leh-nerd skin-erd

A friend of mine is from NYC, not a Trump fan at all. At one point he told me all the things “everyone” knew Trump was guilty of prior to his run for office on the Republican ticket. I asked him why, if “everyone” knew it, he hadn’t been prosecuted or convicted in the 50 years he had been a businessman/celebrity, he didn’t really have an answer beyond $$$. That’s fine, but it raises a whole subset of questions about corruption, collusion, payoffs, grift, influence pedaling and the like. Can you really trust the enemy of your enemy who used to be his biggest ally? This story smacks of that. You can’t read the rambling resignation manifesto without seeing the narcissism in the guy. He’s not the “justice is blind” type you want in a position of power. Time to go.

Tibs, I’m not responsible for the thoughts or perception in your head. You have to work that out. You were wrong when you suggested my opinion of Clarence Thomas is based on political bias. You were wrong about my thoughts on affirmative action. If you skipped all the posturing and just got to the point you were trying to make, we could have saved a lot of time. That’s why when you said you didn’t think he was, my response was “Oh, ok.”. What I meant by that was, “Oh, ok.”. I understood that you were stating your opinion. I was just surprised as you seemed not to have an opinion on the inspiration thing, but have very specific thoughts on the giant of history thing. It’s not a big deal. I don’t have any plans for a ceremony or trophy or anything. I just replied to a thread about him.

Maybe he’s conflicted.

Ok, you’re wrong (again) but you didn’t say that either. I would have said “Oh, ok.”. Just to be clear moving forward, you’re not the inspiration guy, but you’re incredibly comfortable telling people who their giants of American history should or should not be?

Why did you ask me then? I had already said he was an inspiration, and you're acknowledging it's beyond your capacity to render an opinion on such things.

That's weird, though, because you could have just said that, instead of trying to take us down a rabbit hole on my feelings about affirmative action. Then, when I was trying to gain clarity, you pushed the envelope a bit and shared how you figured I wasn't "for" affirmative action. As for Clarence Thomas, I think views like yours are provincial, short-sighted and apply classic liberal logic. I also think it's sort of odd that with all the opinions we espouse here on a regular basis, suddenly ole Tibsy won't say whether or not a SC justice might be an inspiration to people. His views are shaped on his life experiences, education, and so on. I don't know that he feels he got ahead "by using affirmative action", I'm certain he feels he was successful because he worked hard, studied hard, devoted himself to his craft, and did what most people simply cannot do. He's a one in multiple-hundreds-of-millions human being. I didn't have those experiences, but I can speak to mine. I worked for a couple decades in one of the largest corporations in the country and was rewarded with opportunity. I tried to make the most of the opportunity, and while in a management role spoke occasionally with other employees who thought affirmative action was unnecessary and unfair. Based on what I saw, opportunity was plentiful for all, understanding that it hadn't always been that way and that progress had been made and additional progress was needed. I also know my experience might not have been indicative of every situation at every company and surely wasn't. I can see challenges with affirmative action, and it would be silly to suggest some hearts were not broken along the way when well qualified people missed out on opportunity because of their skin color or gender. I also know that had my experience not been so positive generally speaking, I may have felt differently. It's complicated, really. All in all, I think affirmative action was well-intentioned at the onset, was necessary in many ways, and was generally noble concept. I don't know if it's time has passed as I'm not really involved in with it in any way these days.

Again, I'm not at all certain why anything I said would lead you to that conclusion. I'm happy to answer your question (again), but common courtesy dictates that you answer mine: Do you feel that Justice Thomas is unworthy of being called inspirational? That seems to be a sticking point for you, and I don't understand why.

What part of what I wrote above leads you to ask me, personally, that question? Seems like a really odd question in context. Do you think, given his life's work, that he is unworthy of inspiring people?

Well, big picture: A man from Georgia, born before the civil rights era, the son of humble people finds his way through school and ends up attending one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. He graduated a mere ten years after Yale began allowing Black students to grace the hallowed and previously exclusively caucasian halls. He's spoken of the difficulties he had getting a job after graduating law school, his feeling that he was rejected in part because he was viewed as an affirmative action candidate. He's reconciled whatever issues he had with the school itself, but he clearly had mixed feelings about his treatment from his alma mater. When nominated to be the second Black American to sit on the Supreme Court, he was attacked rather viciously by "leaders" in the country, many of whom were active and willing participants in developing the laws and regulations that we look back now on as specifically designed to isolate and target specific types of people that looked like, well, him. Some were part of the entitled class, a bunch of glad-handing towel snappers chasing congressional tail and in at least one case, leaving a comely staffer to drown at the bottom of a pond and that had to be particularly galling to him. He's in an interracial marriage. I have a friends and family members who have followed that path and it's not an easy road to travel now, and harder still 20+ years ago. He's an incredibly accomplished human being, been graceful in the face of adversity, carved his own path through life and has been the object of scorn and ridicule from far, far lesser men. I have to get his book--been meaning to do that, Tibsy, thanks.

Sure, there’s some of that, but there’s a tremendous amount of political theater. The nature of questioning and behavior by some of these people would violate any basic Human Resources guideline at any private company in the country. You might be correct on her skill set, I figure it’s a forgone conclusion she’s already in. Keep in mind, too, that while I find the game generally distasteful, and in some cases borderline criminal, it has to be played for maximum political effect.

Justice Thomas is an amazing man and a giant in American history. He should be viewed as an inspiration to millions but sadly knew the truth very early on—-he wasn’t the right type of man for some. He seems to be as unconflicted as anyone who has ever served in the position.

Seems like a reasonable enough explanation. The issue politically seems to be more about derailing a nominee, bloodying them up for sport, or in extreme cases, destroying them entirely. It’s a shame really. That case got quite a bit of coverage nationally. Seemed like a reasonable outcome to a tragic story, and the 110 year pull seemed very unreasonable.

I didn’t see that post, Deek, but understand the sentiment. Generally speaking, I’m not a name caller. I’m confident in my opinions, recognize they are based on my life experiences alone and that others may disagree. I do believe in lobbing one liners and acknowledge sarcasm is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it is mine. Why just yesterday I suggested a few posters were high school stoners with not a shred of evidence to back it up. Observationally, I think you do a great job avoiding the harsh personal attacks and certainly practice what you preach. (As Leh-nerd shares this heartfelt sentiment, he turns dramatically, and is heard to mutter “Friggin Architectural Goober” as he walks away. 🎬)

What part of Florida did you think was in Iowa? I look at the post, try and figure out the relative likelihood of getting a somewhat serious response and occasionally take a shot at it. That’s on me. I know this. Somehow, I always have.

It matters only when holding yourself accountable for what you, personally, bring to the table. I can't control how you manage yourself here, I can only handle my reaction to it. In this case, I was hopeful you would bring value to the table, then disappointed that you didn't bring anything, and ultimately indifferent to your numbnuttery.

I really thought we had a breakthrough. He sent a simple response, none of the other gibberish included. That I expected more probably makes me more of a Nigel than Billsy.

I was initially impressed when I saw this post. I didn't see any Trump references, LMAOs in big letters, or references to cults. When I saw the still shot of the video you presented, my first thought was "That looks like a lot more than 100 students in Iowa!". Why would you send a video of students in Florida alleged to be protesting one law, in response to a post about students protesting an entirely different law in Iowa? Stepping back just for a moment, this gathering aligns with my point that you could get a bunch of high school kids to protest pencils if you spun a tall enough tale. What I see is a bunch of young people protesting something that isn't addressed in the law. What I don't see are signs, t-shirts or students commenting about how great it would be if Ms. Amy's kindergarten class could carve out time for a class on Transgender students, suicide, and gender reassignment surgery.

This is an interesting point. My family of five has used the same medical group for about the past 20 years. Our collective health has been good—no significant issues, weight good relative to height, etc. The practice is very popular on this side of our town. There was no outreach whatsoever to encourage safe behavior during the era of COVID, no emails, no postcards, no recorded auto dials, no nothing. That makes me wonder why—with industry after industry giving back to help people with the pandemic, why wasn’t the department of health mandating action to educate and slow the spread?

No worries, this is about fairness and equity for a previously victimized group subset required to follow private sector rules. Plus, let’s be fair, a good actor can certainly play the part of not passing on the COVID. “This is about leveling the playing field and making sure the rules apply equally to everyone who is a performer, no matter where you’re from,” said the person, who requested anonymity to speak freely about a proposal before it is announced. “The last administration created special carveouts that specifically hurt New York businesses and independent venues.”

The world of business is littered with the decaying carcasses of “I know better than everyone else” characters like this guy. The classic signs: Hey man, everyone agrees with me but I’m the only one with the moral terpitude to tell you; Hey man, I know you said the case is flawed man but trust me on this one, I’m way smarter than you; Hey man, I get things aren’t perfect, but trust me, I can sell buttons to a bra maker; Hey man, the public has the utmost trust in our justice system—never mind the cities burning across the country, the 1/6 insurrection, BLM, Russiagate, and the FBI Clinton kerfuffle—not running this crappy case up the flag pole could hurt make us look bad; Then again maybe the new DA is in on it, that would be a Qrazy Qoincidence for reels. 🙄 I’ve filed this under “Trump Not Got” Volume 23

There are over 2000 students enrolled in Waukee high school. The estimate was that about 100 participated in a walk out. Recognizing the inherently arbitrary nature of a media source guessing 100 involved, the accurate number was probably 72. You also have to figure in the kids cutting class to catch a buzz--your @Chef Jim, @SoCal Deek, @ALF , and our favorite hipster/cheerleader/stoner @muppy, figure that's another 8-10 off the top. Bottom line, you got maybe 50-60 kids. You could get 50-60 high school kids to boycott pencils if you spun a tall enough tale.

There’s a simple solution to the problem. Open sports teams to all, eliminate the ability of a coach to cut a prospective participant, implement guidelines that require fair access to playing time, and remove the scoring and competitive element from the sport. As it stands now, there’s a tendency toward selective compassion and frankly, the barrier to entry is too high. Why require a transgender female to “identify” with anyone? On the collegiate level, why the need for hormone treatments for someone like Lia Thomas? If she identifies as female, the rest is just about implementing onerous rules based on antiquated views of gender.

What about the guy, the one before Barrett and Jackson?

There was a time I would have agreed with you, but the rules of the game have changed. The best option if they are looking to keep this nominee off the SC is for the Rs to look at options to derail the nomination, weigh the relative risk of the type of character assassination we’ve seen from Dems, and proceed accordingly. It could be that they see this nominee as a reasonable selection when viewed from a conservative viewpoint. Could be they see the political fallout of the slash and burn approach the Dems take as too great to make wildly unsubstantiated accusations against her from 40 years ago. Or, maybe they are loading up for a massive assault on her character as we speak. It’s a shame, but really, it just is.

What exactly is working here? I assumed from the post that there would be a backstory of police targeting this young man, up to and including a physical altercation leading to his death. What I discovered is on the day this poor kid died, there was an altercation at the fair with nearly 100 young people at the fair. People were ejected, including this young man. The police removed him from the grounds and dropped him off a couple miles away. As kids tend to do, he opted to return to the fair, worked his way back to that area, attempted to cross a major expressway and was struck and killed by a vehicle. One allegation of wrongdoing is that his parents weren’t contacted and he was not taken back home. I had a few dopey moments when I was a kid where I was thrilled to get that treatment. Is it that the police were involved at all? Is bringing to light the fact that the police even bothered with a scrum the problem? This is a tragic story to be sure, and I can see anger and frustration that they dropped him off and that was part of a series of events on the day he died. What am I missing that you are seeing?