Geeto67

From when I re-did my TH400 years ago, I think 225 degrees F was the upper range limit of "safe". After 225 additives in ATF start to burn off and crust up and at 240 ATF itself begins to boil and cook itself to death. Something else the GTO and air-cooled motorcycles taught me is that oil temp isn't far behind. A good modern synthetic will tolerate up to 250 degrees and still hold most of it's integrity. At 260 the additives begin to break down and by 275 it's starting to cook. 1960's pontiac's overheat lights don't come on till 240-260 degrees water temp which is often pretty close to oil temp, and I once overheated the car on a cruise and collapsed a lifter because the oil started to give out in the top end. Thankfully, no other damage was done but the oil when I changed it was sparkly. Had a similar experience with the ducati when I was on the 9/11 anniversary ride and let the bike get to 315 degrees. No internal damage, but very sparkly oil. To that end oil and trans temp gauges are a pretty good idea for any car that sees any kind of action beyond normal commuting. As this pertains to the G8, ATF still needs some heat to work properly, so if you are going with the aux cooler, try to mount it in a location that allows it to get to temp, but might also allow it to be cooled by the fans. Maybe in front of the radiator toward the bottom (like in front of where the other trans cooler is). good luck, hope it helps, and hope ytou don't have to rebuild the trans. I think what cordell is saying is with the metal shavings bit is that once you have metal shavings in the trans, there is no way to get them out other than to completely disassemble, clean, and replace the part that is creating the shavings. otherwise you will continue to have problems and eventual see trans failure.

old mercedes/bmw interiors are wonderful, but that was back when they followed the ethos that luxury was highest quality materials instead of technology. Old mercedes perforated leather on spring seats or recaros where you are looking into a set of chrome bezel clocks in a real wood dash is fantastic and interesting. Plastic interiors full of pixels and touch screens isn't all that great. I kinda feel like the 80's were the last of the great German high quality interiors. Don't get me wrong every german car, even VW, still makes a nicer feeling cabin than anything japanese or american, but there is something decadently old world about sinking into this: http://www.classiccarstodayonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Interior-1977-a.jpg while all the new cars are fantastic, I feel like Mercedes interiors are made for people who would much rather be anywhere other than being in a car, but as long as they are stuck in a car they might as well be comfortable.

The first objection I have is that you look at "the government" as one single entity, when in the US it is not. It's actually dozens of independent entities when you look at it at all levels (and the number changes by geography), made up of the 3 federal branches, plus the 3 state branches, plus the local/municipal/county/village/township/whatever the place you live calls your local government. Each level has a different amount of interaction from the individual citizen to affect change, from voting in national elections to attending city council meetings. I don't have to have any trust in the Trump administration (and I don't) or any one particular branch, as long as I have faith in the system and layers of bureaucracy to prevent truly heinous things from happening. Trump tries to implement a Muslim ban and the judiciary stops him, and even when they don't then the states say they aren't going to spend the money to enforce laws the federal government should be enforcing, and so on. Trump as been confined to the very limited power of the executive branch by his own doing (and I should point out even when his own team has control of another branch), where as other former presidents were able to interact with the other branches and make lasting change. You are confusing the method with evolution. Every government wants improvement, even the bad ones, and some of them had some really bad ideas as to what constituted "improvement". you are using the worst examples as representative of the whole, to argue against a fundamental concept - that no government can fight entropy and all must evolve or die.

A lot of this is what actually happens at the drafting phase. There is always some dispute as to how to interpret the data, but that's the real republican/democrat battleground in congress. What is more problematic is how to keep it going - in banking regulations are continuously under review and enforcement grows and shrinks relative to what the regulators seems concerned about and what what banks push back on - so if management of third party PI data starts to be a concern at one or two banks or because of some high profile breeches then the regulators are going to test all banks on this - whereas if the regulators come in and say they want to test diversity in lending and the banks independently push back and say our HMDA LAR's don't support raising any concerns, the regulators back off and look at something else. If there is a proposed new regulation, the agency proposing it will socalize it with the banks for notes. And the banking regulation is kind of the ideal, but that's in an industry with active strong participants, many don't have as strong active participants that force the regulators back and don't have the political clout to lobby and provide notes to legislate - so while a regulation may seem like a good idea at the time of implementation, it may become outdated quickly and not updated because the regulators don't have an interest in changing it and the industry doesn't have the power. Add in that it is very difficult to have laws and regulations invalidated (even when they become completely unnecessary) and you end up with where we are now with a lot of spaces. A good example of this is the Steel industry or the railroad industry - once giants, but whose power has been undercut by obsolesce and foreign competition, and whose regulators are busy with other thriving industries in their scope (like Airlines and alternative energy). then there are industries where the private industry has more power and leverage than the regulators so there is very little reform even when there is a need, and a public outcry or even a threat to national security via a health epidemic. A good example of this is the Pharmaceutical industry where they have more political clout than can be overcome by any politician, and so we have to live with an opoid crisis that they directly cause and continue to feed. And then there are industries that are so fast moving that they just need constant oversight and continuous laws and updates. Stock trading is a good example of this - millions of small traders who have no political clout but who spend every single waking work hour looking for an advantage or a loophole or something they can exploit. All these types of industries can and do use the initial approach regarding metric based regulatory implementation, but the continued oversight and interaction is where things branch out. I should point out that there is also the rare situation where an industry can effectively block information and data to prevent regulation from happening, regardless of political clout. This is the situation we have today with the NRA and the gun industry who despite being relatively small, have managed to block any regulatory advancement by halting research. This isn't the first time we have seen this, the Tobacco industry did this as well, and it didn't work out well for them in the end. These situations tend to create a powder keg situation where public outcry and lack of movement will eventually come to a head and the pendulum will swing the other way but not along rational lines. Another problem is that most lay people don't understand this at all. They look at regulations like affirmative action and think it forces construction companies to hire a 98lb weakling to swing a sledgehammer just because she is a women when in fact that isn't how it works at all, so the people who vote politicians in who can legislate these regulations get manipulated by political platforms by appealing to their ignorance and emotions.

It flew over your head. You are saying "governments" as in all governments fuck things up and can't be trusted...just like all dry cleaners fuck things up, not one particular one. It's funny, you distrust all governments because of the actions of a few but you don't distrust all dry cleaners because of the fuck ups of a few. You are more forgiving of a dry cleaner where you have almost no control over the process beyond selection, than you do a government where you do have some ability to affect the process if you want to. If you don't like a government that you feel is fucking things up, you can choose another government by either electing different politicians or moving. That last one? that's called immigration and seems real popular to talk about these days. Well at least we agree on one thing. And yet Historically, governments are continually striving for improvement, and even offering incentives to get people to assist in offering the best services. But that's the mundane crap that doesn't get talked about. The existence of Soldier Pensions, the GI bill, and VA healthcare all seem boring compared to the sacking of Rome or the crusades. Profit is not the only incentive, and sometimes it's the worst kind of incentive (see current pharmaceutical system) - Profit and a beneficial system to the end user are not connected concepts.

Do you prefer overly sensitive? or Triggered? I mean, what's the appropriate term for a butthurt conservative that doesn't offend his manhood? I don't want to be offensive so you tell me what you want to be called...

223 F seems high to me. Is your stock trans cooler hooked up? fans working? not plugged up? The GXP came with a second trans cooler and a lot of people add them to keep temps down.

right back at you. I thought you liked it when people told it like it is and called it like they saw it. I see you talking out your ass and ignoring facts to maintain your bias I call you ignorant - seems pretty objective to me considering that is the literal definition of ignorance.

Parents have a long history of mismanaging and fucking kids up, so why trust them with kids? Dry Cleaners have a long history of mismanaging and fucking shirts up, so why would I trust them with laundry? Arbys restaurants have a long history of mismanaging and fucking my order up, so why would I trust them with lunch? Popes have a long history of mismanaging and fucking things up, so why would I trust them with the worlds largest land holder and a following of 1.3 billion people? get my point yet? You can literally say that about anything in general and basically you end up with the same stupid false statement. You have to look at things on a case by case or issue by issue basis - generalizing statements in this arena are just toxic cynicism.

and this is not a personal attack how? I don't know what's worse, that you feign the high road or that somehow you think that's being clever. I like you Tim, your my favorite ignorant, paranoid, slightly racist cars and coffee acquaintance.

awww...low blow. He did pretty well with a Williams FW34 car in 2012.

Whether you like it or not America benefits from Socialism. Labor unions, the shakers and Quakers, the 19th century utoipian communities, and the National Industrial Recovery act (the new deal) are all socialist things that benefit the US and it's citizens. There are some that claim that you can't have a "free market" without socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Socialist_economics Socialism, is basically just an economic and social theory. It's not inherently political on it's own, and in limited markets it offers some advantages over traditional capitalism. Most of Americans' hatred of socialism comes from cold war propaganda and not any actual understanding of economics and sociology. Authoritarian dictators have mis-used the concepts of socialism by expanding it government rule, so there is some precedent for mistrust of it as a political theory - but as an economic theory it's pretty harmless. TL;DR version: If you hear "socialism" and like snowflake Tim it immediately triggers your feelings of "red scare" and makes you want to scream "wolverines", then congrats you are gullible and ignorant. You are doubly so if you also believe in a "free market". If you hear socialism and you think about labor unions and economics, and that it is one arrow in the quiver of the US economic policy to promote prosperity - then you probably aren't on CR and reading this, or if you are, you already rolled your eyes at Tim's comment and moved on.

I thought you were moving?

So speak English or get the fuck out? No it's BS because you are falsely comparing dublin schools to the entire state of california as a way of continuing your weirdly unnatural hatred of California, instead of actually being objective and looking at what the data bears out. I've lost interest in the rest of what you have to say, it's not intelligent, it's not objective, it's just a whole lot of it ain't my kid it ain't my problem bull-crap because you don't like paying taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes, but somehow you are ok with hurting children to get out of it. Sad.

wow, that must have taken a long time. Ok, Greg, here's something lite - Astronaut Mark Kelly is a national treasure: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mark-kelly-space-force/

I noticed you didn't post Ohio's results for comparison. Everything but reading California is comparable to in Ohio, and I suspect the higher percentage of non native English speakers is what's bringing the reading score down as an outlier. Also this is for the whole of the state, There are good schools and bad schools in each school district and I find in utter bullshit on your part to say you wouldn't put your kid in all of california's school system when you don't put your kid into the city of columbus's school system either. Give me a break. A review of schools by an astronomer on his blog where he cites no sources for this comparison other than the single report. And if you go through it, Ohio didn't fare that much better - a couple of rankings higher in a few metrics but nothing terribly significant. Got it, no point in fixing anything because it's all the parents fault. No way for schools to improve on their own. :dumb: Got it, no point in fixing anything because it's all the parents fault. No way for schools to improve on their own. :dumb: And we have some shitty ones too. But no point in investing in our schools since the parent's are THE ONLY ones that matter. :dumb: you feel bad for the kids but fuck 'em they aren't your responsibility they are someone else's so who cares? right? :dumb: Blah blah blah we should't improve the system because it can't be improved because it costs you too much in taxes. yawn. :dumb: Pretty Sure LeBron just opened a school, Jessie Jackson has done more for school integration than you have ever thought about, and Michael Jordan: https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-jordan-donation-childrens-charities-2015-12 That's $23 Million to charities supporting chicago school children alone so what's your point? Oh yeah, there isn't one, you just think it's the responsibility of rich black people to "take care of their own" instead of...ya know...the educational funding we all pay into with taxes. the government can continue to support a system that disproportionately affects people of color as long as uncle Lebron can take care of the kids of Akron. All talk? still? I am not looking for you to come up with any solution, I've already resolved in my mind that you are actually incapable of understanding the parts of the issue that don't fit your "personal responsibility" narrative. I just want you to stop spreading this lie that there is no improvement that can be made to schools and that problems of racially biased education are related solely to the parents. In other words, if you aren't going to help things get better, get the fuck out of other people's way. But you aren't going to do that, you are going to continue pushing this "not my problem" rhetoric and support people who divide this country through ignorance.

Actually, I think you need to re-read that article because you are taking some wide liberties with what it says. It absolutely concedes that basing school expenditure is a local tax problem (not just a property tax problem). The argument it tries to make is that by going to a shared resource/distribution model is that budgets would be more susceptible to political influence, which I suppose is possible but doesn't really bear out. They even concede that there are a lot of factors that go into this that cannot be predicted, and even in the isolated examples they cited they concede that it doesn't entirely support their proposition due to those many factors, and in the California case it openly neglects to mention that because of centralization the actual funding to the schools were cut drastically. Still if you read it all the way through you'll find that the point of the article is to clarify that reliance in property tax (not local tax, specifically property tax) is blamed for more ills than it actually causes and that when centralization of funding occurs, the local property taxes are re-directed instead of being put into education as well. The proper solution is to continue the property tax funding and to have the state make up the shortfall, because that would both minimize the funding problem and the political influence problem. If you are using the article to support that public school expenditures is wasteful, that is just asking too much of that article. I don't know that it is even a true statement that every single public school is wasteful in its spending - there are a lot of schools that are very good at getting value for their dollar. There are however some schools that are subject to corruption in spending that doesn't bear out a good value for those schools. Part of that is there is no centralized method of accounting or bid process for some schools, meaning that some schools are more susceptible to crony-ism than others. But that's true of most state programs. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/where-school-dollars-go-to-waste/384949/ What's wrong with California? It's the most populous state in the nation, and the second highest ranked in preparing students for college, and the highest number of gold medal schools (an award issued by U.S. News based on students' performance on required state tests, their graduation rates and their college readiness). In the overall rankings it is only slightly behind Ohio (10 ranking spots, but only about 5 pts difference in total score), but has a higher safety and quality rank than ohio. In some ways we would be lucky to have both the quality and safety of California schools. A lot of people hem and haw about it being the state with the largest number of schools who aren't getting a good value for their spending, but they have the most number of schools of any state in the country - they have more of the best schools and more of the worst schools than anybody else. You set this up like California is some horrible example, but really the numbers don't bear that out and there are a lot of things Ohio could learn from california's system. Just to be clear, your argument is "we should do nothing to improve a student's education because some people are just shitty parents". I don't accept that. What's your plan for making these people better parents? This is a false personal responsibility argument, because ultimately the person who pay the cost of irresponsibility isn't the parent - the the child. Quality teaching professionals who can reach their students can make up for a lot of the shortcomings that come with shitty parenting. Maybe not all, but it's still an improvement. Here's the thing: either you believe that it is a shared interest of society and a national security interest that ignorance in the population be minimized or not. It sounds like you are just saying other people's kids aren't my problem, but really they are whether you want to accept that or not, either you invest in education now or you pay the costs that ignorance costs society as a whole later http://www.atlantahighered.org/Newsroom/FeatureStoryDetail/tabid/604/xmid/1616/Default.aspx ok, I'm hearing a lot of shoulds, and such but no real plan to fix anything, or to implement any kind of policy that would economically or socially motivate people to act like you think they "should". Statements like these are of little value to any conversation, because they are just raw opinion without facts to back them up, and don't propose any solution. It's just a false clever way of trying to say this thing we think is broken and we have no fix so we shouldn't do anything to try and improve other areas.

You do know that there are exceptions built into the system, right? Construction contractors do not have to have an AA plan for women or minorities for manual labor positions. If an employer cannot find a qualified individual for an AA covered position they can file an exception. And there are also employment discrimination exceptions as well based on the job requirements (e.g. Chinese chef in a Chinese restaurant). Also, AA only applies to companies that have federal contracts - if you don't provide services to the government you aren't required to have an AA plan. This thing you say is silly doesn't happen. Now, I will agree the AA requirements for construction contractors hasn't been updated in 30 years so that should probably happen, but it's a low priority for democrats and not one at all for republicans. Income is a problem because in this country we tie education spending to local taxes, so poor people pay less tax because they live in neighborhoods where their property is worth less and the gross amount collected through tax is smaller. The end result is their schools have smaller budgets. Move off that model by injecting money into the system and problem is solved without giving anybody a handout. https://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools-have-a-money-problem https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/ Why do we have this system by the way instead of a state wide or national pool funding all equally? Post Civil war segregation. This was an easy way for plantation owners who were just divested of their property to insure an under-educated abundant cheap labor force. And it is still our system today. There were many times where pooled funding was tried and even measures passed to equal school funding, but people always found a way around it to push the inequality.

It's more complex that that. At one point yes white supremacy was dominant and written into our laws, and the white man was actively holding people down. But successive generations went from hatred to apathy, and some of the laws changed and a lot of them didn't. What we are stuck with right now is a system that once was very biased, that has some band aid fixes to kinda sorta try and help, but still has a long way to go. Part of this is recognition of the problem and actually changing the laws and making efforts to level the playing field - but there are still many in government who for various reasons fight against that. I don't see "the white man" as actively holding everyone down so much as we were inherited a shitty legacy that was built on ancient hatred and which we still pay for, but we don't have to accept it or be apathetic about it. It's our responsibility to at least recognize it and do what we can to make the world the way we see fit. Maybe some people don't want to get higher education, but you can't ignore that even in required education primary/elementary/high school there is a disparity and that disparity was created to discourage poor people, and especially poor black people, from even getting a basic education. We have a need for special programs, and disadvantage youth scholarships, and all these other programs because segregation and redlining and thousands of other local, state, and municipal policies created that need. And honestly these programs are often underfunded and under serve the people they try to help, they have wait lists and for every one kid that gets a scholarship to better school there are 10 eligible kids who want it and qualify for it and don't get it. There are people who want a good education in this country and just can't get it. And you know what? it's literally a money problem, every time the government has invested in education on a federal level the whole of the country benefited - and yet we have politicians today that say the government shouldn't spend on education and shouldn't invest in it's citizens, choosing to ignore both the racial disparate impact and overall societal detriment that such a platform has. You are extrapolating one isolated case to the whole of a population nationwide, it's a little problematic. But I get your point, yes in hard work like construction good work may be hard to find for a variety of reasons. The drug epidemic certainly has changed the landscape for the worse as well. It's also hard work, and it's work that's accessible to people who don't have a lot of education, or maybe are struggling with other issues and self medicating those issues. And yes, there are some people in there who may be irresponsible as well. And while I am sure your employer friend thinks he pays a fair wage, he may not actually be doing that, his employees may not feel like they are getting paid what they are worth. There is a lot to analyze for any situation and it is difficult to just say: yep it's all due to lazy ass people and nothing else. Explain this. what laws ignore diversity? side note: I despise the term SJW because too many people use it incorrectly, and it's become just kind of a slur for conservative people to just label any "mouthy liberal". From my perspective, most people are just asking for things to be more diverse. Celebrate diversity as a rally cry was really used to call for more diversity in places like college campuses, workplaces, etc... and to get it though programs that offer opportunities to people who were being closed out of it. And you know what? it takes some rules and regulations to force diversity sometimes, and without them there is a lot of empirical evidence that they revert back. This isn't ancient history - this happened with in our lifetimes. Either you believe in the value of intersectionality or you don't. If you do, then look at what's being asked for and what's being proposed and you'll see it's not about handouts, that's just a stupid myth, it's about fighting against a system that inherently tries to segregate because at one point that was the goal. There is always a debate as to whether percentage based quotas are still effective or whether things have shifted to game the system and something else needs to manage diversity. Either way, I don't think we have made it to the point where diversity will occur naturally and still needs to be managed. http://www.workforce.com/1995/08/01/affirmative-action-what-you-need-to-know/ The equal proportion thing is an ideal target. If we truly managed to rid our society of this sort of bias, then we should see it occur naturally (or at least something reasonably close) without programs to assist. The logic behind a lot of these programs (like affirmative action) was that diversity was self perpetuating, once you started to have it, it would keep going, and to a certain degree it is, but I think that gets relied upon too much when a real change is need at the root cause. What you are describing to some degree though might be more affected by something that is not racially motivated - the peter principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#The_Peter_Principle The basic idea is that people are often promoted into their incompetence, and while a lot has been done to mitigate this - it's still prevelant in all areas of business. It's an easy thing to blame affirmative action for, esp since there is a racial promotion bias that affirmative action tries to address, but the reality is if you keep promoting people eventually they will reach a level of job that exceeds their skill and that has nothing to do with race. BTW, it's not just single company promotion we are talking about but also job hopping defacto promotion. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't have boots. before your first thing can happen, we as a society need to work towards making sure the opportunity is there for them when they want to fix it. You keep talking about them "fixing problems in their community" but a lot of the problems in the community are poverty related. Nobody seems to be saying white people need to fix insider trading, but there are a lot of people that blame black people for violent crime, even though it has been on a decline for the last 20+ years. Saying black people need to fix things in the community is one of those racial dog whistles that blames a lot of undesirable societal ills on race. A lot of what is seen as "needs to be fixed" affects poor white people too, but we don't seem as concerned with them fixing what's wrong in the poor white community - as if robbery or mugging or gang violence was an exclusively black problem. It isn't. Education and opportunity comes first, the rest will sort itself out.

https://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack be smarter, will ya. This was written in 1988, and it's still relevant. and if you have a hard time relating it to poor white Americans: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255.html

Privilege can be created by racism. Privilege is just an advantage granted to people and it can be granted along race lines by racist policy/laws/system. We are still today living with the effects of racist policy that has roots 100 years ago and was only very recently (as in both out lifetimes) starting to change. Why is it irony? because I am white? That's pretty stupid logic. I don't "add" race to things here - there is a differential in society divided along race lines and you either recognize it or you ignore it, but ignoring it has a danger - it allows the inherent racism baked into the system to continue. Lets be clear about something, even the most extreme liberal does not sees "race" as being 100% detrimentally effected - as in all people of X race are destined and predetermined to fail. The problem you have is that you see it as as all or nothing proposition - It has to give a clear advantage 100% of the time along race lines or it doesn't exist and that is just a fallacy. It effects people differently at different socioeconomic strata in different degrees - however there is a baseline and the baseline is different based on race. I am not saying black people can't overcome adversity, but it is harder for them to do so, and it is harder by design stemming from events put into motion that predate us both. Why should it be harder for someone to overcome adversity because of race? why do we have to accept that when it was artificially created to begin with? Skin color is not inherently anything other than what it appears to be, but it is our society that ascribes privileges and detriments and it does so intentionally. Do you believe in luck? IT seems like you choose to hang out with lucky people more than you hang out with "winners". https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/ This is the one thing I truly despise about you Tim, you have no problem with victim blaming and victim shaming. Its a real character flaw. I can understand and support the idea of positive mental attitude, and ambition, and completely get behind positive environments produce results - but there are limits to this. Using positivism to assign blame to people for things that are beyond their control is shitty. Guilty until proven innocent, eh? So congressmen should get a pass on their crimes because you personally value them more? I thought you hated the government and all politicians are liars? this isn't about contributions to society or value it's just about you being a hypocrite and rooting for your political team. The "crackhead" (who I am 99% sure you just assume is a crackhead or a loser without actually knowing) can't help your political party so you are free to call them a turd, and it's really easy to do because they don't resemble you in any way. I have to tell you, JJ isn't the only person in congress critical of the Muller investigation, he's not even the most outspoken - Louie Gohmert is way more visible, but he is somehow the only one where there is an outstanding scandal? come on man - don't let your inner Alex Jones out of it's cage and cloud what's left of your logic and reason. Whether you like it or not, dude was there, he worked for OSU, and student athletes in his charge were molested/raped. None of that is in dispute, not even by him (although he loves victim blaming too about the timing). Either he was too stupid to see what was going on, or he chose to ignore it - take your pick, neither of these seem like stand up guy qualities to me.

Nothing wrong with racism built into our legal and justice system? really? Nobody is saying privilege in a vacuum is a bad thing. It isn't. Privilege that comes at the suppression of someone else and that blocks people from seeing injustice is when it gets to be a problem in not good. If you use your privilege to do good in this world and have a positive impact more power too you. If you use it do bad, well that's bad. If you pretend it doesn't exist in order to keep perpetuating a system that was designed to disparately impact a racial minority - that's pretty shitty. I happily own that I have white privilege. I happily used it to fight for civil rights for people when I lived in Louisiana, I happily use it for consumer protection in my current role. What do you do with yours? yes but for a lot of those people that starting place was artificial. And their path is more difficult because it was engineered to be more difficult out of hate and fear, and it perpetuates because there is a large segment of the population who chooses to ignore the road for certain groups was paved with broken glass and pretend like it's all their fault they can't run at the same pace as other's whose path is not paved with broken glass. At this point he is "suspected" of it - you are correct. But I wouldn't exactly call him a stand up guy in light of the sheer number of students (up to 100 now) who were in his care and the faculty he worked with that have come forward to say that he knew. And honestly he isn't to shoulder the blame for all of it either - complaints were made to the university and it didn't get any traction either. But, you are always quick to call people turds when it is just the news report of a mugging and they are not convicted yet either. YOu complain about a court of public opinion that you contribute to. Unless there is a culture to hide it, which it seems there was. Complaints were made to the university, and it looks like OSU didn't do shit either, and guess what, JJ was a part of that engine and that culture. How much he contributed to it is what's at issue. If he knew, then he was a part of the coverup as much as anyone, if he didn't, then he is a victim of it as well. But let's put this into context - large organizations are really good at hiding evil and suppressing victims. The catholic Church did it for over 70 years (and may still be doing it) to the point where new statutes of limitations had to be passed in order to take action against some of it. This is just victim blaming/shaming, and honestly it contributes and empowers the suppression of victims. It's a shitty attitude. People are embarrassed by being victims of sex crimes without any pressure to suppress, add in the people in power not doing anything about it, and you with your "well it's your fault for not saying something sooner" and it's a wonder anybody comes forward at all. As for the suspect timing - well Larry Nasser happened. And because the rapist Dr. Strauss was employed for a period that is within the statute of limitations for sex crimes OSU has some real liability and desire to investigate in the wake of Larry Nasser (and there is a class action suit as well). IIRC the SOL of sex crims is 20 years, but aiding and abetting crimes is 6 (I didn't look it up - top of head). To allege it is some deep state democratic plot Tim just makes you sound like a kook. Which is more likely: - A verdict is handed down expanding the liability of organizations that have sports programs and those organizations begin investigating ones they knew and forgot about because they took no action? or - a bunch of politicians spent thousands of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get 100+ people to make false allegations?

Ok, then factor in segregation, redlining, housing discrimination, racist covenants, etc.... and you can see how it gets to depriving people of good education quick. here you can read this book: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america and this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-government-intentionally-racially-segregated-american-cities-180963494/ and this: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2016/12/15/294374/the-united-states-history-of-segregated-housing-continues-to-limit-affordable-housing/ and it still goes on today: http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1968-Housing-Discrimination-Today.html Housing discrimination is a defacto form of education discrimination. Education is a significant factor in opportunities for success. I am not talking fewer overall, I mean fewer percentage wise relative to their population. The standard that usually gets discusses is an equal percentage in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example if there are 100 white kids, 20 black kids, 20 Hispanic kids and 60 other races and 50% of them go to college then your class should be 50 white kids 10 black kids, 10 hispanic kids and 30 other races - and that's ok because they are all 50% of their respective population. Where it gets troubling is when you look at enrollment and it's 80 white kids, and 5 black kids, and 2 hispanic kids, and 10 others because now you have 80% white, 25% black, 10% hispanic, and 30% other races - not an equal proportion. here, have some fun reading: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html and we are talking about enrollment, we aren't even talking about completing the program which also seems to disproportionately affect non-whites: http://college.usatoday.com/2017/03/07/report-the-race-gap-in-higher-education-is-very-real/ https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/26/college-completion-rates-vary-race-and-ethnicity-report-finds I don't think you understand Affirmative Action. It isn't a handout or a requirement to hire an unqualified person. It actually stems back to FDR's administration as a way to prevent employers from blacklisting union employees. I am not super thrilled at Affirmative Action because it is a band aid fix for a much larger systemic problem, but it does work as a shortcut to get QUALIFIED minorities opportunities that would more often go to their white counterparts. By the way one positive legislation that favors opportunity to minorities is a drop in the bucket to the thousands of laws that were written to disadvantage minorities for hundreds of years. Asian cultural success is a myth. As in not true. It's one of those stereotypes that people who want to ignore racial disparity in this country choose to believe but the numbers seldom bear out. http://fortune.com/2018/06/04/asian-americans-model-minority-asian-glass-ceiling/ What facts? you haven't proposed any facts other than to state that you believe there isn't a racial disparity and you believe a lot of stereotypes.

Oh yeah? ever try to register a kid at a school for which he doesn't live in the district? It isn't easy or cheap. false conclusion. It would mean there were fewer at the table, which there are. There are always outliers and exceptions. There used to be almost none, and then we started to work on this issue around 1964 or so, so now there are some, but not as many as there should be. where are you getting this from? From my standpoint what people are asking for are opportunities. So black people are lazy then? is that what you are saying? because they don't want to get up to that table? Again this comes down to whether you believe the odds are different based on race. You don't believe it to be so, and there is a lot of evidence that disagrees with you. Also almost all of American history as well. I can't force you to be more knowledgeable about this issue, but I don't have to accept your opinion as remotely based in fact either.

Wow, this is a stunning display of logic gymnastics just to get to an ugly conclusion. Statistically speaking, as a race Black people are not as successful as white people in America. That is a fact of the numbers, their income is less, their overall wealth is less, it's not in dispute. What you are doing here is saying "the system isn't rigged against them" so the logical conclusion is that they must be the inferior race. What I am saying is "the system has an inherent RACIAL bias" and therefore they are at a disadvantage. It has nothing to do with them being an inferior race - in fact it would require them to be at least equals in order to be the root cause explanation for the disparity of income/wealth. I could turn this around and say that you are just saying that black people are more lazy - that is what this statement is inferring: Are you saying that? because it would be pretty horrible if you were. I am not accusing you of racism like you are doing to me (although to answer your question as to who is the closet racist - yeah that's still you), but you are ignoring something that is a fact - the system has a racial bias. A lot of people a long time ago worked very hard to make sure that was true and it is still having an effect today. Just because you lack the knowledge to believe it doesn't make it less true.