Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

[One Brow]

destroying monuments is like burning books, OB.

...

A monument is not necessarily a state sanctioning anyone or anything. Maybe it could be, but history does not have to do that. At any rate, if we have no record of the past, and no deep-based understanding of what our past has been, we are doomed to our present evils, with no means of making any kind of improvement.

Books and similar texts are for recording the past. Monuments are meant specifically to glorify (or rarely, condemn). You won't find a monument to the Emoluments clause or the Commerce clause of the Constitution. No one creates a monument for the quartermaster who successfully arranges the delivery of goods. There is no monument to the 1940 re-election campaign of FDR. Any knowledge of these things comes from reading.

I find it hard to believe you don't already know this, at some level. This argument is so disingenuous, it feels almost unreal. I'll put it this way: I never see people gather in protest by the thousands a high school replaces one history test with another. To me, that is because monuments are not like books, and not supposed to be like books.

This is America. Everyone gets to make monuments.

Agreed. Go make your own monument of Forrest, and put it on your own land. No one will interfere. I sure won't care.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Somebody explain federal job guarantees to me.

1) Where are the jobs coming from?

2) What is the hiring process? What about the firing process? Will this be like tenured teachers where they’re near impossible to fire?

3) What about those who don’t want to work? What aid do they get if they choose not to work? Do they still get aid if they do work? Does Cy work at a bakery because he likes big buns? And is there an age where you can’t get the aid? (Like if you’re 25 and refuse to work for example)

4) Why not just a universal income rather than a job guarantee?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The point was that you couldn't find such criteria.



Harvard has similar disparities in it's undergraduate admissions process, and there was just a NYTimes article about the details. It seems likely that admissions to medical schools are similarly complicated. Your presentation of 'it's all about race' doesn't really hold up.

Again, there are reasons the data should be skewed in favor of Hispanics/blacks that have nothing to do with race, but few such reasons for white people.

You cite some very shaky reasons that it might make sense to admit blacks and Hispanics to medical school over whites (conveniently leaving out the fact that Asians are even more discriminated against) and that is apparently enough to satisfy you that massive differences in admission data makes sense. To me, at the very most, the circumstances you cite would warrant a slight skew.

A different poster suggested he'd seen information indicating that white students from poor families are at a disadvantage to black students from wealthy families because of the same sorts of biases this conversation has been alluding to. It would be interesting to know if that's really the case because your flimsy reasons for the disparity would become even flimsier.

Unfortunately it is very possible that some patients will develop a bias for Asian doctors and against black doctors because of the knowledge that the average Asian doctor has been held to a higher standard. Just another of the many negative ramifications of the progressive agenda imposing their biased definition of "equity" on society.

BTW, my thinking on this subject has been heavily influenced by an excellent book by Dr. Thomas Sowell called Race & Culture. If you've never read it, you should.

 

[babe]

Anthropologists, including Jewish ones, consider the story to be fictional. The Hebrews are native to Palestine. Shouldn't use fictional stories as historical examples.

When I took my"Archaeology and the Bible" course at the University of Utah, under the Anthropology Dept., not some dunce LDS institute course, I read a lot of research in the published lit. Kenyon was a recognized leading authority. I don't know how much historical revisionism is in your sources today, or why thinking has been changing. Maybe I'll look it up.

I had class handouts covering over 30 sequential strata in archaeological digs and the stuff that was found and how it showed a different culture in each case.

Kenyon proved that Jericho was a pile of archaeological stuff with the most recent layer older than the Israelite settlements by almost a thousand years. I've been there and walked all over it. It would easily fit on one of my smaller fields..... ten acres..... maybe only about two acres. Wouldn't have taken much walking for Joshua to march the Israelites around it seven times and blow a horn. And as for the walls coming tumbling down.... well.... they had been down quite a while. Maybe a thousand years..... I have since believed the Biblical account a confused legend at best.... It was still an impressive pile of rubble and dirt, over a hundred feet high..... high enough to demand some kind of legendary explanation to local sheepherders or travelers stopping on the banks of the Jordan river for a place with water and a little shade.

The conclusion in the material covered in my course was that some folks had migrated from the north and settled in Egypt for some extended time not inconsistent with 400 years.... known as the Hyksos or something like that...., related to the Phoenicians (modern Lebanese). And had then moved out of Egypt into "Israel" circa 1200BC. The influx of the Israelites was documented with their characteristic altars with four horns on the corners, with the associated Israelite cultural items and with the destroyed contemporary culture that was there at that time and the preceding 200 or so years.

well, I might as well review my information. I wonder if your ideological advocacy is clouding your reason, and disregarding the evidence.....

 

[babe]

I will if you will. If I am responding to 10+ points, it's unsurprising I would respond with 10. Perhaps you think breaking up the quotes is confusing, but I find it to be even more confusing when I put all of those points into a single area, referring to ten different sections of the quoted text.

I'm not going to create 10 different posts for 10 different points. That seems rude.

Fair enough. I will take the long dreary stuff to my LTE so far as I have time to respond.

 

[babe]

You cite some very shaky reasons that it might make sense to admit blacks and Hispanics to medical school over whites (conveniently leaving out the fact that Asians are even more discriminated against) and that is apparently enough to satisfy you that massive differences in admission data makes sense. To me, at the very most, the circumstances you cite would warrant a slight skew.

A different poster suggested he'd seen information indicating that white students from poor families are at a disadvantage to black students from wealthy families because of the same sorts of biases this conversation has been alluding to. It would be interesting to know if that's really the case because your flimsy reasons for the disparity would become even flimsier.

Unfortunately it is very possible that some patients will develop a bias for Asian doctors and against black doctors because of the knowledge that the average Asian doctor has been held to a higher standard. Just another of the many negative ramifications of the progressive agenda imposing their biased definition of "equity" on society.

BTW, my thinking on this subject has been heavily influenced by an excellent book by Dr. Thomas Sowell called Race & Culture. If you've never read it, you should.

My wife has chosen an Asian doctor for our Primary physician. IMO, for that exact reason. You just can't beat the combination of work ethic, encyclopedic knowledge, and committed service. But not because he was Asian.... just because he is that good. And not ideologically bent outta shape about stuff.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Somebody explain federal job guarantees to me.

1) Where are the jobs coming from?

2) What is the hiring process? What about the firing process? Will this be like tenured teachers where they’re near impossible to fire?

3) What about those who don’t want to work? What aid do they get if they choose not to work? Do they still get aid if they do work? Does Cy work at a bakery because he likes big buns? And is there an age where you can’t get the aid? (Like if you’re 25 and refuse to work for example)

4) Why not just a universal income rather than a job guarantee?

Thanks in advance.

Anybody? @Saint Cy of JFC @dalamon you guys support this (I think). I’d like to hear your thoughts, maybe explain it for me.

Thanks.

 

[Siro]

When I took my"Archaeology and the Bible" course at the University of Utah, under the Anthropology Dept., not some dunce LDS institute course, I read a lot of research in the published lit. Kenyon was a recognized leading authority. I don't know how much historical revisionism is in your sources today, or why thinking has been changing. Maybe I'll look it up.

I had class handouts covering over 30 sequential strata in archaeological digs and the stuff that was found and how it showed a different culture in each case.

Kenyon proved that Jericho was a pile of archaeological stuff with the most recent layer older than the Israelite settlements by almost a thousand years. I've been there and walked all over it. It would easily fit on one of my smaller fields..... ten acres..... maybe only about two acres. Wouldn't have taken much walking for Joshua to march the Israelites around it seven times and blow a horn. And as for the walls coming tumbling down.... well.... they had been down quite a while. Maybe a thousand years..... I have since believed the Biblical account a confused legend at best.... It was still an impressive pile of rubble and dirt, over a hundred feet high..... high enough to demand some kind of legendary explanation to local sheepherders or travelers stopping on the banks of the Jordan river for a place with water and a little shade.

The conclusion in the material covered in my course was that some folks had migrated from the north and settled in Egypt for some extended time not inconsistent with 400 years.... known as the Hyksos or something like that...., related to the Phoenicians (modern Lebanese). And had then moved out of Egypt into "Israel" circa 1200BC. The influx of the Israelites was documented with their characteristic altars with four horns on the corners, with the associated Israelite cultural items and with the destroyed contemporary culture that was there at that time and the preceding 200 or so years.

well, I might as well review my information. I wonder if your ideological advocacy is clouding your reason, and disregarding the evidence.....

So all modern scholarship, as long as it doesn't fit with how you want things to be, is "probably" revisionist. That one class you took in the 60s is where it's at. Great attitude! Totally how people learn and grown. You're a true intellectual.

The Hyskos were Levantine migrants who settled in Egypt. They eventually took power, until they were vanquished later in a war against Thebes. The story doesn't fit at all with the Biblical exodus, and the suggestion it might be came thousands of years later during the Roman era. BTW, they were defeated in the 1500s BCE. The 1200 BCE number that's in your head refers to the first reference to the Jews in Egyptian writing. They are referred to as a kingdom in Canaan. That's where all the linguistic and archaeological evidence suggest the Jews came from. Canaan.

Egypt was a huge, successful, productive, multicultural entity. Tons of Semites and Levantines lived there. Some as slaves, but most free. On occasion, the Semites even ruled Egypt (not just the Hyskos).

 

[Siro]

I also never received a response about how Nietzche's philosophy is related to the idea that the ends justify the means.

I wish people would stop speaking with authority about things they know nothing about.

 

[babe]

So all modern scholarship, as long as it doesn't fit with how you want things to be, is "probably" revisionist. That one class you took in the 60s is where it's at. Great attitude! Totally how people learn and grown. You're a true intellectual.

The Hyskos were Levantine migrants who settled in Egypt. They eventually took power, until they were vanquished later in a war against Thebes. The story doesn't fit at all with the Biblical exodus, and the suggestion it might be came thousands of years later during the Roman era. BTW, they were defeated in the 1500s BCE. The 1200 BCE number that's in your head refers to the first reference to the Jews in Egyptian writing. They are referred to as a kingdom in Canaan. That's where all the linguistic and archaeological evidence suggest the Jews came from. Canaan.

Egypt was a huge, successful, productive, multicultural entity. Tons of Semites and Levantines lived there. Some as slaves, but most free. On occasion, the Semites even ruled Egypt (not just the Hyskos).

So maybe you took more than one class, still..... never wise to assume there's no forced fitting of history in any version. Like I said, maybe I'll need to review the subject and see what I think is going on in the heads of scholars.

 

[fishonjazz]

I also never received a response about how Nietzche's philosophy is related to the idea that the ends justify the means.

I wish people would stop speaking with authority about things they know nothing about.

I don't know very much about very much so I rarely speak with a authority about much.

much

 

[babe]

I also never received a response about how Nietzche's philosophy is related to the idea that the ends justify the means.

I wish people would stop speaking with authority about things they know nothing about.

I did notice your comment, and have been intending to research the subject. What I recall from my philosophy class was the assertion that Nietzsche had a view of power on the line of logic that Napoleon used.... That if you have the power, nobody else's views matter.

 

[Siro]

I did notice your comment, and have been intending to research the subject. What I recall from my philosophy class was the assertion that Nietzsche had a view of power on the line of logic that Napoleon used.... That if you have the power, nobody else's views matter.

You should take a deeper look into Nietzche's thought because you would like it a lot. He's all about questioning authority and forging your own path in life.

 

[babe]

I don't know very much about very much so I rarely speak with a authority about much.

much

I consider Siro's comments to be some of the best in JFC, like Frankin on economics.

 

[Gameface]

I consider Siro's comments to be some of the best in JFC, like Frankin on economics.

Just want to make note of a post of yours I agree with.

 

[babe]

Just want to make note of a post of yours I agree with.

noted, and understood.

of course.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Anybody? @Saint Cy of JFC @dalamon you guys support this (I think). I’d like to hear your thoughts, maybe explain it for me.

Thanks.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/full-...a-policy-to-achieve-permanent-full-employment

This should answer most of your questions.

There are also leftist critiques on programs overly preoccupied with work—https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4b31a64531b0

 

[RandyForRubio]

https://www.cbpp.org/research/full-...a-policy-to-achieve-permanent-full-employment

This should answer most of your questions.

There are also leftist critiques on programs overly preoccupied with work—https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4b31a64531b0

It didn’t really, because it didn’t answer the most important question.

Where are these jobs coming from? It quoted examples like India, which would never work here. I see ideas, I don’t see real logic in the study. I do certainly see some bias, but that’s to be expected.

I do appreciate how they said they would put it at a wage that would disqualify the participants from many welfare benefits, but I wonder how long that would last. By increasing the wages earned, you’re also increasing the poverty line. Also would imagine we see some inflation there. Wouldn’t be surprised to seen them back under welfare benefits again, tbh. Also not a huge fan of it being done by grant money. $530B a year in tax money? Yay! Hurt the middle class more.

I think at best, being optimistic, it’s hardly an upgrade over what we currently have.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Oh and the opinion piece was a waste of time. Be better than that.

 

[One Brow]

You cite some very shaky reasons that it might make sense to admit blacks and Hispanics to medical school over whites (conveniently leaving out the fact that Asians are even more discriminated against) and that is apparently enough to satisfy you that massive differences in admission data makes sense. To me, at the very most, the circumstances you cite would warrant a slight skew.

A different poster suggested he'd seen information indicating that white students from poor families are at a disadvantage to black students from wealthy families because of the same sorts of biases this conversation has been alluding to. It would be interesting to know if that's really the case because your flimsy reasons for the disparity would become even flimsier.

Unfortunately it is very possible that some patients will develop a bias for Asian doctors and against black doctors because of the knowledge that the average Asian doctor has been held to a higher standard. Just another of the many negative ramifications of the progressive agenda imposing their biased definition of "equity" on society.

BTW, my thinking on this subject has been heavily influenced by an excellent book by Dr. Thomas Sowell called Race & Culture. If you've never read it, you should.

Asians are discriminated against, but Asians don't (overall) come from the type of economic disadvantages you see in the Hispanic and black communities. Yes, idestroyedthetoilet made a claim about poor white being denied for weathly blacks, but he never came back with statistics to verify that. I'm sure there are anecdotes that support it, but anecdotes are not data.

I appreciate that you have the sort of ignorance about the world that says "higher MCAT score" means "held to higher standard". I also understand you having the need to justify racism by referring what measures that may be devoted to ameliorating racism, and blaming them for the racism that existed long before those measures. I fully expect that, for you, this knowledge confirms all of the racial opinions you have held all along.

I have read several of Sowell's columns. His reasoning is shallow, based on an unrealistic view of the world, and self-congratulatory. I would imagine it appealed to you greatly.