There is a part of me that wonders if these high level conversations aren't more reflective of what people remember about whatever teen/coming of age movie than the complicated reality of US education. On the one hand there are places that seem to under invest and where the operation is subject to a lot of politicized misdirection and pure incompetence (to say nothing of the places where there is a larger social and economic collapse).
At the same time, as I understand it, our best and brightest are as competitive as those from anywhere, and our median ain't awful either, but our mean is dragged down considerably by the existence of crazy outlier poor performers.
Technically for H-1B the motte is 'I cannot find an American to do this job, in spite of a good faith attempt to do so.'
I'm not going to try to argue that's never true but I'd like to think we all approach claims from tech entrepreneurs with skepticism, given how self interested they are in the subject.
Like a lot of things culture war ends up imposed on an up for debate economic policy. Keeps anyone from asking basic questions about whether the policy actually does what it's supposed to do.
Heh I think whatever old school lecturing there is has become so inconsequential and overshadowed by patronizing identity leftism that it's driving black men to vote the other way. It isn't a real issue anymore, and the over correction has gone so far that even innocuous life skills stuff has a good chance of being treated as racism in a number of important contexts including education and employment.
I do think there's a point in there about American culture failing to incubate hard work and excellence as important values. I'm just not sure the H-1B system or the values that come with people via that channel is a great example of the corrective. The immigrants that do really impressive things in STEM fields tend to be the types that want to escape the conformity of their home cultures, not the ones that excelled in the pressure cooker model of education that prevails in east Asia. Silicon Valley was built more by free thinking hippie types and rule breakers than people who spent their childhoods studying 20 hours per day for a state administered exam.
H-1Bs are in my experience neither of these things. You do get some very talented people coming through, and we should absolutely want them to stay and become Americans. Along with them though you also often get their useless in laws with a bordering on fake degree. Before you know it half the department is comprised of that person's friends and relatives, but modern HR conventions prevent anyone from talking about what's going on in more than the most euphemistic ways. Meanwhile the C suite is celebrating improvements to the bottom line but no one knows why DevOps (or wherever) is suddenly a black hole and QC doesn't seem to function anymore.
White people lecturing black people? In 2024? I need some of what you're smoking.
Not that Vivek is totally wrong about American values. He's just also off about H-1Bs. They aren't about talent they're about cost/(alleged) inability to find Americans with a required skillset. As best as I can tell from anecdotal experience it operates as a combination of indentured servitude and backdoor way for people to move their entire village and extended family to the US, often using highly suspect credentials, maybe at the expense of quality and competence. So an odd arrangement
divorced from original intent where corporate America and would-be immigrants exploit each other in a race to the bottom.
That's missing the point of the comment. I'm personally against the death penalty because, among other reasons, it's clear there's no way to have it without occasionally killing an innocent (or at least not guilty of the capital offense) person. It's not a price worth paying.
The point is that arguing about 'equity' or whatever, in this context, is plainly ridiculous. The government could solve that one by deciding to execute more people, rather than fewer or none at all.
I don't know if that's an entirely apples to apples comparison but it doesn't matter. The point is I don't see how people can consider themselves defenders of the liberal order if their version of the overton window is so narrow it precludes debate on major matters of public policy. I mean, if your vision of politics is one where the same people who all agree on everything are perpetually empowered and dissenters face state backed censure and/or prosecution then uh... newsflash... you probably aren't who you think you are.
Oh for goodness sakes guys. We're talking about immigration policy. That's well within the realm of topics that a democracy can and must be able to debate. And anyone who really thinks it isn't needs to ask themselves some hard questions about which side they're actually on in the democracy versus not democracy debate.
A small backlash? If the election were held today they would be the 2nd biggest party in the Bundestag. Every effort to suppress them, rather than defeat them, has only expanded their appeal. It's a serious problem that the type of politics you're proposing is completely incapable of dealing with. That's in large part because constantly accusing everyone that disagrees on immigration policy (or whatever else) of being evil has rendered those that do without any credibility. Fewer and fewer people take that kind of talk seriously. That isn't blaming 'immigrants.' It's holding politicians responsible for the foolhardy belief that requests for asylum by foreigners supersede the views of citizens in a democracy. That's not just idiotic, it's in direct conflict with the way the government works.
If they ban AfD it will only make their ongoing political crisis worse. The popular rebellion over there is a natural outgrowth of how unserious Germany's leadership has been over the last 15-20 years. Instead of thinking ahead they doubled down on Russian energy, the Chinese export market, and outsourcing their defense to the US. Then they flooded the country with refugees and other irregular immigrants from countries and cultures hostile to their own. Both of the big mainstream parties have their fingerprints all over it and neither has done a credible pivot. So AfD sucks but their ascension so far has been through normal democratic politics and is therefore perfectly legitimate. The way to defeat them is for the mainstream parties to get their heads out of their asses and prove they can do a better job running the country.
I envy the people who get the two weeks off off. Since I became an in-house lawyer I've spent the time in an on call capacity. On the one hand, no one is really looking for me in the normal sense. On the other there are are contracts that need to be completed by years end, last call here, final edit there, with the added complicating factor that many of the people in the process are suddenly unreachable. However there are certainly much worse things, and at least I can do it all from my desk at home.
I agree. AOC doesn't best align with my policy preferences but she's been a team player when it mattered. She didn't deserve to he done dirty like that. Certainly not for another end of career greybeard.
No, that's a kind of abstract rationalization, not an accurate diagnosis of reality.
It also assumes that all people who are homeless could cure that condition without at minimum some pretty serious coercion from the state. And even then not all people can be rehabilitated. This is just a fact. And so the euphemism becomes a bait and switch (intentional or not) to use the fixable condition of those down on their luck to justify helping fentanyl addicts and schizophrenics live indefinitely in squalor in a park or behind a train station or wherever else.
This is also a good example of the kind of fuzzy thinking I referenced above.
That last paragraph has me doubting all of this. If the people in the field already use that terminology they should have some set of results that show how it helps.
My perception (which I grant is unscientific) is that the opposite is happening. People are more pissed off at the homeless than they have been in decades because of the loss of public parks, libraries, mass transit, and similar accommodations to addicts and people with serious mental health problems. And it's the people that insist on terms like 'people experiencing homelessness' most likely to tell them that frustration with the situation is a personal moral failing.
What does 'humanize the homeless' even mean, and how does the change accomplish it? How would we measure it and how would we know if it's working or not?
I don't think you know. I don't think anyone knows, or that there is an answer that doesn't assume a bunch of highly contested premises. Which is the whole problem. At this point it also doesn't escape notice that those who prefer and aggressively promote this sort of terminology, when given the opportunity, have tended to use it to enable the most dangerous and destructive behaviors of people with serious addiction and mental problems. The system is adapting to the tactic.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024”
All good points.
There is a part of me that wonders if these high level conversations aren't more reflective of what people remember about whatever teen/coming of age movie than the complicated reality of US education. On the one hand there are places that seem to under invest and where the operation is subject to a lot of politicized misdirection and pure incompetence (to say nothing of the places where there is a larger social and economic collapse).
At the same time, as I understand it, our best and brightest are as competitive as those from anywhere, and our median ain't awful either, but our mean is dragged down considerably by the existence of crazy outlier poor performers.
"
Heh, exactly.
"
Technically for H-1B the motte is 'I cannot find an American to do this job, in spite of a good faith attempt to do so.'
I'm not going to try to argue that's never true but I'd like to think we all approach claims from tech entrepreneurs with skepticism, given how self interested they are in the subject.
"
Like a lot of things culture war ends up imposed on an up for debate economic policy. Keeps anyone from asking basic questions about whether the policy actually does what it's supposed to do.
"
Heh I think whatever old school lecturing there is has become so inconsequential and overshadowed by patronizing identity leftism that it's driving black men to vote the other way. It isn't a real issue anymore, and the over correction has gone so far that even innocuous life skills stuff has a good chance of being treated as racism in a number of important contexts including education and employment.
I do think there's a point in there about American culture failing to incubate hard work and excellence as important values. I'm just not sure the H-1B system or the values that come with people via that channel is a great example of the corrective. The immigrants that do really impressive things in STEM fields tend to be the types that want to escape the conformity of their home cultures, not the ones that excelled in the pressure cooker model of education that prevails in east Asia. Silicon Valley was built more by free thinking hippie types and rule breakers than people who spent their childhoods studying 20 hours per day for a state administered exam.
H-1Bs are in my experience neither of these things. You do get some very talented people coming through, and we should absolutely want them to stay and become Americans. Along with them though you also often get their useless in laws with a bordering on fake degree. Before you know it half the department is comprised of that person's friends and relatives, but modern HR conventions prevent anyone from talking about what's going on in more than the most euphemistic ways. Meanwhile the C suite is celebrating improvements to the bottom line but no one knows why DevOps (or wherever) is suddenly a black hole and QC doesn't seem to function anymore.
"
White people lecturing black people? In 2024? I need some of what you're smoking.
Not that Vivek is totally wrong about American values. He's just also off about H-1Bs. They aren't about talent they're about cost/(alleged) inability to find Americans with a required skillset. As best as I can tell from anecdotal experience it operates as a combination of indentured servitude and backdoor way for people to move their entire village and extended family to the US, often using highly suspect credentials, maybe at the expense of quality and competence. So an odd arrangement
divorced from original intent where corporate America and would-be immigrants exploit each other in a race to the bottom.
On “Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty”
I think there is a very good chance they already have and we just haven't caught up to the new reality yet.
"
That's missing the point of the comment. I'm personally against the death penalty because, among other reasons, it's clear there's no way to have it without occasionally killing an innocent (or at least not guilty of the capital offense) person. It's not a price worth paying.
The point is that arguing about 'equity' or whatever, in this context, is plainly ridiculous. The government could solve that one by deciding to execute more people, rather than fewer or none at all.
"
I never know what to do with that one. Is the ask to kill more people? It sounds like the concept for a Slayer album.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
I don't know if that's an entirely apples to apples comparison but it doesn't matter. The point is I don't see how people can consider themselves defenders of the liberal order if their version of the overton window is so narrow it precludes debate on major matters of public policy. I mean, if your vision of politics is one where the same people who all agree on everything are perpetually empowered and dissenters face state backed censure and/or prosecution then uh... newsflash... you probably aren't who you think you are.
"
Oh for goodness sakes guys. We're talking about immigration policy. That's well within the realm of topics that a democracy can and must be able to debate. And anyone who really thinks it isn't needs to ask themselves some hard questions about which side they're actually on in the democracy versus not democracy debate.
"
Do you not understand the irony of speaking positively about banning political parties in the same breath as accusing people of being Na.zis?
"
A small backlash? If the election were held today they would be the 2nd biggest party in the Bundestag. Every effort to suppress them, rather than defeat them, has only expanded their appeal. It's a serious problem that the type of politics you're proposing is completely incapable of dealing with. That's in large part because constantly accusing everyone that disagrees on immigration policy (or whatever else) of being evil has rendered those that do without any credibility. Fewer and fewer people take that kind of talk seriously. That isn't blaming 'immigrants.' It's holding politicians responsible for the foolhardy belief that requests for asylum by foreigners supersede the views of citizens in a democracy. That's not just idiotic, it's in direct conflict with the way the government works.
"
I blame the availability of military style assault cars.
"
If they ban AfD it will only make their ongoing political crisis worse. The popular rebellion over there is a natural outgrowth of how unserious Germany's leadership has been over the last 15-20 years. Instead of thinking ahead they doubled down on Russian energy, the Chinese export market, and outsourcing their defense to the US. Then they flooded the country with refugees and other irregular immigrants from countries and cultures hostile to their own. Both of the big mainstream parties have their fingerprints all over it and neither has done a credible pivot. So AfD sucks but their ascension so far has been through normal democratic politics and is therefore perfectly legitimate. The way to defeat them is for the mainstream parties to get their heads out of their asses and prove they can do a better job running the country.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Ghost Town”
That's life as a big shot!
On “Fani Willis Disqualification Ruling: Read It For Yourself”
Even if they get him for something in 2029 it will be cold comfort. He's already won.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Ghost Town”
I envy the people who get the two weeks off off. Since I became an in-house lawyer I've spent the time in an on call capacity. On the one hand, no one is really looking for me in the normal sense. On the other there are are contracts that need to be completed by years end, last call here, final edit there, with the added complicating factor that many of the people in the process are suddenly unreachable. However there are certainly much worse things, and at least I can do it all from my desk at home.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
I actually think he will have a tough time pinning this on anyone else. I'm not sure Biden still exists.
"
I agree. AOC doesn't best align with my policy preferences but she's been a team player when it mattered. She didn't deserve to he done dirty like that. Certainly not for another end of career greybeard.
"
This is where I kind of agree with Saul. I'd say f 'em and go home for Christmas.
"
No, that's a kind of abstract rationalization, not an accurate diagnosis of reality.
It also assumes that all people who are homeless could cure that condition without at minimum some pretty serious coercion from the state. And even then not all people can be rehabilitated. This is just a fact. And so the euphemism becomes a bait and switch (intentional or not) to use the fixable condition of those down on their luck to justify helping fentanyl addicts and schizophrenics live indefinitely in squalor in a park or behind a train station or wherever else.
This is also a good example of the kind of fuzzy thinking I referenced above.
"
That last paragraph has me doubting all of this. If the people in the field already use that terminology they should have some set of results that show how it helps.
My perception (which I grant is unscientific) is that the opposite is happening. People are more pissed off at the homeless than they have been in decades because of the loss of public parks, libraries, mass transit, and similar accommodations to addicts and people with serious mental health problems. And it's the people that insist on terms like 'people experiencing homelessness' most likely to tell them that frustration with the situation is a personal moral failing.
"
What does 'humanize the homeless' even mean, and how does the change accomplish it? How would we measure it and how would we know if it's working or not?
I don't think you know. I don't think anyone knows, or that there is an answer that doesn't assume a bunch of highly contested premises. Which is the whole problem. At this point it also doesn't escape notice that those who prefer and aggressively promote this sort of terminology, when given the opportunity, have tended to use it to enable the most dangerous and destructive behaviors of people with serious addiction and mental problems. The system is adapting to the tactic.
On “Fani Willis Disqualification Ruling: Read It For Yourself”
She failed to successfully prosecute the strongest case against Trump. It's inexcusable.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.