began.
No, it’s not. The constraint is against generalization without having to show why it fits. Hence, calling Republicans fascist or Democrats socialists is out of bounds. If NeoDude can demonstrate why Sebastian (or me), for example, is authoritarian or supports authoritarianism, we can discuss whether that’s acceptable or not. I’m guessing that if it’s simply tarted-up name-calling, probably not.
More generally, the question of why personal attributes of a given poster are relevant to a given discussion is worthy of examination. Other than as a tool to badger others, I mean, which is specifically disallowed.
I wasn’t being ridiculous; I was answering a question. The question itself was fairly irrelevant, but my answer was accurate to the extent accuracy is possible. Unless of course you regard members of the lawmaking body of the United States as not holding “high office”, but I do. Both houses are about 50% of each party, so “about half” is a decent number. Democrats hold 44% of the Senate and 46% of the House, so I’m thinking that “just under half” would have been slightly more accurate, but until such time as members of Congress and other parts of what you regard as holding “high office” begin labeling themselves as “far left” and “far right”, or until someone comes up with such a set of labels that’s widely agreed upon and sends me a link, I’m going with “about half”. A question asked differently might have yielded a somewhat less “ridiculous” answer, but I’d want to know what the weighting factors are, and what offices should be considered.
I think you’ll find that the real “far right” isn’t too fond of the Patriot Act, budget deficits, amnesty for illegal aliens, national health insurance, the Kelo decision, and the burgeoning amount of opportunistic pork that’s attached itself to the budget when it’s least appropriate. The real “far right” absolutely hated just about everything behind the Department of Homeland Security. I know: no true Scotsman, and all that. I’m telling you, though, that Bush isn’t the Conservative poster boy. At least, not for Conservatives.
Your incredulity and claim that I’m parroting…something or other aren’t a substitute for an actual argument, Barry. But it does make for a decent display of hostility, if that’s what you’re about.
Sure, Bernard; I wasn’t claiming otherwise. Actually I had put something in there to that effect, but I erased it all after I realized that the short-term plan would of necessity have to mesh with the long-term plan in some (hopefully) intelligent way. And the long-term plan of course depends on what actually needs to be done, and how best to do it. What’s being done NOW, I have no idea.
Slart, two comments – first, your slicing of Congress pretty much ignores how things run. The House runs on a ‘50%+1 vote’ system, and that was before the Gringrich reforms added more discipline. The Senate, in theory, runs on a more minority-friendly system, but that doesn’t seem to work that well, recently. In terms of judges, for example, a couple percent of nominees were blocked, and the GOP challenged the fillibuster. So ‘about half’, or ‘slightly less than half’ is a strong mischaracterization.
As for the rest of ‘high offices’, that’s even more Republican-dominated.
You are also confusing ‘far right’ with ‘conservative’, an increasingly common mistake among Republicans these days. Probably because there are very few conservatives left; most of them have converted. The ‘far right’ isn’t happy with the Bush administration? Who is this ‘far right’ who doesn’t like massive cuts of pork? At best, that’d be a tiny little fringe movement of individuals who never were in power, but hung around and wrote articles and speeches. As opposed to the ‘far right’ that’s in power, and inflicting the Patriot Act, and other indignities.
“Funny joke! So no one in the Bush administration really holds high public office, they’re all just faking it and really, it’s moderates who are actually in office whose names and faces we never see? Cheney isn’t really the Vice President? Bush isn’t really the President? Rumsfeld isn’t really the Defense Secretary? ”
Posted by: Jesurgislac
It’s sort of funny how many Republicans are running away from responsibility, trying to pretend that the last several years haven’t been a period of massive GOP dominance, where right-wing fantasies of the Reagan years are closer to reality than even some paranoids feared. When ‘Commander-in-Chief’ Bush starts whining that the Democratic Senators supported his war, and Republicans at all levels are insinuating the the Democrats are to blame for a mess that they wanted, created and nurtured, it warms my heart.
It shows their deepest fear, that a majority of the American people will wake up one day, notice who’s been running the country, and judge them for their intentions, actions and results.
“It’s sort of funny how many Republicans are running away from responsibility…”
It’s even funnier to recall that the President originally ran with a catch-line of restoring honor and dignity to the White House. There’s so much honor to be had in blaming the other guy for the messes you’ve caused.
Yes, the discipline that enabled the failed S.S. reform, the failed ANWAR drilling, the gang of 14.
I don’t think it is Slarti that is ignoring things.
How things run is pretty much beside the point, but your correction of me pretty much ignores filibuster power, which has, despite your mischaracterization, held. If you want to further nitpick a delibertately simplistic answer to an even more simplistic question, though, who am I to naysay you?
Ah, true, just as we confuse “far left” with “iberal”. It’s a shortcoming, but one that might be best corrected by further information. By my rules, a trip further to the right is a trip away from large government, a trip away from government control of and involvement in practically everything in private life, and a trip away from government interference with business. There may be some more widely accepted definition; if so please link. For me, the shift of the Republican party toward the Religious Right wasn’t a move to the right so much as it was a move in some direction orthogonal to the right-left axis.
But I could be behind the times. Frankly, I liked it better when the religious-areligious axis wasn’t quite so prominent in politics. Or at least I liked it better when I wasn’t so much aware of it.
Re: fillibusters – how many have held? How many have been tried? The threat is still there, but in the one case that I can recall where the Democrats threatened it (Judges), the GOP counter-threatened, and the Democrats stopped talking fillibuster. And a fillibuster, just to remind you, is a negative power. It can (occasionally, at best) stop things. The list of things to be done is firmly in the hands of the GOP.
I notice that you’re not even trying to deny GOP dominance in the House; thank you.
Slartibartfast: “By my rules, a trip further to the right is a trip away from large government, a trip away from government control of and involvement in practically everything in private life, and a trip away from government interference with business. There may be some more widely accepted definition; if so please link.”
No, that’s libertarianism. You don’t get to redefine things to suit yourself. Right-wing includes lots and lots of state power; the usual point of contention has been which suits various factions the most (e.g., slavery, Jim Crow and states’ rights). For the past 140 years or so, it’s also included corporate privileges.
“For me, the shift of the Republican party toward the Religious Right wasn’t a move to the right so much as it was a move in some direction orthogonal to the right-left axis.”
Nice claim; care to defend it? The traditional left-most wing of the GOP has reduced power; the traditional right-most wing has gained power.
Credence: “Yes, the discipline that enabled the failed S.S. reform, the failed ANWAR drilling, the gang of 14.
I don’t think it is Slarti that is ignoring things.”
Before the Gringrich era, IIRC, Social Security was still a ‘third rail’. It’s now down quite a bit of voltage; touching it will hurt, but not instantly kill. As for the gang of 14, the message I got from that is that the Senatorial fillibuster, for one category, is essentially on life support, with a signed death warrant, enabling execution at will.
As for drillling in ANWAR, you seem to miss the point – it’d have been off the table earlier; it’s now on the table, and very close to the outbox marked ‘do it’.
The fact that the right, and the GOP have dominance doesn’t mean that they have 100% control – just more than either party has had for quite some time.
Barry I thought you took issue with Slarti’s original comment about high public office being “about half”.
Doesn’t your above statement indicate that the Dem’s do feel that they have power, multiple options, different paths to achieve thier objectives? If they didn’t wouldn’t they resort to fillibusters more often?
If Bush is Hitler and the Dem’s aren’t fillibustering everything everyday then they pretty much suck.
“If Bush is Hitler and the Dem’s aren’t fillibustering everything everyday then they pretty much suck.”
Posted by: credence
9/11. It’s a magical talisman.
If Bush is Hitler
Credence, you’re the only one here suggesting that. Funny, except for a small fringe of nutty lefties, I mostly see the “BushHitler” slanders made by people who I expect are the President’s admirers. Why is that? Is it because on some level they fear it might be true, or because to some degree they wish it were?
Ah, then I’ve been calling myself the wrong thing all these years. Still, I wouldn’t call myself libertarian, exactly, because the government does have useful functions, some of which are mandated by the Constitution. And I’m not in favor of scrapping that, JFTR.
I think you need to define your terms, and decide how far back “traditional” goes. If you’re defining traditional right-most wing as the Religious Right, how are you not indulging in the same kind of error you’re accusing me of committing?
The left-most wing of the Republican party would, I submit, lean more toward gun control, more toward upholding of race quotas, more toward granting any sort of legitimacy toward illegal aliens, more toward gun control, and a whole host of other things that Bush (for one) seems to be enthusiastic about. So I’m a little confused as to why there’s so much agreement that Bush is a far-right wacko, when to me he looks like a liberal Republican. Or maybe a conservative Democrat.
Oops, put gun control in there twice. And I don’t even own a gun.
“The left-most wing of the Republican party would, I submit, lean more toward gun control, more toward upholding of race quotas, more toward granting any sort of legitimacy toward illegal aliens, more toward gun control, and a whole host of other things that Bush (for one) seems to be enthusiastic about.”
Please provide evidence that Bush favors (let alone is enthusiastic about) gun control or race quotas. I have yet to see it. I will agree that he is more pro-immigrant than many Republicans.
Slartibartfast, that’s because I look at the big things first, and the little things later.
And things like vastly increased executive powers, massive tax cuts favoring the rich, massive deficits which are then used to justify cutting social programs, wars used to gain political power, and a coopted corporate media are all big things.
As far as the racial preferences go, I’d submit this amicus brief, particularly this passage:
I’d argue that measures ensuring diversity at the expense of anything else at all are discriminatory and quota-based.
Later on, it says:
Emphasis mine. Translation: what Michigan was doing was perfectly acceptable if nothing more “race-neutral” achieved the desired level of diversity. Further translation: it’s perfectly ok to overtly discriminate against Caucasians and Asians to achieve the desired Black population, if covert discrimination doesn’t work. Even more: equality of opportunity for Whites and Asians is less valuable than for Blacks.
Yes, I’m aware that there are other factors here, but these aren’t all that relevant to the point that this administration leans more toward weighting for race (for values of race not equal to “Caucasian” or “Asian”) more than they are rigidly against it. Of course, any stance can look rabidly right-wing or left-wing depending on one’s vantage point, but I’d say that in this one thing at least Bush is to the left of most Republicans.
The gun control thing I’ll try to get to tonight.
Vastly increased executive powers? When did that happen? Wait…are you implying that Bush has more power than, say, Clinton did? Tell me, will Bush’s successor enjoy the same vastly increased executive powers, or will they somehow magically revert to the old set?
Slarti,
You are misreading the brief. They have to acknowledge the goal of diversity, since that is the state of the law. They then argue that it is never necessary to use a “quota” system like they claim the Michigan one is (and I disagree, but that is not today’s argument), because there are always ones which are race neutral, like the Texas one they cite. Therefore, while they say that in theory a quota could be permissibile if nothing else works, in practice they are saying that something else will always work and therefore quotas are never necessary.
In other words, saying in so many words that diversity is not a goal is a sure way to lose before the Supreme Court. However, saying diversity is a goal, but a system like Michigan’s is never necessary to achieve the goal may be persuasive to the court, which is why they said it.
Interesting…the state of the law requires “diversity”? And that stood how, exactly?
Not asking to be snarky, asking because I don’t understand how this could possibly be.
Slarti,
Under the Bakke decision of the Supreme Court, and decisions cited therein.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Bakke said that using a plan which has as its goal to increase diversity is permissible. Therefore, if the Administration wants to challenge the Michigan system, they cannot say that it is impermissible to seek diversity, as Bakke already permits it. What they need to do is to say that there are less harmful ways of reaching the goal of diversity (which is what they did in the brief).
Bakke says that diversity may be an element, but cannot be the overriding element. There’s this bit about “constitutional limitations protecting individual rights may not be disregarded”, which sort of makes me think of the equal protection clause. Maybe just me, though. To me, this part means something like: all else being equal, choose with diversity in mind.
So, the way I look at it is: Bakke expressly forbids diversity as an overriding concern, particularly when pursuing diversity may tend to trample other rights. Of course this would probably much less important for privately funded institutions.
I’d submit that the state doesn’t have any business promoting diversity, if the state cannot even define diversity. The state does, however, have business in promoting equal access to state-provided benefits, regardless of whether the state has previously painted itself into a poorly-defined diversity corner.
But, needless to say, IANAL.
And yes, it’s quite possible that I’ve mistaken an acknowledgement of existing law for endorsement of that as a policy, in which case I might have to retract my original claim in this regard.
I disagree with you on the meaning of Bakke, but I think it is irrelevant based on your 4:54 post.
“Vastly increased executive powers? When did that happen? Wait…are you implying that Bush has more power than, say, Clinton did?”
Are you having problems with recent US history again?
“Tell me, will Bush’s successor enjoy the same vastly increased executive powers, or will they somehow magically revert to the old set?”
Posted by: Slartibartfast
Magically? Nah, it took many right-wingers a lot of hard work to make that ‘orthoganol’ (lookee! I’m a Libertarian! Yew-all is Statists!) shift to the far right.
Ach! ‘orthogonal’! Guess I must be a Statist!
From the Evans-Novak Political Report:
I don’t see how these helpless Democrats can wield such power in the face of the authoritarian Republican onslaught.
I think the course of this thread accurately reflects the national level of interest in New Orleans.
(Yes, I know I made an OT comment also).
Ditto what Bernard said.
As for Novak, is he back on CNN or is he still suspended? Given the fact that Novak has many problems as it is, I can understand that he would use an email newsletter rather than actually put this in print (especially when it would blow this index off the scale.) But why on earth using his former collaborator’s name 4 years after he died? Perhaps it is because the last reporting on the Cisneros case was in 1999.
It’s true the thread got pulled into a discussion about the word authoritarian, but that happens.
But it does seem that the Dem’s still have much power in the government. It’s not just Novak btw, Tony Snow has been doing work on this case and Levin’s actions.
http://www.creators.com
If any of us desire to protect ourselves from authoritarian actions we must all be willing to come together and punish this type of behaviour. This is where it starts.
Slarti: about affirmative action: I am not up on the Michigan case per se. But a couple of points about university affirmative action more generally:
First, sometimes people (not necessarily you, I don’t know) talk as though everyone is admitted to a university based on something called ‘merit’, and affirmative action consists in deciding to ignore ‘merit’ in the special case of minorities. This isn’t true. Universities are trying to put together a class of undergrads, and they use a whole bunch of factors to determine who to admit to it. the possible exception here is not affirmative action, but athletics.)
This is as it should be, I think. A class made up of people who are selected solely on the basis of SAT scores and grades would not necessarily be the best class to have, at least if you think (as most admissions people I know do) that students learn from one another, not just from their classes. Letting in someone whose SATs/grades are slightly below others, but who has founded a successful company while in high school, or shown exceptional talent as a cellist, makes things a lot more interesting.
(I am personally grateful to whoever decided to admit Yo Yo Ma to Harvard. Those concerts in various house common rooms were absolutely unbelievable.)
Likewise, colleges tend to prefer people who will give their class more geographic diversity. If most of the people who apply to a college are from, say, the LA area, and someone applies from a small town in Vermont, that person will tend to get a slight preference, again on the grounds that the class will be more interesting if it’s not made up entirely of people from Southern California, and ‘interesting’ here benefits the students.
Likewise, race. — It’s important to note here that the preferences given are generally not huge — selective colleges and universities tend to have a bunch of applicants who are all capable of doing the work, and the question is ‘which of these capable students to admit?’, not: ‘will we admit someone who is just plain unqualified?’
It’s also important to note that no one has a right to be admitted to a particular college. — I have no reason to think that Yo Yo Ma would not have gotten in without the cello, but let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that had Harvard considered only his SATs/grades, he would not have gotten in. (Again, a lot of people who don’t get in don’t miss by much: the B+ you got because you hated your junior year English teacher can make the difference, at these levels.) Does the fact that he did get in mean that anyone’s rights were violated? I can’t see how.
Nor can I see how it wasn’t absolutely the right decision to admit him, even leaving aside the unbelievable pleasure of seeing the not yet famous Yo Yo Ma perform. A class selected solely on the basis of SATs and grades is a class in which you specifically do not get to think: but wouldn’t our students learn more from having a very serious aspiring musician in their midst than from having one more smart and hardworking but otherwise unexceptional kid from Westport, Connecticut?
One more thing: you seem to elide the difference between quotas and letting race play any role. There is a big difference. Setting aside a certain number of slots for blacks (or cellists, or whatever) really does end up with the university letting in people who are not qualified. It’s also offensive. Giving some weight to various kinds of diversity (cellists, founders of successful companies, people from Wyoming, etc.) is a different matter altogether.
“I think the course of this thread accurately reflects the national level of interest in New Orleans.”
That’s a good observation.
But there is something in me that finds satisfaction in dancing to the deliberate fiddling of the entire leadership of the greatest and richest country as one of its cities dies.
The country is being rationalized. As an irrational person being subjected to the rationalization of all of American life, I have time to cackle and little else. Shopping for medical care takes up the rest of the time. So many choices, when conscious, so few resources.
I can find a moment to be convivial with a person like redstaty, who wants to remain at Redstate to discuss sanity with the insane. With people who are evenly divided between accusing liberals of murdering Terry Schiavo and also demanding that Ms. Schiavo get off her butt and get a job if she expects to receive medical care, if the job pays enough. All in one political party.
Levees? They are breached. It’s too late.
Would Terry Schiavo have survived New Orleans, I wonder? Probably. But not if she was a walking, talking individual trying to cross a bridge.
Off Topic? It’s all the same topic. 😉
Someone’s having problems understanding what questions are for, that’s for sure.
You had me right up until this point, hilzoy. If the weighting factors are set so that race is much more important than academics, what then? Does “generally not huge” apply to Michigan? I mean, just being black can get you thirteen percent of possible admission scores, while getting a perfect SAT score only gets you eight percent. Is blackness all by itself worth half again as a perfect SAT score, or is this a case of a de facto quota emplaced through twiddling with the weighting factors? I can see that admissions might want to achieve a good mix of students; I have no problem with that at all. And good point about athletics, as that seems to be more important, for some schools, than just about everything else combined. That, and you can’t enforce mixing; when I was at school people tended to bunch in like groups; the athletes tended to hang out together, the Chinese exchange students hung out together, and the blacks hung out together. Sure, things may have changed a lot in the last few decades, but I’ve still never seen a determination of any sort of value related to learning on diversity.
And of course all of this isn’t any balm to the Asian kid who gets passed over for admissions, just to get a good mix.
Purely anecdotally, the mix of students at my school had very little to do with learning, as far as I’m concerned. Mostly people were far too busy studying to socialize much, and at least in engineering, study doesn’t involve exchange of ideas so much as learning a rather large and diverse (so to speak) set of concepts. Of course, graduate level is a whole different ballgame.
Slarti,
A perfect SAT score <> all academic achievement by an applicant. Race was nowhere near as great a factor as academics (by a factor of around 4:1, IIRC) in admissions under the Michigan plan.
But Black <> White? I mean, I can see how some people might think that, but to dictate that by policy?
Slarti,
Please translate your last comment. I have no clue what you are saying.
Slarti: I don’t know what < > means, so I’m just going to guess it’s ‘not equal to’.
Again: no one has a right to be admitted to a given university or college. Colleges and universities have the right to try to construct interesting classes. (This might not matter in engineering; it matters to most students at residential colleges.) — Think of this as an issue about whether there should be a ‘one size fits all’ solution to the question ‘who goes to college?’, or whether individual colleges and universities should be allowed to exercise freedom in setting admissions policies. To my mind, the second is plainly preferable.
I see no reason why colleges and universities should not take race into account in constructing a diverse class, along with all sorts of other stuff. I mean, none at all. The issue with some law schools, imho, is that they ought to have much more individualized admissions processes than they do — with actual people reading actual applications and weighing all kinds of stuff. For whatever reason (presumably, expense), they are trying to achieve something like the results they’d get by doing things that way with an algorithm.
But, to me, weighing race along with other factors is fine. And deciding to try to save money on one’s admissions staff is (imho) the wrong way to go, but surely within a college or university’s rights.
hilzoy,
Yes, <> means not equal to.
Slart writes “not equal to” in BASIC, which is WAY more readable than C or C++.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I confused “!=” with “|=”
Dave,
I should take credit for introducing BASIC to this conversation, not Slarti. It also dates when I last programmed.
Blacks and Hispanics were given an extra twenty points over Whites and Asians, which was a twenty percent advantage in the total needed for admission. Why? I see two choices (not that there aren’t any others, mind you): blacks and hispanics need the extra twenty points to be competetive, or the simple fact that one is black or hispanic holds some value to an institute of learning. Is there some other interpretation that I’ve missed?
I’d say that’s probably true of private institutions, but for publicly-funded universities: no. If you’re going to fund institutes of learning through public funding, you’ve got to disregard race entirely in the process of admissions. After all, isn’t the opportunity supposed to be equal? Effectively, you’ve got (or had) an unequal set of admissions standards, and a good chunk of that inequality is based on race.
Yes, I understand, but does “exercise freedom” come without any limits at all? Isn’t the twenty-point racial bonus just as offensive as, say, a twenty-point penalty for being White (for example) would be? How offensive would a twenty-point penalty for being a registered Republican be?
I’d recommend an algorithm to do a first-cut screening based on qualifications, followed by manual screening. Screening based on other than quantifiable standards has some pitfalls, though. Who decides what is valuable? Isn’t it the mind you want, and not the skin color and features?
Oh, yes, DTM introduced <> as not equal, but I’d thought of it as an Excel foible. Me, I would’ve said “!=”. Or, for those who recall FORTRAN, “.NE.”
“Is there some other interpretation that I’ve missed?”
Yes. It is a reflection of the discriminatory conditions the vast majority of black and Hispanic students live under.
Or do you believe that equal opportunities currently exist for blacks and Hispanics? If so, then that is the discussion we should first have.
Purely anecdotally, the mix of students at my school had very little to do with learning, as far as I’m concerned.
The best diversity experience I had was with the guys I worked with at the Science Library. I worked with some Iranians that were all gung-ho about the Khomeini revolution and others who were freaked out by it and desperately trying to get into grad school in order to avoid going back.
My Ethiopian friend from the library, Samwel, was way cool. He had been a pilot for ships in the area. Also, he was some sort of prince, and while he was wandering around sightseeing in a different part of the country, was kidnapped by a local tribe that rode up on horses and grabbed him.
I asked him how the heck did he get to the Univ of Tennessee, and he told me that he went to Herman College to improve his English. Only later did I realize that he attended Roane State Community College, in Harriman, Tennessee, so I guess he did learn to talk like folks.
Equal to each other, or to everyone else? How about Asians? Is it your contention that Asians have had an advantage in this country?
But enough of this discussion of people as part of groups; what about individuals? Should my daughters be disadvantaged in the admission process, simply to right wrongs that they had absolutely nothing to do with? Should I?
Don’t you see anything at all wrong with coloring (ok, on reread that was completely inadvertant, but it stays) any process with preference for race?
Or, for those who recall FORTRAN, “.NE.”
Hey, I actually still occasionally program in FORTRAN (a DOS program), and 8086 Assembler. This kicks ass for Real-Time data acquisition and analysis compared to Windows CE and C++.
I’d also like to put in a good word for PowerBASIC, EZGUI, and DDOC.
8080 & 8085 assembler, here. And Pascal, too, although back then it bore little resemblance to some of the code I’ve seen since. I once knew a guy who took the APL class offered at school; there’s a dead language for you.
Damn, we’re a pair of old farts.
I hate typed variables that are typed as something like PPPOINT. Why the hell do that? Wouldn’t it be better just to return the 32 bit integer than a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a 32 bit integer?
Which brings us right around to my world-class programming booboo: casting a pointer to a float as a double in the function call. If you do it on hardware, it’s almost guaranteed to send it out daisy-picking until you reboot. As a FORTRAN programmer, you’d probably know why any old FORTRAN guy might make this mistake. Doesn’t work well on C++, though.
8080 & 8085 assembler, here.
The old Heath Zenith Z-100 was an awesome computer. 8085 AND 8086 dual processors.
Although the Z80 was superior to Intel 8 bit CPUs.
No, I did all of my programming via download from the VAX mainframe/cross-assembler or (and this is pretty sick) hex keypad. At least with the VAX, you had an editor, and you didn’t have to reenter the entire program if you made a mistake.
10 x=0
20 print “geek threadjack!”
30 x=x+1
40 if x < 100 then goto 20 50 end
Data General kicked DEC’s ass for small business, at least for small business purposes. The 1st computer I turned off and on was a Nova 3D running TAC Business BASIC on top of RDOS.
OK, I’m done now, st.
“Equal to each other, or to everyone else?”
Everyone else.
“How about Asians? Is it your contention that Asians have had an advantage in this country?”
The question isn’t whether there was ever discrimination, but whether equal opportunities currently exist. My understanding is that they do for Asians.
“But enough of this discussion of people as part of groups; what about individuals? Should my daughters be disadvantaged in the admission process, simply to right wrongs that they had absolutely nothing to do with? Should I?”
Should blacks and Hispanics who have been unquestionably discriminated against in the past have no effective remedy for that discrimination? Should they be condemned to permanent unequal opportunities?
“Don’t you see anything at all wrong with coloring (ok, on reread that was completely inadvertant, but it stays) any process with preference for race?”
Of course I do, but I also believe that the harm from that is far less than the harm from growing up with unequal opportunities.
Blacks and Hispanics were given an extra twenty points over Whites and Asians, which was a twenty percent advantage in the total needed for admission.
Was it? “Twenty points” would be a 20% advantage if there was a maximum score of 100 and the objective was to get students who scored as close to 100 as possible. Is that how the admissions system worked? Do you have a link to an article or something explaining how it worked? (I ask this not as a challenge, but quite seriously: this kind of admissions system is one I am wholly unfamiliar with.)
(And what was awarded for other elements of diversity?)
Pfah. We had a network of VAX 11/780s (some of them twinned to look like 785s) hooked to dumb terminals at about 36kbaud, all running BSD (IIRC) Unix, and more high-level language compilers than you’d ever heard of. We might even have had over a gig of hard-drive space.
Business applications. Ptooie.
And why do you think that is? Is opportunity still equal if an Asian has to get higher test scores than, say, a Hispanic?
At the expense of Whites and Asians who haven’t done any of the discrimination? Tell me how that’s fair. Is it your contention, too, that Asians have had it easy in this country?
This is all about unequal opportunities, IMO.
Jesurgislac, there’s quite a few references to the 20-point advantage; take your pick. Here‘s one that gives a great deal more detail than I’ve seen elsewhere. Hilzoy’s note that athletes are given a break here is supported.
All else being equal, I mean.
Hey, APL isn’t dead, just pining. I think the financial community may still use it — I understand a lot of arbitrage software was written in APL.
As for not equal (and speaking of APL, where it was on the typeball back in the day): ≠
Here is a plug for my favorite old language: SNOBOL4.
We now return control of this thread to you.
“And why do you think that is?”
Not sure. I have seen many factors suggested, ranging from level of discrimination faced, wealth at time of immigration (i.e., many Asian who came here had capital left over after immigrating), as well as cultural factors.
“Is opportunity still equal if an Asian has to get higher test scores than, say, a Hispanic?”
Yes, as the higher threshhold reflects the difference in opportunity initially faced.
“At the expense of Whites and Asians who haven’t done any of the discrimination? Tell me how that’s fair.”
Since the ones who did the discrimination are largely dead, are you suggesting there should be no remedy? If not, what remedy do you suggest?
“Is it your contention, too, that Asians have had it easy in this country?”
By comparison to blacks and Hispanics, yes.
“This is all about unequal opportunities, IMO.”
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of how well informed it is.
Really? Hispanics were brought here in chains? Chinese, for example, weren’t used as slave labor in constructing railroads? Vietnamese didn’t arrive on our shores with no money and no belongings?
Who knew?
Well, since you’re headed in that direction, I think anyone whose ancestors were here during the slave era ought to pay reparations. That appeals to MY sense of fairness.
No, not really, but it seems about the right level of ridiculous. Plus, I’d like some reparations from the English for repressing my ancestors; Irish Catholics had it tough, I tell you. Someone must PAY!
Ok, I’m still not serious, but I don’t see how my unserious suggestions are much different from your serious ones.
“Chinese, for example, weren’t used as slave labor in constructing railroads?”
No, slavery had already been abolished. They may not have been paid much, and may have had deplorable working conditions, but they were paid (and of course, most Asians in the US descended from ones who arrived after the majority of railroads were built).
“Vietnamese didn’t arrive on our shores with no money and no belongings?”
Some did. Others did not. And all arrived after the Jim Crow era of state supported discrimination ended.
“Plus, I’d like some reparations from the English for repressing my ancestors; Irish Catholics had it tough, I tell you.”
Take it up with the House of Commons. I would wager money that there will be a reparations program from Britain to its citizens of Irish descent in our lifetime.
“I don’t see how my unserious suggestions are much different from your serious ones.”
Because I am willing to do more to remedy what I perceive as injustice (including accepting discrimination against me to cure the inequity) than you are. Of course, it is hard to do much less than mocking injustice.
Yes, of course; hyperbole and all that. Chinese were treated exactly the same as Caucasians.
Really? How much money, for instance, have you personally donated? Or are you more willing to remedy when you don’t have quite so much of a stake, directly? And let’s get this out: are you in favor of reparations?
I don’t mock injustice, I reject the demand that I aid in remedying that which I haven’t participated (even through ancestry) in, or that my children be penalized for that which they couldn’t possibly have participated in.
“Chinese were treated exactly the same as Caucasians.”
That wasn’t the question asked. It isn’t even close. Nice try at distraction, though.
“How much money, for instance, have you personally donated?”
To whom or what?
“Or are you more willing to remedy when you don’t have quite so much of a stake, directly?”
No clue what this means. I strongly doubt I have ever been the recipient of any affirmative action program. I suspect (but do not know) that I was not admitted to a higher ranked law school than the one I attended because of an affirmative action program, and it does not bother me in the least.
“And let’s get this out: are you in favor of reparations?”
Not directly. I am in favor of affirmative action in lieu of reparations.
And you? Please give a serious reply to what remedies for past discrimination and continued diminshed opportunity you are in favor of.
My family didn’t live in the U.S. during all this history you guys are discussing. If tax dollars are going to be used to make ammends in whatever form that may take can we also discuss the need for an exemption for some of us who may be caucasian, but had nothing to do with the discrimination?
Or are we going to hold everyone responsible whether they committed any wrong or not?
No trial. No jury. We are just all guilty. Sounds un-American, No?
Dantheman,
I feel I didn’t get into the college I wanted because of affirmitive action and I think that affected my starting salary when I graduated.
Since I am innocent of this discrimination, would you mind cutting me a check to make up some of the difference?
Feel free to email me for my address.
Thanks a bunch!
credence:
the counterargument is: your family came to a country which had a legacy debt to the descendants of slaves. Your family voluntarily bought into the social contract which provides that the legacy debt must be paid. One way our society is choosing to pay that debt is thru affirmative action programs which (in theory) provide opportunities to those who are (a) sufficiently qualified and (b) a member of a class which suffered historic discrimination. It ain’t perfect; but it’ll do as rough justice.
don’t want to pay that legacy debt? move. It’s summer in New Zealand now. or persuade your elected representatives to force public universities to adopt race-blind admissions policies.
Slarti: as I see it, it’s not about paying for past injustices. It’s about two things:
First, as I said, making sure there’s a diverse class of students.
Second, fulfilling a general social goal: the existence of a decent-sized set of members of the middle- and professional- classes of all ethnic backgrounds.
Both of these take affirmative action. Part of the reason is, imho, injustice: not the injustice of slavery etc., but the rather more current injustice of dreadful schools in many majority-minority neighborhoods. This, unlike slavery, is an injustice that it’s easy to tie directly into student performance, and to which affirmative action is a pretty clear remedy. (Not nearly as good a remedy as fixing the schools, of course.)
But the primary goals of affirmative action, as expressed by university administrators, are not rectifying the past, but doing something good for the future.
You had a question about the Chinese? I must have missed it.
Remedying the great injustice. What else would I be asking about?
No, this was more along the lines of it being easier to remedy what YOU see as social injustice, only using other people’s money. The question is more in the line of how much you, personally, are willing to pony up.
And I’m now doing the equivalent of the chickenhawk thing, so maybe this wasn’t such a clever approach. I’m going to leave it, though, so maybe embarrassment will keep me from ever doing it again.
None at all. I’m in favor of enforced equality of access, which affirmative action pretty much does the opposite of. IMO we screwed the Indians over much more thoroughly than we did the Black people, and we can’t ever, ever remedy that. A Midnight Oil song comes to mind just now.
Which contract was that, and do you have my family’s signature on file?
Ah, good. Now we have two different reasons for varying standards. Rhetorical question: which is the actual reason being used, currently, I wonders? I’d be inclined to suspect hilzoy has it, but isn’t Dantheman a lawyer? Or have I got him mixed up with CharleyCarp?
If you check my link upthread, it seems there’s a separate 20 points for having attended a disadvantaged high school. I have no idea if the information in that link is accurate, though, but it appears that there are 20 points for being black or hispanic, and a separate 20 points for attending a disadvantaged school.
That’s actually a far less offensive argument (to me) than the reparations one, but doing something good for the future by screwing people in the present seems self-defeating. Plus, I’d be curious if there’s any evidence that says this is working.
I’ve seen some things that suggest that the effect of lowering the entry standards is that the less-qualified entrants wind up flunking out at a rate higher than average, but I always look at such results with some amount of distrust, because they’re almost invariably produced by those who are looking for evidence to support their existing POV.
Francis,
No they didn’t. When my family came here there was no legacy debt that existed. That is something that has been created since they came and we shouldn’t be held accountable.
If on my parents immigration papers it might have stated that one day their children could be held accountable for actions that they didn’t commit you might have a point. But, no one ever said anything to them about that.
I’m surprised how twisted the logic being used here is. It seems so archaic to me to hold the children responsbile for the sins of the parents. It seems so barbarian. Especially coming from the left.
Slarti,
This is interesting logic to use in the WOT.
If we invade a country like Iraq aren’t we screwing people in the present and only creating more terrorists? Who on the left would disagree with that?
But if we screw innocent people in America today that will only help race relations in the future and not create more racism.
Life is full of one way streets in Leftville.
But if we screw innocent people in America today that will only help race relations in the future and not create more racism.
I didn’t realize that those who are opposed to affirmative action were going to resort to even more racism to make their point. From the horse’s mouth, I guess, unless one of the conservative-er posters on this board would like to take issue with this.
Slarti: on this one, trust me. I am the daughter of a university administrator. It’s the future-oriented argument. — I mean, think about the idea of using affirmative action in universities to rectify, e.g., the injustice of slavery. For starters, it’s a terrible way of actually getting rectification to all the people who need it. It targets only a tiny fraction, and the particular tiny fraction most likely to get ahead on their own. You’d be much better off just handing out forty acres and a mule to African-Americans selected at random.
Describing affirmative action as “doing something good for the future by screwing people in the present” presupposes, I think, that the people not admitted actually deserve admission to a particular college. As I already said, I don’t think that’s true.
About flunking out at a higher rate: there is actual data on this, though (conflict of interest note!) it’s in a book co-authored by my Dad. (A very good book, too, if you ask me, but I’m biassed. My Dad and Bill Bowen had the novel idea of getting some pretty serious data on affirmative action and seeing what it showed.)
It turns out that blacks graduate at lower rates than whites across the board, including at non-selective colleges, where affirmative action is not an issue (since they admit everyone.) When you examine blacks and whites within given SAT ranges, separated by the selectivity of the schools they went to (measured by those schools’ average SAT scores), it turns out that blacks graduate at lower rates than whites within most (SAT range/selectivity category) combinations, but that within each SAT range, both blacks and whites graduate at higher rates the more selective the school they went to.
So, specifically, for a cohort entering in 1989, the rate of graduation, after 6 years, for black students with a combined SAT score below 1000 was 65% at schools with average SAT scores below 1150, 75% at schools with average SAT scores between 1150 and 1299, and 88% at schools with average SAT scores above 1300. (Oddly, even students — black and white — with SATs over 1300 graduate at lower rates from schools with average SATs below 1150 than from schools with average SATs above 1300.)
lj,
You don’t have to agree with credence to understand the point.
We may not desire to radicalize and activate some extreme elements in society, but some actions cause that to happen.
I don’t think you would argue that Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of this.
Why argue this point now?
By “the people not admitted actually deserve admission to a particular college”, I meant: that those people are entitled to a place in a given college.
glow23,
By making his point via a false analogy, and then claiming that this is the way it is in ‘Leftville’, s/he scuffs at the line that defines troll. For those who espouse a conservative view here, is this the kind of discussion that is wanted? If so, then there should be no surprise that things might get a little heated.
Wow a long thread, but unless I am mistaken not much discussion of they failure of the levees. Or for that matter the failure of the Bush administration.
Slart, Dantheman is a lawyer.
George Costanza, on the other hand, is a fictional character: “You know, we’re living in a society!”
Lots of people want to ignore this, and be treated as atoms. I do too on occasion. However, there is such a thing as a social debt, just as there are social assets. I didn’t own slaves, but I wasn’t at Normandy on D-Day either. “We” had slaves, though, just as “we” liberated France. “We” put a man on the moon, but “we” can’t figure out how to undo the lingering effects of “our” particular bit of tribalism gone wild.
Pretending that it didn’t happen, that someone else is responsible for fixing it, or that the lingering effects are ‘deserved’ aren’t going to work.
Hilzoy‘s off to guest at Kevin Drum’s place. Hope she doesn’t intend to try to read the comments.
Good heavens! Rilkefan’s right, hilzoy: scan down maybe twenty or thirty comments, respond to one or two of the more serious points, but, really, if you do any more, you’ll shock the regulars there. You’ll have more than enough on your hands with the trackbacks. (Here’s Drum’s link, for the lazy.)
Just a quick request, Slarti, would you restate your points against affirmative action as a post so we could start the thread on a fresh page? I think there is a lot of interesting points floating around, and it would be nice to see them discussed again. Of course, it can wait until Hilzoy finishes.
Slarti,
“You had a question about the Chinese?”
No, you did. As a hint, when a sentence ends in a question mark and includes the word “Chinese”, such as “Chinese, for example, weren’t used as slave labor in constructing railroads?”, it should be your starting point when looking for a question about the Chinese.
“To whom or what?
Remedying the great injustice. What else would I be asking about?”
Since the question was about making donations, asking who takes donations to remedy the injustice is of some importance.
“The question is more in the line of how much you, personally, are willing to pony up.”
Ah, so it is the question I answered. To quote myself: “I suspect (but do not know) that I was not admitted to a higher ranked law school than the one I attended because of an affirmative action program, and it does not bother me in the least.”
For the understanding-challenged, that means that I believe that I have personally “ponied up” admission to a higher ranked law school.
And yes, I am a lawyer.
hilzoy,
I disagree with you. While diversity is a good in and of itself, without the remedy for past injustice aspect, affirmative action becomes a poor substitute for dealing directly with the problems caused by poor schools. Poor in that it is badly targeted by helping people who do not need the help, poor in that it helps fewer people who need it than improving the schools, and poor in that it creates greater resentment on the part of others.
I’d seen that in my adventures through Google, and wondered if he was any relation. I can’t say I’m surprised.
No; sometimes it’s more effective to ignore this sort of borderline comment than to dignify it with a response. I realize, though, that it could look like I either missed it or approved of it. JFTR: neither.
You mean, make an actual post? That would be a departure, I admit. I’ll have to see if I can fit something like that in for this weekend. I haven’t got much against affirmative action in the strict sense, but I don’t think of what’s currently being done as “affirmative”, in that the lesson is somthing like: “we officially recognize you as an equal member of society, and to commemorate that, we give you a job”. Or a place in this college. I’ve got absolutely nothing against programs for the economically disadvantaged, and I have nothing against a program of that type if it aids far more black and hispanic and American-Indian people than it does white people, at least initially (and by that, I mean that it might take a couple of generations to get past the “initially” phase). After all, isn’t the goal to lift people, regardless of skin color or facial features or culture, out of the cycle of poverty? To me, affirmative action ought to start out with equal treatment for people of all color, and the rest of the uplifting part can be accomplished by programs for the disadvantaged.
And certainly educational programs for the disadvantaged are probably worthy of consideration. There are other problems that go along with that, too, so it’s not a cure-all. Unfortunately a great deal of schooling has been passed off into homework, and even I don’t have all that much time to help with that, and I’m absolutely committed to my kids having the best shot at college they can.
As for the entitlement bit, I hold that race alone should not give one an edge on admission, but of course the odds that I’m wrong are substantially elevated by the fact that I’m disagreeing with hilzoy AND her father.
“While diversity is a good in and of itself”
I know I have selected this quote out of context, but you do hear this phrase all the time.
Is this really an accurate statement.
I wonder if Japan, Tiawan, Ireland, Egypt or Singapore really aggrees with that statement.
lj,
It’s only a false analogy because you are walking down a one-way street.
It’s only a false analogy in the sense that it’s, you know, false. Or, to put it another way:
If we determine that our country will be stronger and justice will be served by giving minority candidates preferences, we are “screwing innocent people” in the present out of their god-given right to attend university X because they got a certain number on a certain test.
If we determine that our country will be stronger and justice will be served by invading and utterly trashing a country like Iraq on the (wrong) suspicion that they are a threat to us, with no plan to put the place back together again, the civilian dead are merely broken eggs on the way to a glorious omelet of freedom.
Plenty of one-way streets in any zip code, if one is willing to indulge in dishonest sophistry.
Please do not take this post as in any way endorsing the analogy above, or in the earlier post. My point is that they are both abject bulls**t.
And if everyone doesn’t reach that conclusion does that make the statement false?
And I could agree with that if those on the left didn’t often think that by invading Iraq we are only creating more terrorists that wouldn’t have existed before.
Which is why I see many of them cruising down one way streets.
My original statement wasn’t designed to be a statement of fact, but of possibility. The fact that lj jumped on it so quickly shows that he wasn’t really interested in the point I was making, but an attempt to slam someone he thinks is on the right. I was straight forward in criticizing behaviour that I see from the left. LJ however want to put words in my mouth. A typical technique.
Many on the left are so sure that reparations are the way to go and that we have a debt for crimes we didn’t commmit. But, they don’t also see the negative aspect of their decision.
They can see the negative possiblities created by Bush in Iraq, but often not the ones that they create due to their own actions.
Looks like a one way street from the sidewalk.
credence:
Is insufferable self-righteousness grounds for banning?
Drat, I didn’t think so…
credence: And I could agree with that if those on the left didn’t often think that by invading Iraq we are only creating more terrorists that wouldn’t have existed before.
Remove the “only” (we are, after all, doing other things as well) and the above claim would be indisputable.
Many on the left are so sure that reparations are…
What in Gawd’s name could you possibly be talking about?
That would me make it too quiet around here.
My favorite part was “from the sidewalk.”
Credence:
We try to hold civilized discussions here. We also try to stay on point, even though some of us stray from time to time. When discussing what you consider to be flaws in LJ’s comments, if you absolutely are compelled to note how one or more of its characteristics are emblematic of this monolith you think of as “the left”, please also be so kind as to mention how such generalizations aid your argument or detract from the argument of your opponent.
Otherwise, it’s just pie-throwing. Most folks here have been participating in online discussions for…well, by all appearances, for longer than they ought to, and they at least seem to be able to recognize a logical fallacy from time to time. This one looks a little bit like guilt by association, even if your intended target doesn’t accept the premise that the monolithic “left” is wrong, evil, or anything else disparaging.
As for me, I am but an egg.
Oh, and if you’re new here, please take the time to peruse the posting rules.
Thanks,
The Management.
So far it’s Shakespeare’s Sister 3, hilzoy 0…
Ooops, 3-1, and a lead in word count for our team.
Yeah — that annoying job of mine…
Is it just me, or has everything after midnight on December 10 really disappeared?