News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:26 am

Because Affirmative Action works for all sorts of groups, not just 'blacks'?

It's stupid. They just want to declare racism over, and then disarm our ability to find out they're still racists.

-Crissa

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:29 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/opini ... .html?_r=3

A bit on the sensationalist side, but looks like a lot of American companies may end up having a ton of cash to spend on China.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:10 am

There's a reason it's called Ausfalia on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Despite all of America's flaws, I'm glad I live here.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:53 am

CG wrote: (It's not all race; what about women?)

I think the fact that the typical rant against affirmative action involves faceless minorities just shows how implicitly racist our society is.

There's a reason why business owners intentionally hire scabs of the opposite race of the (usually white, but not always) original workers in mass business disputes.

Stupid fucking baby boomers.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:31 pm

One of the colleges I was looking into back when I thought I could go on to my 4 year degree would have let me in solely by affirmative action. It was a predominately black college that needed more white people because of it.

Honestly, if I could hack it I would have gone there over the local colleges. Easier to get into, not as bad a reputation as the colleges close by, and I'd get to live near the beach to boot.

Clutch9800 · Post by **Clutch9800** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:20 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:One of the colleges I was looking into back when I thought I could go on to my 4 year degree would have let me in solely by affirmative action. It was a predominately black college that needed more white people because of it.

Honestly, if I could hack it I would have gone there over the local colleges. Easier to get into, not as bad a reputation as the colleges close by, and I'd get to live near the beach to boot.

Heh,

I went to a High School that had a student body of 1100 and had 12 white people. I was the only white guy in my senior class. One of one.

I wouldn't wish that experience on my worst enemy. The Teachers, (The TEACHERS!) used to refer to me as "White Boy". I don't even think they knew my name.

Clutch

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:45 pm

I think the fact that the typical rant against affirmative action involves faceless minorities just shows how implicitly racist our society is.

Michigan recently ruled that affirmative action was illegal. Black students started protesting. It's not "implicitly racist" when it's true.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:43 pm

You are being so vague and topic-shifty Psychic Robot that I have no idea what you're talking about.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:13 pm

This is burning up Google right now: California Prop 8 found unconstitutional. The bastards stopped their dallying and politicking to finally deliver the decision.

-Crissa

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:14 pm

fucking finally.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:31 pm

Crissa wrote:This is burning up Google right now: California Prop 8 found unconstitutional. The bastards stopped their dallying and politicking to finally deliver the decision.

-Crissa

Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!! My marriage is ruined!

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:36 pm

Federal Court Order wrote:Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:57 pm

Yay!!!!!!!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:25 am

The only thing that confuses me is why that took so long. Right when it "passed" there was the stark reality: In California you need 50% to add a provision to the California constitution; but you need two thirds to change a provision in the California constitution. That is, if equal protection and the right to marry had already been ruled by the courts to include homosexual unions (which it had), then any provision to change that fact would have required a two-thirds majority. Which Prop 8 did not get. I was predicting that it would get tossed out in weeks, since the legal requirements were actually fairly clear.

It is a testament to the amount of lawyer money being thrown around that it took this long to solve something that seems like it would be fifteen minutes for Nerd Judge. Ask how the constitution was interpreted before, ask how it would be interpreted after, ask how many votes it got. Done.

Everyone seems to understand why we can't balance the budget when it takes a 2/3 majority to change the tax code - I'm not sure why everyone was confused about it taking a 2/3 majority to go back to oppressing gays.

-Username17

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:02 am

Er, glad they got it right, but I would have much rather Prop 8 had failed at the ballot initially - this is a horrible wedge issue and provides a wingnut rallying cry of "judicial activism" with an imminant supreme court nomination vote and an important midterm election looming.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:09 am

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... ctures.ars

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:01 am

So, California's Prop 8 was overturned today.

There's something interesting in the Rachel Maddow take on it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/ns/ ... v#38567383

Aside from the part Maddow zooms in on and goes on and on about, this line stands out, too:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:04 am

So it's going to the Supreme Court?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:15 am

There's a regional federal panel of judges - the ninth circuit - it would be appealed to next. The Supremes are after that. The Supreme Court can opt not to see any case, leaving the judgement stand, the Ninth cannot be so selective.

County < State < State Supreme < Federal District < Federal Circuit < Supreme; There's a different path for criminal. There used to be municipal courts, but mostly they've been put aside.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:32 am

npr uses "Om Nom Nom" as a caption

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:42 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:npr uses "Om Nom Nom" as a caption

Article suffers serious correlation is not causation fallacy. Also, chimpanzees do eat meat.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:45 am

Crissa wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:npr uses "Om Nom Nom" as a caption
Article suffers serious correlation is not causation fallacy. Also, chimpanzees do eat meat.

-Crissa

You must not have read the whole thing.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:08 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:You must not have read the whole thing.

I don't think you did, either. Nor the copy editor.

Tools let us eat more meat. Meat didn't lead to tools. But that's what the article says.

-Crissa

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:14 am

I'm pretty sure the article didn't imply that chimps eat meat.

Also, I'm pretty sure they've been known to do so, usually small things like snakes and lizards they just happen to catch.

'Course, hell, even deer and elephants have been known to eat meat. Not in large quantities or frequent cases, but it's been recorded.

Clutch9800 · Post by **Clutch9800** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:24 am

Prop 8 actually overturned because of a typo