drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:That's one elablorate misplaced rant. So he's telling us that people don't protest every $50 million boondoggle, but may be willing to gather to protest when the spending approaches $1 trillion? Hilarious indeed.

wow, did you ever misread that.

It's plain his contention is that people seem perversely to grouse only when the 'excessive' spending benefits people like themselves, & not when it coddles plutocrats & their interests.

once again your expensive 'prestige' education has let you down.

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

taibblog wrote:The really irritating thing about these morons is that, guaranteed, not one of them has ever taken a serious look at the federal budget. Not one has ever bothered to read an actual detailed study of what their taxes pay for. All they do is listen to one-liners doled out by tawdry Murdoch-hired mouthpieces like Michelle Malkin and then repeat them as if they’re their own opinions five seconds later. That’s what passes for political thought in this country. Teabag on, you fools.

Hear that, he guarantees it! I hope I never reach the level of cynicism displayed here, that I'm willing to pass judgment on EVERY SINGLE member of a group based on assumptions that have no basis in reality. It's one thing to say that the average person is misinformed, which I have absolutely no qualms saying. It's quite another level of arrogance to say what he says.

Edit: I suck at homophones.

Strawmen piling up fast and furious from our own world-class point-misser.

Werthless wrote:His contention, which you summarized accurately, is easily explained by my sarcastic post, that the amounts wasted are what drives anger. It's not the recipients of $50M in wasted funds that's going to inspire 200,000 people to gather, no matter how wasteful the giveaway. How many people gathered in protest for the AIG bonuses? Only a few dozen. And people were ANGRY about them. It's when $1T of questionable value is spent that causes action. I thought my post was clear, but next time I'll explain the reasoning behind my sarcasm, so you won't have to make the logical leap yourself.

And I don't know what your education dig means. I've never mentioned my education.

This week, the Supreme Court will consider the reverse discrimination claim of Marcarelli and a group of white firefighters. They all passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities likely to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Besides affecting how race can be considered in filling government and perhaps even private jobs, the dispute also addresses broader questions about racial progress: Do minorities and women still need legal protection from discrimination, or do the monumental civil rights laws that created a more equal nation now cause more harm than good?
...
One hundred and eighteen people took the tests; 56 passed. Nineteen of the top scorers were eligible for promotion to 15 open lieutenant and captain positions. Based on the test results, the city said that no minorities would have been eligible for lieutenant, and two Hispanics would have been eligible for captain. (The lawsuit was filed by 20 white plaintiffs, including one man who is both white and Hispanic.)

The exams were designed by a professional testing firm that followed federal guidelines for mitigating disparate racial outcomes, the plaintiffs say.

Torre [The plaintiff's lawyer] argues that discarding a test because no minorities would have been promoted violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination because of race.

Call it a legal riddle only the Supreme Court could solve: The white firefighters say Title VII prohibits discrimination against them for being white; New Haven says Title VII prohibits it from using a test that has a disparate impact against blacks.

TenuredVulture wrote:I know this probably isn't germane to the legal questions involved, but is it possible that a test really isn't a good tool to determine who should be promoted in a fire department?

TenuredVulture wrote:I know this probably isn't germane to the legal questions involved, but is it possible that a test really isn't a good tool to determine who should be promoted in a fire department?

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I know this probably isn't germane to the legal questions involved, but is it possible that a test really isn't a good tool to determine who should be promoted in a fire department?

As an aside, this is something that comes up a lot in IT. Dedicating resources to certifications (so basically, an exam) can be a tough road for the employee and theoretically draws resources away from a salaried employee that they might otherwise dedicate to work.

The big win for exams, though, is that they're empirical. There's no question of bias by your reviewer. Now, I know you can take this to the umpty Nth degree and start questining the exam in the first place, the motives of those taking and giving the exam, etc - but without going all conspiracy theorist, they can be a good tool. If I remember correctly, that was part of the whole movement toward things like Civil Service exams, wasn't it? To try and break up the whole "boss/favoritism" mentality when offering work or identifying who is or isn't qualified.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I know this probably isn't germane to the legal questions involved, but is it possible that a test really isn't a good tool to determine who should be promoted in a fire department?

As an aside, this is something that comes up a lot in IT. Dedicating resources to certifications (so basically, an exam) can be a tough road for the employee and theoretically draws resources away from a salaried employee that they might otherwise dedicate to work.

The big win for exams, though, is that they're empirical. There's no question of bias by your reviewer. Now, I know you can take this to the umpty Nth degree and start questining the exam in the first place, the motives of those taking and giving the exam, etc - but without going all conspiracy theorist, they can be a good tool. If I remember correctly, that was part of the whole movement toward things like Civil Service exams, wasn't it? To try and break up the whole "boss/favoritism" mentality when offering work or identifying who is or isn't qualified.

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

Harman declined to discuss the wiretap allegations, instead issuing an angry denial through a spokesman.

TenuredVulture wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I know this probably isn't germane to the legal questions involved, but is it possible that a test really isn't a good tool to determine who should be promoted in a fire department?

As an aside, this is something that comes up a lot in IT. Dedicating resources to certifications (so basically, an exam) can be a tough road for the employee and theoretically draws resources away from a salaried employee that they might otherwise dedicate to work.

The big win for exams, though, is that they're empirical. There's no question of bias by your reviewer. Now, I know you can take this to the umpty Nth degree and start questining the exam in the first place, the motives of those taking and giving the exam, etc - but without going all conspiracy theorist, they can be a good tool. If I remember correctly, that was part of the whole movement toward things like Civil Service exams, wasn't it? To try and break up the whole "boss/favoritism" mentality when offering work or identifying who is or isn't qualified.

Well, sure, I understand the point of exams is to remove favoritism and bias from hiring decisions, and some kind of objective standard is important when we're talking about the public sector. It does seem that certification in software might have more to do with being able to actually do the work than a test would have to do with being a good leader in a fire department. I mean, with study, I could I bet ace the fire fighter exam. But if there's an actual fire, I'm pretty sure I'll run and panic and really screw it up pretty badly.

I actually now think it might be germane to the issue at stake though. If the city can show that the exam does not do a good job of indicating who would do well in the position, then throwing out the results (especially since the exams were implemented in the first place to eliminate bias) might be defensible. It does seem though that issue would be handled at a lower court level.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I know this probably isn't germane to the legal questions involved, but is it possible that a test really isn't a good tool to determine who should be promoted in a fire department?

As an aside, this is something that comes up a lot in IT. Dedicating resources to certifications (so basically, an exam) can be a tough road for the employee and theoretically draws resources away from a salaried employee that they might otherwise dedicate to work.

The big win for exams, though, is that they're empirical. There's no question of bias by your reviewer. Now, I know you can take this to the umpty Nth degree and start questining the exam in the first place, the motives of those taking and giving the exam, etc - but without going all conspiracy theorist, they can be a good tool. If I remember correctly, that was part of the whole movement toward things like Civil Service exams, wasn't it? To try and break up the whole "boss/favoritism" mentality when offering work or identifying who is or isn't qualified.

Well, sure, I understand the point of exams is to remove favoritism and bias from hiring decisions, and some kind of objective standard is important when we're talking about the public sector. It does seem that certification in software might have more to do with being able to actually do the work than a test would have to do with being a good leader in a fire department. I mean, with study, I could I bet ace the fire fighter exam. But if there's an actual fire, I'm pretty sure I'll run and panic and really screw it up pretty badly.

I actually now think it might be germane to the issue at stake though. If the city can show that the exam does not do a good job of indicating who would do well in the position, then throwing out the results (especially since the exams were implemented in the first place to eliminate bias) might be defensible. It does seem though that issue would be handled at a lower court level.

Well, this isn't at the root of the lawsuit, and from the article, it doesn't appear that this defense was brought forth. The problem with using this defense is that there is no evidence, or reason to suggest, that the test does a poor job of identifying worthy firefighters for promotion. The only "evidence" of unsuitability is the resulting racial distribution. When you think about the great pains that were went through to pay for and design this test, I can understand the predicament they've put themselves in. They're essentially trying to throw out the results, but they did everything they could have to make the test as objective as possible.

dajafi wrote:Not to short-circuit the interesting discussion underway, but this seems like a big deal.

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

Harman declined to discuss the wiretap allegations, instead issuing an angry denial through a spokesman.

Where it gets even more interesting is that supposedly Alberto Gonzales shut down the investigation into this in return for Harman promising to defend the administration's warrantless (a/k/a "illegal") wiretapping program.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I know this probably isn't germane to the legal questions involved, but is it possible that a test really isn't a good tool to determine who should be promoted in a fire department?

As an aside, this is something that comes up a lot in IT. Dedicating resources to certifications (so basically, an exam) can be a tough road for the employee and theoretically draws resources away from a salaried employee that they might otherwise dedicate to work.

The big win for exams, though, is that they're empirical. There's no question of bias by your reviewer. Now, I know you can take this to the umpty Nth degree and start questining the exam in the first place, the motives of those taking and giving the exam, etc - but without going all conspiracy theorist, they can be a good tool. If I remember correctly, that was part of the whole movement toward things like Civil Service exams, wasn't it? To try and break up the whole "boss/favoritism" mentality when offering work or identifying who is or isn't qualified.

As a workforce development person I agree with this. It's a bit of a simplification, but on the whole, quantifying skills=good.

OTOH, the point that as one goes up the ladder, the relevant skills become harder to quantify (even when one puts aside cronyism considerations) makes sense too.

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I know this probably isn't germane to the legal questions involved, but is it possible that a test really isn't a good tool to determine who should be promoted in a fire department?

As an aside, this is something that comes up a lot in IT. Dedicating resources to certifications (so basically, an exam) can be a tough road for the employee and theoretically draws resources away from a salaried employee that they might otherwise dedicate to work.

The big win for exams, though, is that they're empirical. There's no question of bias by your reviewer. Now, I know you can take this to the umpty Nth degree and start questining the exam in the first place, the motives of those taking and giving the exam, etc - but without going all conspiracy theorist, they can be a good tool. If I remember correctly, that was part of the whole movement toward things like Civil Service exams, wasn't it? To try and break up the whole "boss/favoritism" mentality when offering work or identifying who is or isn't qualified.

As a workforce development person I agree with this. It's a bit of a simplification, but on the whole, quantifying skills=good.

OTOH, the point that as one goes up the ladder, the relevant skills become harder to quantify (even when one puts aside cronyism considerations) makes sense too.

Consider the role of the executive in an established entity of any kind. It is essentially to avoid squandering resources on 'unnecessary' activities - to do nothing, or at least nothing new - and to portray the result as doing something, ideally something new.

Most of the 'skills' involved in such 'activity' have to do with ensuring that any decisions one be forced to might make can plausibly be laid to someone or someones else - to have no individual responsibility for a choice. Said another way, he manages best who most effectively increases the role of environmental, relative to the r than personal inputs in the conduct of the activity.

So, frequently, the job becomes mostly one of managing the perceptions of the role's execution, rather than mastering the requirements of the role itself.

VoxOrion wrote:Yeah, that seems overly cynical. I'm not denying that it happens, but brokering deals, managing budgets, managing to whatever indicators or metrics that are established as best practices, is all easily quantified - particularly if one is being evaluated among their peers and not in a vacuum.