Dark can speak for himself, but I suspect that he means something like mainstream American culture is so compelling (sex, drugs, rock and roll, wear what you like, eat what you please, marry -- or shack up with -- whom you will) that outliers will be sucked in eventually or reduced to small, self-ghettoized populations. My guess is he isn't approving or disapproving, just stating what he thinks is a fact.
An excuse to tell a story that I, at least, think is funny. I have been "sued" for my professional conduct. I put "sued" in quotation marks because the plaintiff served me with something that looks like a federal complaint, but she never filed it with any court. (I could have put "served" in quotation marks too, because it wasn't proper service, but since the case wasn't filed, who cares?)
The poor misguided plaintiff was, essentially, suing me for successfully defending a client in a sexual harassment lawsuit she had brought. It was, of course, my misconduct that caused her to lose rather than the weakness of her case. Or so at least she thought. The defendant was the plaintiff's chemistry professor. As I always do when I represent a male alleged to have sexually harassed a woman (I've never represented a female harasser, but hope to do so before I retire.), I had what I like to call the "just between us guys" conversation. It's designed to smoke out whether the client's denials are on the level or whether he's the type to do something like what he was accused of doing. Since I usually haven't seen the plaintiff yet, I do a little nudge, nudge, wink, wink to get him to tell me, essentially, how hot he thinks the plaintiff is. (I know, I know, it's about power, not lust. Except it's about lust, too.) The response is usually quite revealing.
In this case, I was interviewing my client alongside the in-house counsel for the college. The client's answers were unusually awkward. Finally, he told us that he was gay, but that he wasn't out and would prefer to keep that out of the case. I told him I thought we could win the case without outing him, but if it began to look as if we'd need to drop that bomb I'd let him know and we could revisit the issue. After the client left, the in-house counsel told me how impressed he was at how that turned out. We never did need to use it, though it would have been fun.
When I took her deposition, I saw, for the first time, a dumpy, middle-aged bottle blonde. She described some fairly innocuous behavior and I asked whether she thought he was sexually attracted to her. When she said yes, I couldn't help saying "Why?"
1. No.
2. Don't know and don't care to look it up. I do know that most of them don't go anywhere.
3. I have to think it has happened once or twice in 40-odd years, but I don't remember any gripes about it.
I've seen research, which I can't locate now (most of my library is currently in storage), suggesting that teaching ability is surprisingly randomly distributed among good and bad schools. If you go by Freddie DeB's theories about why schools get the results they get, this wouldn't be all that surprising.
Dark can speak for himself, but I suspect that he means something like mainstream American culture is so compelling (sex, drugs, rock and roll, wear what you like, eat what you please, marry -- or shack up with -- whom you will) that outliers will be sucked in eventually or reduced to small, self-ghettoized populations. My guess is he isn't approving or disapproving, just stating what he thinks is a fact.
To what extent ought we expect immigrants to assimilate into their new culture?
And, golly gee, wouldn’t it have been swell to hammer that particular point out *PRIOR* to millions and millions moving in?
It’s not that I don’t understand these conclusions, it’s that I don’t agree with them.
Dark, Jaybird has always had trouble with that concept.
About 300-odd years too late for that.
You must be new around here.
An excuse to tell a story that I, at least, think is funny. I have been "sued" for my professional conduct. I put "sued" in quotation marks because the plaintiff served me with something that looks like a federal complaint, but she never filed it with any court. (I could have put "served" in quotation marks too, because it wasn't proper service, but since the case wasn't filed, who cares?)
The poor misguided plaintiff was, essentially, suing me for successfully defending a client in a sexual harassment lawsuit she had brought. It was, of course, my misconduct that caused her to lose rather than the weakness of her case. Or so at least she thought. The defendant was the plaintiff's chemistry professor. As I always do when I represent a male alleged to have sexually harassed a woman (I've never represented a female harasser, but hope to do so before I retire.), I had what I like to call the "just between us guys" conversation. It's designed to smoke out whether the client's denials are on the level or whether he's the type to do something like what he was accused of doing. Since I usually haven't seen the plaintiff yet, I do a little nudge, nudge, wink, wink to get him to tell me, essentially, how hot he thinks the plaintiff is. (I know, I know, it's about power, not lust. Except it's about lust, too.) The response is usually quite revealing.
In this case, I was interviewing my client alongside the in-house counsel for the college. The client's answers were unusually awkward. Finally, he told us that he was gay, but that he wasn't out and would prefer to keep that out of the case. I told him I thought we could win the case without outing him, but if it began to look as if we'd need to drop that bomb I'd let him know and we could revisit the issue. After the client left, the in-house counsel told me how impressed he was at how that turned out. We never did need to use it, though it would have been fun.
When I took her deposition, I saw, for the first time, a dumpy, middle-aged bottle blonde. She described some fairly innocuous behavior and I asked whether she thought he was sexually attracted to her. When she said yes, I couldn't help saying "Why?"
1. No.
2. Don't know and don't care to look it up. I do know that most of them don't go anywhere.
3. I have to think it has happened once or twice in 40-odd years, but I don't remember any gripes about it.
I've seen research, which I can't locate now (most of my library is currently in storage), suggesting that teaching ability is surprisingly randomly distributed among good and bad schools. If you go by Freddie DeB's theories about why schools get the results they get, this wouldn't be all that surprising.
It doesn't matter if the Democrats don't talk about it. The Republicans will.