
Dahobbs
-
Posts
17879 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Dahobbs
-
-
1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:
Now we are getting somewhere! Kendi hasn't to my knowledge expanded more on this amendment, but it sounds pretty horrific to me, an unelected department with veto power over laws at every level and the ability to somehow punish those who talk wrongly. Yikes.
You want to affirmatively lift up those who have been pushed down by policy; a laudable goal. How far back do you want to go? Are we lifting those up pushed down by policy today (I'd argue for fixing the bad policy itself first if it hasn't been addressed) or are we redressing old policies? If old, does the person pushed down still need to be alive and suffering or do we extend that grace to their children? Their children's children's children? Is the goal to create equality of opportunity or equity of result? If equity, do you, like Kendi, put 100% of the differences in outcomes between races on racist policies? If so, how do we account for certain subgroups of BIPOC achieving at much higher rates than the mean of the group, such as the Nigerian-Americans and Cuban-Americans cited upthread?
How far back do you want to go? - As far as is necessary
Are we lifting those up pushed down by policy today (I'd argue for fixing the bad policy itself first if it hasn't been addressed) or are we redressing old policies? - Both.
If old, does the person pushed down still need to be alive and suffering? - No.
do we extend that grace to their children? Their children's children's children? - As far as is necessary.
Is the goal to create equality of opportunity or equity of result? - when talking about statistics of large populations as opposed to individuals, I'm not sure there is a difference.
If equity, do you, like Kendi, put 100% of the differences in outcomes between races on racist policies? - Outcomes of individuals, certainly not. For statistically significant differences among broad groups, I'm more inclined to think that the vast majority of differences stem either from racist policies past or present.
If so, how do we account for certain subgroups of BIPOC achieving at much higher rates than the mean of the group, such as the Nigerian-Americans and Cuban-Americans cited upthread? - The more you slice and dice a group, the more differences become amplified and result in deviations. Also:
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, dcar00 said:
well duh...Numbers are RACIST!
Saying that racism exists in mathematics instruction doesn't imply that mathematics itself contains racism. As an example, for a very long time women were thought incapable of intellectually of learning higher mathematics. They were precluded and discouraged from even attempting to do so. That is an example of sexism that existed in mathematics instruction.
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Macklemore said:
You know that the exact same can be said about you and where you get your shit except sub in left-wing think tanks, publications and commentators. The line between opinion and news has become blurred to all of our detriment. Do you somehow only digest unbiased, unvarnished truth without spin? If so, where might I find it.
For starters, don't get all your news from the "opinion" and "editorial" sections of news sites. Reuters and AP are pretty good sources for just fact reporting. However, there is a subset of this board that feels even reporting on topic, even if everything is factual, is also a form of spin. That sort of "spin" may be unavoidable to a large degree.
-
2
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:
Holeeeee shit...do you even KNOW what anti-racism means? Here's a hint, it's not what you think it means.
Do you agree with Kendi's pro-discrimination approach? Do we need more discrimination?
And the anti-racism solution, again per Kendi (NOT ME):
Are you in favor of a constitutional amendment enshrining WrongThink?
Anti-racism refers to action against racism. It is true that Kendi has adapted the term for a more specific set of ideas. Discrimination just means to treat groups differently, and I don't have any conceptual issue with policies that try to counteract hundreds of years of racist policies by affirmatively lifting up the victims of those policies. Things like financial aid or other benefits specifically for minorities are types of policies I'm generally in favor of and could be categorized as antiracist discrimination. However, the devil is the details and I may agree with some such policies and not others. I don't have a clear understanding of what Kendi's proposed Constitutional Amendment would do, so I don't really have an opinion on it.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Macklemore said:
How do you think anti-racism edicts from the AFT or school administrators get implemented? It is by teachers going to conferences and learning this shit to teach to the kids.
School administration policies don't get created or implemented by professional conferences. If there is a specific official school policy that mandates teaching CRT to students, by all means point that out. You're also conflating anti-racism as a general idea (why would you even be against that?) with CRT.
-
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
So we've moved on from the trope that' "it's not being taught anywhere"? Gotcha.
Who has said it wasn't taught/discussed in a variety of college disciplines? Why would that even be bad? It seems like y'all believe education means teaching answers as opposed to exploring ideas and methods.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Macklemore said:
Did you not see the curriculum from the conference that Sack posted. Teachers from his kids are sent to that conference. They are not being sent by the school administrators to party and cheat on their husbands.
It's a professional conference. Have you ever been to one? It's a networking opportunity mixed in with some education. I attend plenty of conferences and take a ton of continuing education courses. That doesn't mean I incorporate everything into my practice or my firm's practice. Sending educators to a conference doesn't mean the material in the conference is going to become part of the curriculum.
4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:A state-by-state list of more than 200 colleges and universities promoting CRT
Oh no, colleges and universities openly exchanging philosophical ideas, what horror!
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Macklemore said:
I said in my follow up post that I made a mistake in where the quote was from. It is from an op-ed in the NY Post. Op-eds still have to go through fact checks and verification of sources with the paper liable for the content being published
It is an opinion piece, not a news article. Opinions themselves aren't subject to liability for defamation. There is likely some general checking to make sure none of the statements in the article could be construed as defamatory statements of fact against another person/entity, but beyond that you're not going to have the same journalistic review and standards as a news article.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Macklemore said:
The WSJ editorial board is not much different than our posts on this message board. Are you fucking serious with this shit? The WSJ is one of the most respected newspapers in the country. They skew conservative like the NYT skews left but both are counted as the most reputable in the industry. My mistake on where the quote was from. It is from the NY Post. I had read something similar in the WSJ.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/06/what-critical-race-theory-is-really-about/
You said his quote was from the WSJ. I searched and the best I could find was a letter to editor that was posted in the WSJ. I didn't find anything at all actually from the editorial board (i.e., written by the editors of the paper). Letters are literally things anyone can write and submit. You're free to submit one yourself and it may get published. The opinion piece you just posted from the New York Post is literally the same article by the same author as the original link. I don't believe it deserves additional credence merely because was also published the New York Post. I'm not sure you understand what an op-ed is, which is essentially a guest writer being allowed to contribute an essay to the paper. An op-ed usually somewhat more formal than a letter to the editor, but certainly doesn't come from the paper itself or purport to represent the views of the editors of paper. Op-eds have to stand on their own merits and the merits of the authors. They don't get to piggyback on the reputations of the paper(s) in which they are published.
-
4
-
-
6 minutes ago, Macklemore said:
His other quotations came from an article in the WSJ. I assume you find that to be reputable source, correct?
No, the opinion/letters section of the WSJ is not a reputable source. It isn't much different from a poster writing something on this board.
-
59 minutes ago, horn4life said:
Thank you!!! I was unclear on the double dip and the acronyms... Maybe he was referring to medicare? Which I assume would not be negotiable?
If Medicare paid for his care, he absolutely 100% needs to recover the full amount from insurance company. There should be no deduction at all. Medicare has a lien on the insurance proceeds. In fact, the other driver's insurance company will require your grandfather sign a release saying there is no Medicare lien or that he alone is responsible for paying the lien. Medicare actually allows you to submit your information online to Medicare about the injury, the settlement value, and Medicare will provide information about the amount it paid and how much it is willing to accept to clear the lien. But, for now, please just make sure he doesn't allow the other driver's insurer to claim a reduction of any sort for other insurance proceeds paid. Deductions like that only come into play when you're dealing with your contracted insurer. They are completely irrelevant when dealing with a third-party's liability insurer. As to medical costs, what is recoverable under the law (in Texas and pretty much everywhere else that I can think of) is everything "paid or incurred" by the injured party. That includes amounts paid by injured party or on behalf of the injury party (e.g., payments by the injured party's insurer).
-
3 hours ago, horn4life said:
Been out of town last week and wanted to pop back in and simply say thank you for the advice. I shot my Dad a link before we went to Pensacola and he also says thank you!
From my brief conversation yesterday. Looks like he will get policy limit of $30K less whatever medical costs his insurance covered. He was going to request a copy of the policy, to confirm the limits before signing anything. Since it was a lease for only a few months, he did get reimbursed for his deposit, and Subaru North America was made whole as well. So now I guess it's just confirming the guy on the phone was telling the truth on the policy limits. Great thing is my Dad has everything on tape should there have been any misrepresentations by GEICO.
So I guess really, really fucking lucky he was not severely injured as $30K isn't much cash in the big scheme of things. Luckily he is doing better every day!
There shouldn't be any deduction for what his health insurance paid. Do not let that happen. The money that his insurance paid is part of the other driver's liability. And your grandfather's health insurer will have a claim against your grand father to recover the money it paid out of any settlement. He needs the full policy limits and then he needs to negotiate with his health insurer and get them to take a reduced amount to satisfy their claim.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, workswithseed said:
If you're going to school with a terrible flu, and you know about it and die. Well seems like you had some choices before your death.
Please, and I mean this sincerely, get help.
-
8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:
Still going to school with a terrible flue pandemic like you said.
I'm honestly worried about you.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, workswithseed said:
No, it's an actions have consequences. Is it fuck around and find out or not world like the meme y'all love to say or not? Hell they're weren't stopped from just going back to online unless i missed something on that. You going to tell me they're safer with masks on at school or at home doing what they've been doing for a year?
I don't think you have any understanding of what either of the phrases "fuck around find out" or "actions have consequences" actually means. In the example of kids going to school, what action(s) are you referring to? What consequences?
I don't think kids should be required to wear masks at this time based on the information available about this particular virus. But I also don't think schools, school districts, or other governing authorities should be precluded from requiring that kids wear masks should circumstances dictate it (e.g., another respiratory virus epidemic).
-
17 minutes ago, workswithseed said:
Oh no, the students aren't able to wear masks! Wait, they are? Well shit, that must mean you're a dumbass. Do you have to be told not to eat lead paint?
You understand that masks primarily help everyone else, not the wearer, right? Allowing the courteous and sanitary people to help out the assholes doesn't do much to protect them from the assholes.
Your comment is the same as saying "we will not out law theft, but you're still free to not steal from your neighbor" - see any problems there?
-
3
-
-
53 minutes ago, Pancho said:
No. This is an obtuse take and you're smart enough to know that.
Objection, facts not in evidence.
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:
Here's a weather question for y'all.
There have been spectacular storm pics out of west Texas / panhandle this past week.
Why are the storms up there easier to see / photograph? It seems like they are smaller stand alone storms that blow up?Because there is nothing in the way.
-
2
-
-
-
6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:
Cool.
Did you read the rest of the post? I explained my reasoning. They could have easily had a better narrative by just sorting entirely by sum total of those two values. It is a bad chart because it is sorted in an unexplained way, but the sorting is also not completely random. I think they weighted the various categories and assigned a value for sorting. That, or they meant to use the sum value and fucked it up. Either way, if you're trying to measure vaccine hesitancy, the chart's order is generally accurate. Do you disagree with that? Which groups should be significantly higher in your opinion?
-
2 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:
What a horrible graph. What methodology did they use to sort the bars? Seems like they are pushing certain "groups" to the bottom to emphasize a narrative.
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:Yeah, looks like they did the sort on values that are not represented. The fact that the bars don't stack and right justify causes me emotional trauma.
Yes, the chart is bad but it appears to be mostly sorted based on the combined value of "at least one dose" and "get vaccinated ASAP." There are a couple that don't quite line up, but for the most part that is the pattern. I suspect they had some sort of weighted analysis that isn't shown to get the order. I'm not convinced the ordering is to reach a narrative because under just the combination of those two categories, they could have placed Black Adults and Ages 30-49 above White Evangelical Christians and Independents.
-
10 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:
Can a Texas governor suspend statutes by executive order? I don’t recall seeing it before.
From his order:
To the extent necessary to ensure that local governmental entities or officials do not impose any such face-covering requirements, I hearby suspend the following:
a. Sections 418.1015(b) and 418.108 of the Texas Government Code;
b. Chapter 81, Subchapter E of the Texas Health and Safety Code;
c. Chapters 121, 122, and 341 of the Texas Health and Safety Code;
d. Chapter 54 of the Texas Local Government Code; and
e. any other statute invoked by any local governmental entity or official in support of a face-covering requirement.Certain regulatory statutes, yes. It isn't an infinite power and has a variety of preconditions. I don't believe that power has near the scope that Abbott's order suggests.
-
1
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:
Can they declare the disaster ad infinitum?
Under the law, yes. They have to renew the declaration regularly, but there is no absolute limit. I provided the law to you. You're free to read it yourself. There may be some judicially defined limits in instances where no actual emergency exists. But you're not going to get very far with the argument during a pandemic that has killed over 600,000 in the US alone.
Now, if you ask me, the state legislature should not have delegated this extensive of authority to other entities. But that is a different question as to whether the authority exists.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:
Can you show me where these entities were granted the power to mandate masks? It has to be codified somewhere, right?
Because, all the government entities are granted their powers from the state gov't in Texas...
This was discussed earlier in some thread (maybe this one), but generally the county commissioners courts and county judges in Texas and have quite a bit of authority delegated to them by the legislature under a number of statutes.
For starters, Chapter 418 of the Government Code (the Texas Disaster Act) is applicable here, although it isn't my area of practice (@Brisketexan is probably the best person to answer).
418.108 provides, among other things:
"Sec. 418.108. DECLARATION OF LOCAL DISASTER.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (e), the presiding officer of the governing body of a political subdivision may declare a local state of disaster.
...
(f) The county judge or the mayor of a municipality may order the evacuation of all or part of the population from a stricken or threatened area under the jurisdiction and authority of the county judge or mayor if the county judge or mayor considers the action necessary for the preservation of life or other disaster mitigation, response, or recovery.
(g) The county judge or the mayor of a municipality may control ingress to and egress from a disaster area under the jurisdiction and authority of the county judge or mayor and control the movement of persons and the occupancy of premises in that area."
It wasn't Abbott's executive order that empowered the counties to issue mask mandates, but rather this independent statutory authority. What Abbott did do is issue an executive order under his authority that purported to preempt those requirements. He does have authority under the Chapter 418 to suspend certain regulatory laws in some circumstances. And he generally has the authority to control the state's resources for emergency management purposes, and he argues that includes overriding the county's power under 418.108. I'm not entirely convinced that is supported by the text of the statute.
But, other sources of authority exist for the counties, including Chapters 121 and 122 of the Health and Safety Code, which among other things empower them to address threats to the public health and public health nuisances. In Chapter 341 of the Health and Safety Code, public health nuisance is defined a "an object, place, or condition that is a possible and probable medium of disease transmission to or between humans."
Reference guide for you: https://www.county.org/TAC/media/TACMedia/About Texas Counties/Guide-to-Laws-2018.pdf
-
2
-
3
-
Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT
in Cloak Room
Posted
You asked questions. I answered them. Go ahead and throw your pity party, take your ball and go home. I don't care. You aren't that interesting.