Standing during the Pledge or National Anthem

[The 12th Commandment]

19 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

Does anyone really doubt that colleges slant heavily to the left?  You call it a theory and a conspiracy, which I find interesting because I've never met anyone that would actually argue the point.  Most just write it off as a starry eyed young period in peoples lives.  What's changed recently is that students are demanding more control in college and getting it.  So what was a liberal atmosphere for a long time has been getting more extreme.  Examples aren't exactly hard to come by. 

They do, I agree.  Graduates, however, don't necessarily. Post graduate tilts heavily towards Dem but 4 year degrees are pretty even.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by KAOSkins

[Popeman38]

5 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

They do, I agree.  Graduates, however, don't.

haven't. I think that has been changing drastically over the last 2 decades.

[The 12th Commandment]

6 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

haven't. I think that has been changing drastically over the last 2 decades.

my graph was from 10 years ago.  More recent you're right.  It really is too big an issue for this thread.  

[Destino]

18 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

They do, I agree.  Graduates, however, don't.

Your ignoring that colleges don't just teach politically neutral things like engineering and accounting.  Colleges are teaching "whiteness", intersectionality, and feminism.  All of these things are considered to be very much liberal social thinking are they not?  What are the right wing equivalents commonly found on colleges campuses?  Can people take courses on the evils of identity politics and how they are used to silence opposition, commonly on college campuses throughout the US?   

[The 12th Commandment]

23 minutes ago, Destino said:

Your ignoring that colleges don't just teach politically neutral things like engineering and accounting.  Colleges are teaching "whiteness", intersectionality, and feminism.  All of these things are considered to be very much liberal social thinking are they not?  What are the right wing equivalents commonly found on colleges campuses?  Can people take courses on the evils of identity politics and how they are used to silence opposition, commonly on college campuses throughout the US?   

I can't speak for high dollar private liberal arts universities, and they should be able to teach what they want anyway, but my state my college didn't require I take any of those things you listed in order to graduate.  I took music appreciation, agricultural policy and anthropology as my "viewing a wider world" courses.  They offered courses similar to what describe but they weren't mandatory.  The ag course was pretty right wing.  That proff is still a pretty well known righty in the community.

Added: I wouldn't claim that my podunk state Ag college is representative of the entire industry.  It's clearly not.

Edited August 31, 2016 by KAOSkins

[DogofWar1]

GMU grad here, their econ department tries really hard to turn everyone into an Ayn Rand follower, does that count?  Of course, you have to actually go into econ there to take those classes.

Mason Law though, they have a law and economics class you have to take, built into the 1st year law student curriculum, and that too leans towards the Rand-y side of things.

I think I came out alright though.

[mcsluggo]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

GMU grad here, their econ department tries really hard to turn everyone into an Ayn Rand follower, does that count?  Of course, you have to actually go into econ there to take those classes.

Mason Law though, they have a law and economics class you have to take, built into the 1st year law student curriculum, and that too leans towards the Rand-y side of things.

I think I came out alright though.

 

the ASSchool of law is ....conservative ???    

(the anton scalia school of law is ....conservative ???)    

 

say it ain't so, Joe....say it ain't so.......... 

[Spearfeather]

5 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

2)  you don't think that things have gotten any better for the african american community, even in the last 20 or 30 years?  

 

 

Maybe in a few ways, but not in some. Some that are really important.
 

http://yourblackworld.net/2013/03/02/the-black-family-is-worse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/

Quote

 

In 1950, 17 percent of African-American children lived in a home with their mother but not their father. By 2010 that had increased to 50 percent. In 1965, only eight percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out-of-wedlock ( I've seen data also showing this number to be 25%, not 8% ). In 2010 that figure was 41 percent; and today, the out-of-wedlock childbirth in the Black community sits at an astonishing 72 percent. The number of African-American women married and living with their spouse was recorded as 53 percent in 1950. By 2010, it had dropped to 25 percent.

The original report titled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” was released in 1965 by the late New York Sen. Daniel Moynihan. Moynihan, who was the assistant labor secretary at the time of the report’s release, laid out a series of statistics on the African-American family. Moynihan, in his report’s conclusion declared, “at the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time.” Sadly, the outlook of the African-American family is more bleak than when Moynihan wrote his conclusion. 

“An analysis of national data indicates that little progress has been made on the key issues Moynihan identified,” wrote Gregory Acs, of the Urban Institute, in a statement released with the report. “

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Spearfeather

[Springfield]

I think that in many ways life has become better, by whatever standard you want to measure, for everyone since 1980.  However, I would guess, much like other metrics point out is that whites have fared better than other races.  That is generically speaking of course.

 

I think that the home life dynamic is important, because two parent households produce more successful children by and large.  I believe that divorce rates are up across the board since 1980, unsure if that rate is statistically higher for minorities, blacks specifically, than whites.  But for certain, the modern household requires two active parents and also parents who work.  

 

One way that I think life has become strikingly worse, is the fact that a majority of households require two incomes in order to maintain a certain quality of life.  If the parents are divorced, if the father isn't there, if the mother doesn't work... these things weigh heavy on the family dynamic.  This is a problem, in my estimation, that probably affects black households more than white households however I can assure you that they aren't alone in this struggle.

 

Also, it is an absolute that southern democrats became republicans.  One of my coworkers likes to claim Abraham Lincoln as a republican, pointing out that democrats are the racists because Abraham Lincoln was a republican.  Whatever.  Can't have political talks with him, fine.

 

As far as which party is against minorities... while democrats tend to platform for legislation that will help minorities that never gets passed, republicans actively try to end public works and programs that help minorities and the poor.  That's a fact.

 

 

Just a few thoughts on all this.  I'm enjoying the discourse.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

<graph of unemployment>

We're not supposed to quote images, which sucks for my point, but anyways...

I don't think this graph fits with the rest of your post. It shows the gap between white and black unemployment shrinking, up until the crisis that started in 2007. After which it appears to widen, but not by much. 

So basically in terms of unemployment the overall trend is the grap shrinking, which we can say is good in respect to its going the right direction yet it's hardly good in the grand scheme of disparity. Until there was a significant crisis during which it appears to widen.

When you factor in education differences, the other items you've cited, I just don't think it says anything about unemployment being worse. Not as good as we'd like? Absolutely. Worse? I don't see that...

Edited September 1, 2016 by tshile

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

One way that I think life has become strikingly worse, is the fact that a majority of households require two incomes in order to maintain a certain quality of life. 

I think this gets complicated to discuss because the sheer amount of stuff we have and the shockingly high level of consumption the average person seems to be at is definitely part of the need for two incomes.

Sports for kids is expensive. Internet, TV, cell phone planes are recurring monthly fees. 60 inch tvs, cars, new cell phones every year or two, tablets, the list goes on.

I'm sure you can get by fine on one income if you wanted to live the same lifestyle they did in the 60s. 

I'm not saying that means we should shut up and stop complaining, I just think there's a consumerism factor that needs to be pointed out.

[Spearfeather]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

We're not supposed to quote images, which sucks for my point, but anyways...

I don't think this graph fits with the rest of your post. It shows the gap between white and black unemployment shrinking, up until the crisis that started in 2007. After which it appears to widen, but not by much. 

So basically in terms of unemployment the overall trend is the grap shrinking, which we can say is good in respect to its going the right direction yet it's hardly good in the grand scheme of disparity. Until there was a significant crisis during which it appears to widen.

 

Yes, it does show a gradual decline for a long period of time, until about 2008 where it shoots up and really hasn't been getting better since.

But, it also shows that it stays almost double that of whites regardless, and from that chart, I really don't see the gap shrinking that much.

The goal is to not see any gap.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Spearfeather

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

Yes, it does show a gradual decline for a long period of time, until about 2008 where it shoots up and really hasn't been getting better since.

But, it also shows that it stays almost double that of whites regardless, and from that chart, I really don't see the gap shrinking that much.

The goal is to not see any gap.

Yup. The most vulnerable in our society are impacted the most when there is a large economic crisis, the impact lasts longer for them than any other group, and in some ways they will never actually recover or at least won't recover as well as other groups. That's the way it works, and that's why it's important we try to help the most vulnerable groups, preferably before crisis happen since once the crisis happens it's too late and you're playing catch up.

The goal is to not see any gap but to expect that goal to be met at this point is unrealistic. The gap between women and men has shrunk significantly (so long as you account for appropriate factors) but still there is a gap. It's the way it works.

The problem is that you're using the chart to support the idea that things aren't getting better, when the chart has a clearer and more obvious explanation: we didn't do enough prior to the crisis so they were hit the hardest. That doesn't mean things haven't gotten better and it certainly doesn't mean they're worse.

To be clear I'm only talking about the unemployment chart. Not the rest of your post.

Edit: and to be fair, the reason I'm picking at nits here is because things like that chart are often used to throw around this narrative that things have gotten worse for black people under Obama, and make implications that are fairly obvious. That sort of thinking only works when you abandon critical thinking and just look at two lines and start drawing shallow conclusions about a complicated issue. It's the same thing we see when people start throwing around charts about debt in nominal figures (often colored red) and other such things.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, just that we see it done often and that's why I'm picking at that chart in the grand context of "Things are worse for black people." I don't know if they are or aren't, I'd defer to black people as they probably know better than I. I just think that chart shows something else, something more obvious.

Edited September 1, 2016 by tshile

[Spearfeather]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 7:58 PM, tshile said:

 

The problem is that you're using the chart to support the idea that things aren't getting better, when the chart has a clearer and more obvious explanation: we didn't do enough prior to the crisis so they were hit the hardest. That doesn't mean things haven't gotten better and it certainly doesn't mean they're worse.

To be clear I'm only talking about the unemployment chart. Not the rest of your post.

I'm not sure what your debating tshile.

The question was " are things better ? ".  I said some things are. Some things are not.

The unemployment gap has remained the same ( 2 to 1 ) throughout. ( It hasn't become worse, but it hasn't become better either )

 When you say " hit the hardest " do you mean the gap widened ?

Edited September 3, 2016 by Spearfeather

[Dan T.]

I'm afraid Kaepernick has shifted his protest from principled to juvenile.  He's been wearing these socks to 49ers practice:

A closer look:

 

I hope those socks were bulletproof because, as far as his protest goes, he's shot himself in the foot.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Dan T.

[The Evil Genius]

↑↑↑

 

Sigh. Stupid idjit.

[zoony]

He is exactly who we thought he was. 

 

Move along

[DogofWar1]

Frustrating.  Whether he gets it or not, protest will now be more about him and his conduct than underlying issues.  It was already borderline, but defensible, now people standing with Kaep will be seen as having gone from Pro-Black issues to Anti-Cop.

Much harder to get people to support you in that.  Disappointing.

[The Evil Genius]

From another article I read, he's been wearing them at practice since August 11th and now people are just noticing. WTF?

I'm all for being juvenile..but this is done so that (as Dog says above) it takes away from a legit message. So stupid. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by The Evil Genius

[Going Commando]

Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Ali he ain't.  Someone smarter will come along and be a better spokesperson for the protest he is creating.

[Bozo the kKklown]

The picture with those socks was from early August. Someone wanted to cause trouble but Kaepernick still should not wear them.

[zoony]

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The picture with those socks was from early August. Someone wanted to cause trouble but Kaepernick still should not wear them.

By someone you mean Kap

 

 

[The 12th Commandment]

Kaep is just schilling for the new Duke Nukem game.  

http://www.pcgamer.com/a-new-duke-nukem-game-may-be-announced-soon/

[Bozo the kKklown]

28 minutes ago, zoony said:

By someone you mean Kap

Nah, whoever dug that photo up and claimed it was from today.

 

Here is Kaepernick's statement on it from Instagram.

[twa]

Did he behave like this before he wanted out of SF?