BOYCOTT KRMG Their Sponsors and Advertisers!!!!!

[nathanm]

OK, I'm beginning to wonder if the Republicans are pulling some rope-a-dope trick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/us/politics/violence-against-women-act-divides-senate.html

It's like they're trying so hard to look so stupid. Seriously, you're going to vote against continuing domestic violence programs because the Democrats want to expand the law to cover gays and grant illegal immigrants temporary visas so that they can be spared the double whammy of getting the smile beaten out of them and then immediately deported because they had the gall to call the cops. Sorry guys, but making it easier for all domestic violence to be reported and dealt with is not something you can complain about without looking like stupid. It's not the optics, it's the morality.

Granted, the Democrats are indeed turning the screws, but last I checked turnabout is fair play.

[erfalf]

It isn't equal opportunity when a C student's parents have the money to send them to college while the B student's parent's don't.

Like it or not, the statistics clearly show that kids from wealthy families make more money over their lifetime (on average) than kids from poor families. That clearly indicates that equal opportunity is not something that is present in our society at the moment. As I said, yes, some people manage to do well for themselves without a college degree. I do OK, but that's because I lucked into a work situation that got me the contacts and experience necessary to do what it is that I do. And it was just that, luck. I could just as easily be working at Geek Squad now. Plenty of my high school friends tried to take the same route but missed out on the opportunity I had and despite working a lot harder than I do haven't had the same success.

The thing is, we can't all be owners. Some of us have to be the cogs in the machine. More and more, being that cog requires a college degree, even when it it isn't strictly necessary.

Your and mine definition of fair will always differ I believe. Let me ask this: Did those immigrants back in the 19th century believe it was unfair that they had little or nothing when they arrived, but others were far better off? I doubt it.

Yes those C students that have well to do parents often get more opportunities than those without. But do they take advantage of them, on the whole I would guess most don't.

And no, not everyone can just start up their own business, but if they possess and skill or talent that people desire, it is not impossible.

And not to throw praise to you or anything, although I'm sure you do deserve it, but I would hardly attribute what success you've had to luck. I believe luck is a by product of hard work and preparedness. Yes, there is some luck, but you've got to be able to take advantage of the luck when the time comes.

[nathanm]

Your and mine definition of fair will always differ I believe.

Quite possibly. I don't really think the world was a better place in the 1800s, so I'm not terribly inclined to consider the prevailing standard of that time as something to aspire to.

Yes those C students that have well to do parents often get more opportunities than those without. But do they take advantage of them, on the whole I would guess most don't.
...
And not to throw praise to you or anything, although I'm sure you do deserve it, but I would hardly attribute what success you've had to luck. I believe luck is a by product of hard work and preparedness. Yes, there is some luck, but you've got to be able to take advantage of the luck when the time comes.

That's the thing, the C student doesn't have to take advantage. He/she gets by birth what others get only by hard work and sacrifice. I don't even have a huge problem with that in and of itself. However, describing it as fair or saying that the opportunity each has is equal seems to fall rather far from the definitions I was taught as a kid. By no means do I think you have to agree with me on policy, but I really don't understand how you can use the words you use with a straight face.

And yes, it seriously was mostly luck. I happened to be adopted by parents with the financial wherewithal to buy a computer back when they were still terribly expensive rather than growing up in a hovel in western Kansas. I happened to enjoy tinkering with them, I happened to go to a high school where the IT coordinator didn't mind me hanging around and helping out all the time even though I should have been doing other things, and most of all, I happened to meet a guy who had a strong professional network and who was willing to share his wisdom, most of which I promptly forgot.

Sure, some effort was required at each stage, sometimes even a lot, but all the effort in the world (OK, that's an exaggeration) wouldn't have made nearly as much difference had some of those links in the chain been broken. Luck brought the level of effort necessary down to something achievable by an ordinary person.

All that said, I do agree with the general premise that luck usually does little good on its own. I just don't see that as the end of the story.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm personally a proponent of better access to higher ed, whether it's the university level or vo-tech.  Sure beats research grants for the study of Facebook on people's eating habits, the mating habits of amoeba, etc. 

Someone had to be studying amoebas or we never would have known that they crawl inside you and eat out your brain!  Or how to treat the problem when it does occur.

Facebook notwithstanding, there are a ton of those obscure little topics that may, on the surface, appear to  be goofy, but yield real results.  I'm betting someone thought it was silly  to study why people chewed on willow bark at one time, too.  Who knows, there may be some explanation of the insanity of the Facebook phenomenon that could help some of those people.  Would have to mean a massive increase in productivity at work in this country and around the world.

Lot's of those ridiculed topics involve the study of amphibians of some sort or other - frogs, salamanders, toads, whatever.  The people doing the ridicule just show how truly ignorant they are.  The "flat earthers'... a lot like birthers...

[heironymouspasparagus]

...and Santorum is winning primaries, with contraception being one of his cornerstone issues.  I mean W T F?  I'm not sure whether to be stunned by his stupidity or those who think that's one of the biggest issues facing America right now.

Yes.  Both.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Let me ask this: Did those immigrants back in the 19th century believe it was unfair that they had little or nothing when they arrived, but others were far better off? I doubt it.

Now you're making the argument for illegal immigration?

It's not about new immigrants, it's about the people who were born here and have an institutionalized, concerted effort in motion now that intentionally puts barriers in the way.

[erfalf]

Now you're making the argument for illegal immigration?

It's not about new immigrants, it's about the people who were born here and have an institutionalized, concerted effort in motion now that intentionally puts barriers in the way.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, as I would assume most everyone coming through New York harbor was perfectly legal. I mean we literally went through them with a fine tooth comb. LITERALLY! It was just an example of people with nothing, and how they felt blessed to be here, even when we weren't handing them anything but the opportunity.

[erfalf]

Quite possibly. I don't really think the world was a better place in the 1800s, so I'm not terribly inclined to consider the prevailing standard of that time as something to aspire to.

That's the thing, the C student doesn't have to take advantage. He/she gets by birth what others get only by hard work and sacrifice. I don't even have a huge problem with that in and of itself. However, describing it as fair or saying that the opportunity each has is equal seems to fall rather far from the definitions I was taught as a kid. By no means do I think you have to agree with me on policy, but I really don't understand how you can use the words you use with a straight face.

And yes, it seriously was mostly luck. I happened to be adopted by parents with the financial wherewithal to buy a computer back when they were still terribly expensive rather than growing up in a hovel in western Kansas. I happened to enjoy tinkering with them, I happened to go to a high school where the IT coordinator didn't mind me hanging around and helping out all the time even though I should have been doing other things, and most of all, I happened to meet a guy who had a strong professional network and who was willing to share his wisdom, most of which I promptly forgot.

Sure, some effort was required at each stage, sometimes even a lot, but all the effort in the world (OK, that's an exaggeration) wouldn't have made nearly as much difference had some of those links in the chain been broken. Luck brought the level of effort necessary down to something achievable by an ordinary person.

All that said, I do agree with the general premise that luck usually does little good on its own. I just don't see that as the end of the story.

I appreciate your positions. I am sure we will agree to disagree. Ain't America grand. I have a coworker that I have literally the same discussion with everyday. We both make good points that make the other think, but we will never agree 100% of the time.

I would still argue with my last dying breath that you made your own luck. For example, my current job, it was a fluke thing that it became available when it did. But I still wouldn't have gotten it if I wasn't qualified. Same with you. You have a skill for tech stuff. That skill is in demand. While it may be luck that you got this job and not that one, you more than likely would have gotten a job.

I wouldn't say that things were better in the 1800's, I might argue that peoples attitudes and work ethic were, which is more what I was focused on. They had better attitudes IN SPITE of the conditions. Of course, they came from worse. Now, the "poor" have more gadgets than I do. As poor as they are, they have gotten use to a standard of living that far exceeds anything in the 1800's. To be clear, my difference with you (I think) is whether or not it is government's responsibility to be taking care of things like this? I personally believe their is already an infrastructure in place to take care of the downtrodden. In Bartlesville alone, there is no way anyone, regardless of means, should go without food or shelter for a day. I know Tulsa has similar institutions. Heck, there is even a thing in town that gives jobs to mentally disabled people doing fairly remedial things, but valuable things (recycling/document shredding/thrift shop).

The way I say it with a straight face is I define fair by actually looking at the man/woman, not their pocketbook. Simple as that. I just look at it different. Some people deserve to succeed and some don't. It's harsh but it's true. And I understand that those that deserve it don't always succeed, but that's back to my initial point, equal opportunity not equal results. I just don't think the government has the ability to determine who deserves regardless of the criteria. So why should they keep trying?

[Conan71]

I think the only way luck plays into ending up in the right employment situation is when you are in the right place to have your skill set or whatever attracted the employer to you noticed.

My boss and I have known each other for over 30 years now going back to high school.  Our lives have criss crossed in many different areas.  The ten years prior to me coming to work for him, he followed what I was doing career-wise and we would talk about eventually working together, but either the timing was wrong for me or him.  He walked into the business I owned about 7 1/2 years ago one day and said: "Let's go to lunch".

The "luck" part in that is that I'd known him and his family for a very long time and when he finally decided he needed job skills and an attitude like mine, I was the first person he thought of.  If my reputation in sales and marketing hadn't been impressive to him, though, no amount of "luck" would have landed me in this position.  That was the years of hard work, determination, and work ethic which really won me the job.

[dbacks fan]

Marshall's!!!!!!!!

[Conan71]

^^^^Thread winner!

[nathanm]

The "luck" part in that is that I'd known him and his family for a very long time and when he finally decided he needed job skills and an attitude like mine, I was the first person he thought of.  If my reputation in sales and marketing hadn't been impressive to him, though, no amount of "luck" would have landed me in this position.  That was the years of hard work, determination, and work ethic which really won me the job.

I guess the way I see it is that the second part doesn't negate the earlier bits. When I say luck is necessary, that's not to discount in any way hard work. Although hard work and/or preparation is sometimes not necessary it usually is, at least for us plebs. Sometimes you can make your own opportunity. Sometimes you can't.

I consider myself doubly lucky because I never really liked beer before I started working for someone who sells lots of it. My skin crawls when I think of what might have happened had he stuck to lawyering.

[Red Arrow]

when I think of what might have happened had he stuck to lawyering.

You could have been Guido's buddy.

[Teatownclown]

I think TTC may have summed it up best (I think it was him) that the Dems have managed to sucker the GOP into the old social agenda debate again.  The GOP needs to stay on message about the economy instead of pandering to the furthest right element's moral agenda if they expect to win in November. 

Yes. Let's stay on the economy. It's sound....much better footing than when the Bushiviks were preparing to cut and run from the executive branch they left dangling.... sad but true...yes, Bush's fault...

[Teatownclown]

Looks good...seems to be working!