Weekend shifts ahoy!
Jul. 29th, 2006 12:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptYep, it's another sparkling weekend attack. This is the one part about library work that I'm not going to like - having to sacrifice weekends. Perhaps I'll find a branch that's not open on the weekends. Perhaps not. Still, the lead time needed for time off is bordering on the ridiculous. I'm glad I'm going back to classes on those counts. I just wonder what it'll be like when I have to plan all of my vacations and such three or more months in advance, and days off at least one. I don't usually have the luxury of planning that far ahead, and it's an aggravation to have to miss out on things that arise because they happen spontaneously.
It was Sysadmin day the 28th, and I wasn't informed until too late. But kudos to the sysadmins for their excellent work.
A plan to provide those curious about occulture with introductory information. Admit it - if you found one of these CDs around, you'd at least give it a listen, yes?
Solar power panels at the U.S.-Mexico border? Keeping people out and power in, with the hopes that the power generated will also keep people home and improve their standard of living?
Do aliens think that cellular phones are one of our end-all, be-all things? If we set foot in today's mall, it certainly seems to be, along with far too many clothing stores than any one mall should have.
An interesting artist - Chiho Aoshima. Be aware, many of those pictures linked to contain females that are nude, and some of them may show body parts or other NSFW situations. But the colors and the ideas... wonderful stuff. It's definitely art, in that someone could be mesmerised just by looking at it, and try to unlock its depths.
Speaking of drugs or potentially drug-induced states, as well as something most people probably suspect, The FDA is not the impartial body we'd like it to be. There's a lot of money to be had and a lot of influence being peddled to the regulatory body (and probably to every regulatory body), and there's a good chance that the dollar is getting in the way of the decision as to whether something is safe for use.
Last thought for tonight.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
greyweirdo recounted his experience with an anti-affirmative action flyer today. The tactic employed here is showing a picture of a Caucasian girl, with the caption that she was turned down by a university, and the tagline borrows from Dr. King's imagery and asks, likely rhetorically, "When will people be judged on their merit?" It leaves the reader to draw the conclusion that some evil affirmative action system (quotas or "diversity" or what-have-you) has denied this poor girl the chance to attend the university of her choice, taking her spot and giving it to an obviously less-qualified minority candidate. If they were qualified, the reasoning goes, they'd get in on their merits, regardless of any affirmative action program. So it had to be the evil Affirmative Action that was the cause of this girl's heartbreak!
By now, the logicians in the crowd have been waving their arms (and what shiny weapons those are), waiting for me to get finished so that I can call on them and let them shred the straw man for what it is, or point out the other flaws in the argument. There are likely a second crowd waving different arms (cannons, usually) that can point to statistics, studies, and other data that blow the argument out of the water. There is, also, a third crowd that has been cheering for the speaker and telling them to continue preaching the truth. (Sundry other groups exist, as well, but enumerating them would be long and pointless)
Here in Michigan, with a ballot initiative coming up in November that seeks to end preferential treatment, the issue is going to get nasty before all is said and done. There are radicals on both sides of the coin, hurting their causes with wild accusations, inflated damage reports, and fearmongering to the populace. What the truth is, well, I don't know. I have no idea how modern society without affirmative action would be, whether it would revert to some sort of white male supremacy (the fears of one faction) or whether people would be treated fairly and equally on all their merits (the stated goals and desires of the other). (Although, how long has the California experiment been going on? Have there been shifts, major or minor, that can be tracked and documented?) There are certain difficulties with realizing the anti-affirmative faction's utopia, andgreyweirdo touches on them. There are physical differences between people - it may be part of the biological and cultural heritage of one people to be more skilled at certain tasks and ideas than others. People may discriminate based on non-physical things, such as the company you keep, the alcohol you drink, and the cut of the suit you wear (if you wear a suit at all). People make assumptions just on your name and what cultural heritage it sounds like. And that's the subtle stuff. There's the more flagrant things, like beating and killing people because they're gay, wear Islamic dress, or just look like they're from the Middle East. It's stuff like "towelheads", "Islamic fascism", "wiggers", "fags", "bitches", "hos", "she was asking for it", "Jewed", and such. As much as we'd like to have a world where Dr. King's promise is true, and everyone is judged solely on their merits, right now, the world we have won't get there. Right now, it's probably better that the occasional white girl is denied her first-choice college, even though she has six acceptance letters in hand, because of a system that weights towards diversity, then there be a systematic exclusion of any race or sex from any college because one person in admissions believes that particular race or sex (or any sequence of race, sex, gender identity, et cetera) is inferior or apostasy and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the college. It's not perfect, but it's better than what could happen (for the most part).
With most issues like this, there are side streets and back alleys that can be traveled. Some would argue that the existence of the words "man" and "woman" in the lexicon ensures that there will be discrimination of one form or another. How much of society and language is inherently biased? How much of the natural condition and biology biases people toward certain tasks and abilities? It would probably take an androgyny and homogenization of the populace for the lexicon to shift away from that particular point. The difficulty is that if you can describe something in adjectives, you can describe both positive and negative aspects of that adjective. Once you can describe, you can discriminate.
If you want to talk specific universities, the one in Ann Arbor has come under fire and just narrowly escaped having to scrap the entire system it had for general undergraduates, while the law school policy was nixed for being a tad too quantitative. If most people agree on the necessity of the system, the implementation can be haggled over from here to eternity. The devil, as they say, is in the details. How do you legislate a just and equitable society? (Popular answer, shared by many philosophers and sages throughout time: You don't.)
sharpsight's belief in the anarchic principle also has some bearing here - with no regulation, the ability of one person to overcome prejudgment and any attitudes held by another is limited to their own power and any coalition they can build. Shevek noted, though, that even when built, an anarchy requires constant vigilance and the willingness of individuals to maintain and struggle for their own personal power, often when coalescing into an -archy seems easier and much more profitable. In the "anarchy" of a lack of affirmative action, will people do their dealings on individual bases, or will the groups like the NAACP step into the power void and make (bigger) monoliths where none were before? Since people tend to band together for strength, will we just see the fight begin again?
Like I said, many sidestreets. Including just what would count as proof that society was ready to let go of affirmative action or its sucessors entirely. For the moment, though, even if it's a kludge, most people agree its better than nothing. G'night.
It was Sysadmin day the 28th, and I wasn't informed until too late. But kudos to the sysadmins for their excellent work.
A plan to provide those curious about occulture with introductory information. Admit it - if you found one of these CDs around, you'd at least give it a listen, yes?
Solar power panels at the U.S.-Mexico border? Keeping people out and power in, with the hopes that the power generated will also keep people home and improve their standard of living?
Do aliens think that cellular phones are one of our end-all, be-all things? If we set foot in today's mall, it certainly seems to be, along with far too many clothing stores than any one mall should have.
An interesting artist - Chiho Aoshima. Be aware, many of those pictures linked to contain females that are nude, and some of them may show body parts or other NSFW situations. But the colors and the ideas... wonderful stuff. It's definitely art, in that someone could be mesmerised just by looking at it, and try to unlock its depths.
Speaking of drugs or potentially drug-induced states, as well as something most people probably suspect, The FDA is not the impartial body we'd like it to be. There's a lot of money to be had and a lot of influence being peddled to the regulatory body (and probably to every regulatory body), and there's a good chance that the dollar is getting in the way of the decision as to whether something is safe for use.
Last thought for tonight.
greyweirdo recounted his experience with an anti-affirmative action flyer today. The tactic employed here is showing a picture of a Caucasian girl, with the caption that she was turned down by a university, and the tagline borrows from Dr. King's imagery and asks, likely rhetorically, "When will people be judged on their merit?" It leaves the reader to draw the conclusion that some evil affirmative action system (quotas or "diversity" or what-have-you) has denied this poor girl the chance to attend the university of her choice, taking her spot and giving it to an obviously less-qualified minority candidate. If they were qualified, the reasoning goes, they'd get in on their merits, regardless of any affirmative action program. So it had to be the evil Affirmative Action that was the cause of this girl's heartbreak!By now, the logicians in the crowd have been waving their arms (and what shiny weapons those are), waiting for me to get finished so that I can call on them and let them shred the straw man for what it is, or point out the other flaws in the argument. There are likely a second crowd waving different arms (cannons, usually) that can point to statistics, studies, and other data that blow the argument out of the water. There is, also, a third crowd that has been cheering for the speaker and telling them to continue preaching the truth. (Sundry other groups exist, as well, but enumerating them would be long and pointless)
Here in Michigan, with a ballot initiative coming up in November that seeks to end preferential treatment, the issue is going to get nasty before all is said and done. There are radicals on both sides of the coin, hurting their causes with wild accusations, inflated damage reports, and fearmongering to the populace. What the truth is, well, I don't know. I have no idea how modern society without affirmative action would be, whether it would revert to some sort of white male supremacy (the fears of one faction) or whether people would be treated fairly and equally on all their merits (the stated goals and desires of the other). (Although, how long has the California experiment been going on? Have there been shifts, major or minor, that can be tracked and documented?) There are certain difficulties with realizing the anti-affirmative faction's utopia, and
greyweirdo touches on them. There are physical differences between people - it may be part of the biological and cultural heritage of one people to be more skilled at certain tasks and ideas than others. People may discriminate based on non-physical things, such as the company you keep, the alcohol you drink, and the cut of the suit you wear (if you wear a suit at all). People make assumptions just on your name and what cultural heritage it sounds like. And that's the subtle stuff. There's the more flagrant things, like beating and killing people because they're gay, wear Islamic dress, or just look like they're from the Middle East. It's stuff like "towelheads", "Islamic fascism", "wiggers", "fags", "bitches", "hos", "she was asking for it", "Jewed", and such. As much as we'd like to have a world where Dr. King's promise is true, and everyone is judged solely on their merits, right now, the world we have won't get there. Right now, it's probably better that the occasional white girl is denied her first-choice college, even though she has six acceptance letters in hand, because of a system that weights towards diversity, then there be a systematic exclusion of any race or sex from any college because one person in admissions believes that particular race or sex (or any sequence of race, sex, gender identity, et cetera) is inferior or apostasy and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the college. It's not perfect, but it's better than what could happen (for the most part). With most issues like this, there are side streets and back alleys that can be traveled. Some would argue that the existence of the words "man" and "woman" in the lexicon ensures that there will be discrimination of one form or another. How much of society and language is inherently biased? How much of the natural condition and biology biases people toward certain tasks and abilities? It would probably take an androgyny and homogenization of the populace for the lexicon to shift away from that particular point. The difficulty is that if you can describe something in adjectives, you can describe both positive and negative aspects of that adjective. Once you can describe, you can discriminate.
If you want to talk specific universities, the one in Ann Arbor has come under fire and just narrowly escaped having to scrap the entire system it had for general undergraduates, while the law school policy was nixed for being a tad too quantitative. If most people agree on the necessity of the system, the implementation can be haggled over from here to eternity. The devil, as they say, is in the details. How do you legislate a just and equitable society? (Popular answer, shared by many philosophers and sages throughout time: You don't.)
sharpsight's belief in the anarchic principle also has some bearing here - with no regulation, the ability of one person to overcome prejudgment and any attitudes held by another is limited to their own power and any coalition they can build. Shevek noted, though, that even when built, an anarchy requires constant vigilance and the willingness of individuals to maintain and struggle for their own personal power, often when coalescing into an -archy seems easier and much more profitable. In the "anarchy" of a lack of affirmative action, will people do their dealings on individual bases, or will the groups like the NAACP step into the power void and make (bigger) monoliths where none were before? Since people tend to band together for strength, will we just see the fight begin again? Like I said, many sidestreets. Including just what would count as proof that society was ready to let go of affirmative action or its sucessors entirely. For the moment, though, even if it's a kludge, most people agree its better than nothing. G'night.
