MoBettle wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The thing about affirmative action is that it really hasn't been all that effective in addressing the problems it was supposed to address. I think something like the Texas 10% plan, though far from perfect, is a better approach.

It's not supposed to address a problem though, it's supposed to make the school a better school.

And it's weird that generally no one has a problem with letting the schools make admission decisions regarding how they will become a better school, except when it comes to letting black people in.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two examples, one a guy who represents less than 4,000 people, another a guy who's going to get crushed in his primary election. But they represent the party.

Just FYI, jh is responding here to a post I've since deleted, because it felt trollish to me. (I should have known he'd be too quick...) It was showing examples from the last couple days of Republicans saying stupid anti-women things.

TenuredVulture wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The thing about affirmative action is that it really hasn't been all that effective in addressing the problems it was supposed to address. I think something like the Texas 10% plan, though far from perfect, is a better approach.

It's not supposed to address a problem though, it's supposed to make the school a better school.

And it's weird that generally no one has a problem with letting the schools make admission decisions regarding how they will become a better school, except when it comes to letting black people in.

I haven't read the case or the decision, but that doesn't seem to be at the heart of Sotomayor's dissent. Also, what counts as "better" when evaluating a taxpayer supported university? More selective and elite like a public ivy, a place that provide a basic college education for a low price to anyone who wants one, a place that gives its students solid preparation for a lucrative career, a place with a bunch of Nobel Laureates and MacArthur Genius grant winners on its faculty?

I've been in higher education for a long time, and one thing I've learned is that there's no such thing as a good college--the key is matching the institution to the student. University of Michigan is an outstanding institution, but I'd think long and hard before I encouraged my child to attend giant research university like that.

To be honest, I do think "mend it don't end it" makes sense. Again, the 10% plan strikes me as a promising alternative, though I'd want to combine that with solid counseling so students end up at institutions that are a good fit.

jerseyhoya wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The thing about affirmative action is that it really hasn't been all that effective in addressing the problems it was supposed to address. I think something like the Texas 10% plan, though far from perfect, is a better approach.

It's not supposed to address a problem though, it's supposed to make the school a better school.

And it's weird that generally no one has a problem with letting the schools make admission decisions regarding how they will become a better school, except when it comes to letting black people in.

Affirmative action was and is supposed to address the problem of inequality between whites and minorities, the legacy of discrimination in the US. Pretending otherwise is weird. Diversity is a legal rationale that the court settled on 36 years ago when it was split in Bakke. Sotomayor takes it as a given in her dissent that the practice of racial preferences in college admissions benefits minority groups - "race-sensitive admissions policies further a compelling state interest in achieving a diverse student body precisely because they increase minority enrollment, which necessarily benefits minority groups" - and research has shown this isn't necessarily true at all.

And there is no problem with letting black people in if they are qualified when judged on the same criteria as everyone else applying to the school. If a state's voters don't want a state institution discriminating on race, they should be able to stop the practice. It's pretty gross to me that we have two (three, probably) people on the Supreme Court who disagree with that.

At the House hearing, state Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Kennesaw), who is shouldering the legislation in the House, spoke earnestly for better than a half hour on microchips as a literal invasion of privacy.

He was followed by a hefty woman who described herself as a resident of DeKalb County. “I’m also one of the people in Georgia who has a microchip,” the woman said. Slowly, she began to lead the assembled lawmakers down a path they didn’t want to take.

Microchips, the woman began, “infringe on issues that are fundamental to our very existence. Our rights to privacy, our rights to bodily integrity, the right to say no to foreign objects being put in our body.”

She spoke of the “right to work without being tortured by co-workers who are activating these microchips by using their cell phones and other electronic devices.”

She continued. “Microchips are like little beepers. Just imagine, if you will, having a beeper in your rectum or genital area, the most sensitive area of your body. And your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city. All done without your permission,” she said.

It was not funny, and no one laughed.

“Ma’am, did you say you have a microchip?” asked state Rep. Tom Weldon (R-Ringgold).

“Yes, I do. This microchip was put in my vaginal-rectum area,” she replied. Setzler, the sponsoring lawmaker, sat next to the witness – his head bowed.

“You’re saying this was involuntary?” Weldon continued.

The woman said she had been pushing a court case through the system for the last eight years to have the device removed.

Wendell Willard (R-Atlanta), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, picked up the questioning.

“Who implanted this in you?” he asked.

“Researchers with the federal government,” she said.

“And who in the federal government implanted it?” Willard asked.

“The Department of Defense.”

“Thank you, ma’am.”

The woman was allowed to go about her business, and the House Judiciary Committee approved passage of SB 235.

td11 wrote:the department of defense has invaded my vaginal-rectum area

The recording, covertly taped by a patron of Sullie Gorman’s Monday night, captures the mayor being unruly as he’s ordering booze, complaining about his wife Renata and making lewd comments about mayoral contender Karen Stintz.

“I’d like to f-----g jam her (Stintz), but she doesn’t want ... I can’t talk like this ... I’m so sorry,” Ford says on the recording. “I forgot there’s a woman in the house.”

Toronto Star Editor Michael Cooke reported that his paper would also soon be reporting a story that Justin Bieber enraged Rob Ford by asking the Mayor if he had any crack when the two met at a night club.

td11 wrote:Congressman: Bundy Militia Has Set Up Road 'Checkpoints' In Nevada

Bucky wrote:Supreme Court: Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens’ vehicles

SPOLIER ALERT: "Probable cause" is required; the previous standard was "exigent circumstances".

On January 15, 2010, Philadelphia Police Officers Baker and Waters were on patrol in their marked car in the area of North 58th Street and Florence Avenue when they observed Sheim Gary (Appellee) driving an SUV with heavily tinted windows. Believing that the level of tint in the windows violated Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Code, the officers stopped and approached the SUV. As they did so, they noticed the smell of marijuana emanating from the passenger and driver sides of the vehicle. When Officer Baker asked Appellee if there was anything in his vehicle that the officers “need [to] know about,” Appellee responded that there was some “weed.” The officers removed Appellee from the SUV, placed him in the police cruiser, and summoned the canine unit. As Police Officer Snyder and his dog, Leo, began to walk around the SUV, Appellee got out of the police cruiser and started running from the scene. With Leo’s help, the officers apprehended Appellee and returned him to the police cruiser. The search of Appellee’s SUV yielded approximately two pounds of marijuana, found under the front hood in a bag lodged next to the air filter.