Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

[iam416]

All posts concerning Brazil are welcome provided they include a mention of the the Lake of Fecality.

[THE_WIZARD_]

shaddup

Talent:

hi

[iam416]

You had me at "shaddup" and lost me at "hi" -- so, kindly GFY or the nearest barnyard implement, animate or not.

[lineygoblue]

Man, that Hillary hat is spot on ...

[THE_WIZARD_]

You had me at "shaddup" and lost me at "hi" -- so, kindly GFY or the nearest barnyard implement, animate or not.

uncharacteristically cogent

[hack]

Setting that aside, why on earth does anything less than true first world countries host global events? I mean -- I know WHY....but FFS, pass a resolution, UN...make yourself useful.

The economics of it rarely work anymore unless you've got existing facilities you can use. Otherwise, you pay a ton for white-elephant projects you'll never use again. The only folks who want to do that are dictators. Which, speaking of Brazil, there were even protests against holding the World Cup based on it being a waste of money. I just googled and couldn't find it, but I saw something a while back showing that applications to host global sporting events from OECD countries has fallen, and applications from countries with elected dictators have risen.

[Wild Hoss]

He's not calling into question his competence. He's calling into question his impartiality.

...but hasn't thins judge been assigned to the case for several years? Like, predating Trump's presidential bid from which he has gained his notoriety among the Latin community?

[SeattleLionsFan]

A couple of points.

Diversity is important not because it makes one judge better than another. It's important because those in positions of power should represent and have experiences which are somewhat representative of those they govern. Thus, it's important to have a multiplicity of viewpoints on the bench. It doesn't mean any particular judge is biased or should be disqualified because they are a white man.

With that said, I abhor the fact that race/gender/ethnicity has become a stand-in for true diversity. Every Supreme Court justice went to Harvard or Yale for law school. They are all from the judiciary or the solicitors office. They are all New York or California born and bred (except for Thomas who is from the Deep South). Anyway, tl;dr? Diversity is a good, not a disqualifying thing and race is a poor stand in for diversity.

Hillary is proud to be a woman, and proud to be the first woman nominee, but her candidacy is based on the fact that she is the most qualified candidate in years. Like her or not, she could hardly have better qualifications than 8 years in the WH as First Lady, United States Senator for 8 years, Secretary of State for 4 years. That's a shit ton more experience than anyone since Nixon probably.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Oh Trump isn't a bigot. He's just looking for reasons he lost and that was the first explanation. Not that he is a con man who wants to swindle old ladies for a buck. That can't be it. So it must be than some dude from Indiana hates him for being a dick.

[Ghengis Jon]

[iam416]

Diversity is important not because it makes one judge better than another. It's important because those in positions of power should represent and have experiences which are somewhat representative of those they govern. Thus, it's important to have a multiplicity of viewpoints on the bench. It doesn't mean any particular judge is biased or should be disqualified because they are a white man.

It seems to me you stop short. What I bolded is just a fluff/conclusory statement. WHY should the bench be "somewhat" representative of the community in which they sit?

With the judiciary you start with this proposition: the impartial application of the rule of law. The law is the law. It's not supposed to be a policy or advocacy branch of government. And, by and large, it isn't. We know that there are exceptions because that is news, but 99% of the cases involve the impartial application of the law.

And look, I get that you're far more refined insofar as you're speaking of diversity of experience and are, I think, unwilling to use race/ethnicity/gender as a proxy for that experience. I assume you'd rather see a rural poor white guy on the bench ahead of black guy who grew up in an affluent suburb -- assuming poor people and their experiences are under-represented.

But, that said...WHY? WHY? So, with engineering, e.g., there is absolutely no credible reason to have "diverse" backgrounds. Engineering operates under hard and fast rules and your shit is either going to work or it isn't. Growing up in East Cleveland doesn't mean you get to ignore the law of thermodynamics. What you're saying with judges is that there are areas that aren't hard and fast and empathy matters. Your WHY is empathy. But if empathy matters then so, too, can antipathy.

So you're more refined than Trump or the Social Justice Warriors who use race as a proxy at every turn. But if, e.g., the Judge in Trump's case had written a paper advocating amnesty and pro-immigration policies then Trump would have a credible antipathy argument. And that's bullshit, too.

[THE_WIZARD_]

you had me at "respect"...

[iam416]

Heh. Good call. I hate that phrase -- "all due respect" -- it generally signals no respect is forthcoming. So, I edited.

So, you know, all due respect, fuck off.

[hack]

Diversity is important because it combats ignorance. People are people. Some kinds of places generate more of this kind of person or that kind, but ultimately every kind of person can come from anywhere. If we all went to the ancestral homes of the various Kagans and Sotomayors and Srinavasians and looked at what kind of opportunities equally talented people have there, and what kind of ideological blinders they are saddled with in comparison, then there would be no argument about the value and importance of diversity. It's one of the basic ingredients that makes America great.