Tweet
To expand on a tweet I reposted, Rand Paul has stated that he will vote against John Bolton in ANY position he might be nominated for.
-
-
Trump says the Wall Street Journal doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes to business.
Trump has gone bankrupt numerous times and is deeply in debt.
Comment
-
" . . he didn't perceive holding stakes in "The New Celebrity Apprentice" and his real estate dealings as conflicts of interest."
My first reaction to stuff like this is always, did he really say that? And then immediately I realize that of course he did.Comment
-
Mitch McConnell announces Senate investigation into possible Russian interference. Praised our intelligence services. A total slap in the face to Trump. Hopefully he responds forcefully via Twitter
Comment
-
hack:The last time I made that comment, as far as I can remember, was on November 9 when we were discussing Tom Friedman's statement when the stock market was down 800 during the early hours of Nov. 9. When asked when the market might recover, Friedman said "never..." That is called a prediction. By noon that same day, the market had recovered the 800 points and was up day-over-day. It is now 2,200 points above the point from which Friedman said it never would recover.That said, you "point out that predictive ability is the best way to judge truth"? What exactly does that mean?
Friedman's prediction was wrong. It was wrong because it was based on a poor understanding of what was happening in the country and in the economy. My argument then is "why should we trust Tom Friedman's opinion if his view cannot predict outcomes."
Algore predicted that we would be beyond the point of no return with global warming by 2016. It is so cold today in northern MI that the lawyers have their hands in their own pockets. But, without joking, Algore was wrong. Why then should I trust his predictions for the future?
I've predicted that Brexit would not happen even though the country voted to leave the EU. If I am wrong, then that calls into question what I believe/know about the functioning of the political system in the UK. But I am not putting myself out as any expert in British politics. Friedman and Gore are.Comment
-
Jeff:You are now asking what I have come to believe is the most pressing question of our time. Yes, it is that important. Yes, there is indeed inequality, and yes, I attribute a large part of that to an education system that does not serve the poor as it should. Parenthetically, I sent my daughter to a public school K-12 and would do it again today. Diversity does matter.Also, Geezer ..... you seem to acknowledge that there is income inequality but you attribute that to lack of preparation for more lucrative employment opportunities in low-income earners. Do I have that right?
If there are barriers to preparation, and there are if Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) is correctly interpreted, how do you suggest low-income earners close that income gap? Do the Feds have a role in reducing the obstacles to better preparation for low-income earners? If not, then whom?
As a radical in the 60's, I was exposed to Tom Hayden and the SDS. The Port Huron Declaration(s) were about how to make a more just (read leftist) country and the conclusions were that control of the education system and the federal bench were of paramount importance. Jeff, in a real sense, you and I have taken similar paths in opposite directions. Good for us. We may be right or we may be wrong, but at least it shows we were questioning what te believed.
I think the question comes down to opportunity. I believe that opportunity is a basic right, a "common" right if you will, for all Americans. I believe that wasting the human person is every bit as serious as wasting clean water or clean air. I disagree with Ballinger mainly because I don't see how race is a defining social characteristic.
You know the rest of my story. I believe charter schools give poor kids a chance to "catch up" to suburban kids. I favor government programs like Teach for America that take the best and brightest students from top universities and put them into situations where they teach in low performing areas for a couple of years. I favor paying excellent teachers $ 200,000 yearly to take a 2-year "deployment" into the worst schools, and I favor those teachers being able to return to their previous job. I think every teacher should have an IQ of 100. I, frankly, don't see how any of this can be accomplished without government intervention.
Government, in many ways, created the problem with a government school system that refuses to accept the fact that there are good teachers and there are bad teachers, just like there are good and bad in every other profession. This seems to me to be so basic that it doesn't need the anguished debate that we all engage in. So I would be 100% in favor of banning teacher tenure as a "combination in restraint of trade".
We need to ask ourselves why 95,000,000 Americans are not looking for work. I don't see any way to address these issues without government having a role to play. JMOComment
-
Are you saying that if one denies climate change over and over again repeatedly despite the evidence that one becomes more stupid each time?
Seriously, none of that makes any sense at all.Comment
-
I thought it was Krugman who was laughably wrong about the post-election markets. In any event, that's a favorite tweet if mine.
Also - SDS and Port Huron? Seriously...like tangentially?Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Geezer said, "I disagree with Bollinger mainly because I don't see how race is a defining social characteristic."
The strength of Oconnor's majority argument in this case is that while it should not be, it is. She also opined that it won't be in 25 years. Ginsberg disagreed saying it will.
The dissenters did seem to assert what you do (race should not be a defining social characteristic) but the actual interpretation of this case sort of redefined Affirmative Action to include the idea that racial diversity was a compelling interest at hand and lay in "obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." So, hair splitting.
To me, the bottom line is that there are significant barriers to opportunity. They are systemic, institutionalized and hard to correct without interventions at the Federal level. As you admit, there is income inequality. What you will not admit is that the inequality is not form lack of effort but rather from barriers to effort. What flows from Affirmative Action is opportunity for AAs that heretofore did not exist. It's a leg up. I view it as a positive role of Federal government - in this case the Supremes interpreting the law.
I see your post as waffling around the realty of that .... something that you have, in your past posts, staunchly opposed. Moreover, in that income inequality secondary to barriers to opportunity exists beyond that defined by race, one can extend the argument that the Feds have a role in trying to rectify that as well.
I'm not sure I know how to do that, Hack's cartoon not withstanding (empower labor unions, tax policy to uplift middle income earners not reward the top 1% among earners).
BTW, I listened to a good deal of what Tom Hayden had to say on the steps of the library facing the diag in 1966. I thought what he said was interesting until the SDS tried to torch (and failed) North Hall that year. Really stupid and at the time alienated what could have been supporters to his cause.
Talent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Huron_StatementMission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.Comment
-
Today's reality check.. good luck reading it
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkGrammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.Comment
-
Yeah, man. Read that earlier. Rips your heart out."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
No. What I am saying is that a proper understanding of the real world makes you able to predict what will likely happen. For example, last year there was a test of light being bent by the curvature of space, as Einstein's General Theory predicted about 100 years ago. The Theory correctly predicted the test they were doing. Various other "tests" have shown the Theory to be predictive. The fact that Einstein's Theory has been correct increases the probability his other predictions will be accurate.Are you saying that if one denies climate change over and over again repeatedly despite the evidence that one becomes more stupid each time?
We know that John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both cut taxes and the economy boomed (in Reagan's case the Dow went up 700%, I heard today). It is logical that, should Trump cut taxes, the economy will boom. That is what I mean as predictive. Something turns out the way you predict it will when you propose it. Of course dealing with Economics or Politics does not have the precision that mathematics would.
Again, when I talk of Global Warming, I'm always talking about anthropogenic global warming. The earth is warming, and I can't believe anyone contests that. Hey, I root for the Michigan Wolverines and there are no wolverines in Michigan. It's like Obama's birth announcement. Anyone who denies global warming has the same problem as birthers. Some things are simply facts.Comment
-
You're correct. It was Krugman. I had a brain fart.I thought it was Krugman who was laughably wrong about the post-election markets. In any event, that's a favorite tweet if mine.
Also - SDS and Port Huron? Seriously...like tangentially?
You can read about the two Port Huron declarations in the attached Wikipedia article. Certainly, those of us who either wrote it or engaged in the debate as to what it should say thought it to be of earthshaking importance. It was a serious statement about what the SDS was seeking to accomplish.
sorry, I just read Jeffs post and he too had the same link.Last edited by Da Geezer; December 12, 2016, 09:45 PM.Comment
-
No, I know what they are. I just wouldn't have pegged you as being involved. I had you more working with another M legend, the Unabomber. :-)Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Jeff:Jeff, you and I have lived when AAs were discriminated against. I've seen "negro only" bathrooms. I exercise a form of affirmative action when hiring; ties go to the black or Mexican guy. We owe that to society as a whole. I strongly favor elimination of barriers that hold black folks back. So we agree as to barriers. I happen to think that we are wasting a precious resource when we discriminate based upon race....As you admit, there is income inequality. What you will not admit is that the inequality is not from lack of effort but rather from barriers to effort. What flows from Affirmative Action is opportunity for AAs that heretofore did not exist. It's a leg up. I view it as a positive role of Federal government - in this case the Supremes interpreting the law.
Where we actually disagree is when we get to the point of "Well, what are you going to do about it?" At some point, we have to do something. Well, at least we have to if we are not satisfied with the status quo. I suspect that most posters here are in favor of letting the current system go on. At least that is how they voted. The WSJ had an article about Mercantilism about a week ago and the writer described the Democrat Party as a capstone of the very rich on top of a flattened pyramid of subsidized voters. That is the core of the problem. Most Democrats are subsidized, either by holding government jobs, or by welfare, or by some combination of the two. In this forum, Talent is the exception in that he does work for the government, but he could earn far more if he were in the private sector. He is actually a "civil servant" in the best sense of that term. Certainly, you can remember when folks who worked for the government made an implicit deal saying "I'll trade taking less pay for more job security..."
No organization can be efficient if it cannot fire employees who are not doing the job. You've heard my proposals. Eliminating tenure, quit teaching victimology, combat pay for excellent teachers to go into the inner cities for a 2-year period, Charter Schools. What are your solutions? What would you do? I do think we agree that education is the key, as it has been throughout US history. So let's hear what you fellows think needs to be done.
Unless you really want nothing done.Last edited by Da Geezer; December 12, 2016, 10:15 PM.Comment
Comment