|
Yeah the show pretty plainly stated that it was mostly black and latino families that had kids in the public schools.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
cebrail posted:Yes, I didn't like the onesidedness either. Obviously it's easy to judge it on an emotional level, but aside from the thing with special needs students and yeshivas which sounded like semilegal lawyer crap, but issue isn't really the behavior of the hasidic community, there's nothing inherently wrong with voting against taxes you don't like. There's a serious problem with eroding the public good at the expense of a minority population. The truth is not always in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:Yeah the show pretty plainly stated that it was mostly black and latino families that had kids in the public schools. Oops, yeah, you're right. I should have said that the difference is that it was a minority group that had the power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:There's a serious problem with eroding the public good at the expense of a minority population. The truth is not always in the middle. But you can make the case that the "the public good" isn't served by funneling money away from low-income groups to schools that they don't use. If you ask me, the problem is a funding structure that is clearly not sending enough money for education to this relatively poor town, and leaving different groups there to fight viciously over the scraps. Meanwhile, the best and most well-funded public schools serve wealthy neighborhoods, where people CAN afford private schools, special needs education, and whatever else, but don't need to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Quoting myself here, but having read this article, it does a more thorough job of explaining the Hasidim side of the story, without vindicating them completely. It's a good article and I definitely recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
wafflesnsegways posted:But you can make the case that the "the public good" isn't served by funneling money away from low-income groups to schools that they don't use. They're more than welcome to use the public schools just like everyone else. Having a religion that wants them to use private schools does not morally justify the defunding of the schools for everyone else. It is causing real harm for the minority population. The lack of AP courses and extracurricular activities will harm those students that are left. Yes, you shouldn't have local funding of schools to better even out these situations, discussing that at the exclusion of holding this school board responsible for gutting the local education system for religious reasons is nuts. They are acting in an immoral manner, and they are causing harm to others to benefit themselves. There is no "other side" to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
It's not just the defunding of extracurriculars and cutting AP classes, which are important. The school board defunded the district to the extent that there were so few teachers, students were unable to earn a high school diploma in 4 years. We see students who spend a good chunk of the day twiddling their thumbs because they can't get into the right classes, which are too few. That's ridiculous, and clearly a sign that the school board is not fulfilling its duties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
I do not usually listen to this show, but if the Carmen Segarra "Goldman Sachs Tapes" episode is any indication, they might need some outside fact checkers to help them out. I listened to the entire thing two times and they never make one thing clear: Carmen Segarra was wrong with the finding she martyred herself over. She was wrong. The first time I listened I was on her side, but at the end, during her firing, when I realized she was actually wrong the entire time I listened again. She suffers from an affliction quite a few Type A Ivy Leaguers do, they absolutely do not know how to say "You are right, I am wrong" sorry. She wanted to issue a finding that said "Goldman Sachs has no conflict of interest policy." However, the last 20 minutes makes it clear they do have multiple conflict of interest policies. Three divisions have their own, and they had an overall firm wide code which also mentioned conflict of interest policies. However, it is clear these policies are inadequate by the federal guidelines (I am not familiar with what these guidelines consist of). The correct thing to do is alter your finding to "Goldman Sachs has inadequate conflict of interest policies." She refused to do it. Her arrogance is so high three years later she still thinks she was correct. The show owes it to listeners who have no regulatory experience (I would guess roughly 99.9% of the people who listen) to clarify this point. Also, something is just off here. While I have no doubt the Fed does a horrible job of regulating Goldman Sachs (the part where the guy "nailed them" for not getting regulator approval was so pathetic I played it and my coworkers and we almost fell over laughing), it is weird to be so paranoid you start secretly recording meetings about 3 months after you start working there. I feel like she had another motive. There is a lot more to this story and I will not be surprised if at the end Carmen Segarra looks like a clown. edit Also, I just remembered during one of her meetings with her boss, he said she uses "definitely and always" way too much. This is a subtle trait you will notice for people who always think they are right and smarter than everyone else in the room. It is also really annoying because there is a massive difference between most of the time and always. Words like that should be used very rarely in an environment like this. Ribsauce fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Chas McGill posted:I actually really liked Radiolab because it sounded fresh when I first listened to it, yet now I find its style completely obnoxious, particularly how the hosts will quote the interviewee rather than let them speak for themselves. One of the good things about Ira is how he's able to let a story breathe and stand on its own without too much radio massaging. Old rear end post, but are there any more like this one? Just regular people talking about regular poo poo without anyone trying to be all profound or political.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Cool Blue Reason posted:Old rear end post, but are there any more like this one? Just regular people talking about regular poo poo without anyone trying to be all profound or political. The episode on an aircraft carrier shortly after 9/11 is good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:33
|
|
Tater Love 
|
Cool Blue Reason posted:Old rear end post, but are there any more like this one? Just regular people talking about regular poo poo without anyone trying to be all profound or political. You might like Rest Stop(#388), which sort of tries to do the same thing as Golden Apple, although I felt it was a bit less successful. The Georgia Rambler (#413) is also good for more ordinary stories, though it's not quite as raw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Ribsauce posted:Words TAL said they ran it by outside experts who sided with her. But I came away from the episode with an inkling of some of the same thoughts as you. I just don't know enough about that world or these specifics to decide what I think. If I find out that she's an overdramatic, ungrounded, and biased person, I wouldn't be surprised. But if it instead turns out that she's the only principled one and the rest of the fed is patting themselves on the back for meaningless busywork, I also wouldn't be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Ribsauce posted:Carmen Segarra "Goldman Sachs Tapes" episode Also wanted to add: She did the "MMM HMM" noise loving constantly, like she knew everything that they were going to say and she just wanted to get to the part where she could talk. In the end nothing is going to be done about this, the Fed is still in bed with the banks and will continue to be. The whole episode was less than revelatory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
As I understood it, Goldman Sachs had a bunch of documents and mission statements about the importance of conflict of interest policies and stated commitments to improve COI policies. It seemed unclear as to whether they actually HAD a conflict of interest policy though, outside of those three division.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
And having three different lovely barely-policies out of six divisions still means you don't have a firm-wide policy. Also, the whole point of the report they were mixing in with her tapes was that to cause change in the Fed, they NEED people who are abrasive and over-confident. The scales are leaning way too far in the meek range for anyone who's even-handed to not get washed up in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
I would have to see the actual documents (and federal regulations) to know exactly what they had firm wide and how in compliance it was, but the impression I got from the tapes is they had a firm wide code of conduct (apparently posted on their website even) and it had a few paragraphs about conflicts of interest. If that is the case, and my post is under the assumption it is, then she cannot put out the finding she wanted to. I thought she even acknowledged the paragraphs and said something like "they mention conflict of interest here, but they do not meet federal regulations, so therefore they have no conflict of interest policy" which is not how it works. They have an inadequate conflict of interest policy. Varinn posted:Also, the whole point of the report they were mixing in with her tapes was that to cause change in the Fed, they NEED people who are abrasive and over-confident. The scales are leaning way too far in the meek range for anyone who's even-handed to not get washed up in it. Over-confidence is bad. It leads to this exact situation, where you are wrong and it is right in front of you in black and white and you cannot admit it. This lady thinks she is the smartest person in the room in every room she has walked in. She cannot comprehend she could be wrong about anything. She thinks so is so much smarter and superior than everyone else that within 90 days she is recording everything around her to one day show how smart she is. This is the same mindset that leads us into 15 year wars. Again, after reading a couple of articles and before listening to the entire thing, I was totally biased in her favor. I actually had to relisten to the entire show after the last 30 minutes. She comes off horribly, and this is from information she provided. I would not want to work with her. The Fed doesn't need people who idea of hitting someone with a finding is "ummm, yea guys, to button up a point here, you were supposed to get regulator approval...did that umm change?" That was embarrassing. They need the middle between these two. Anyway, I am basing my conclusion on highly selective and edited audio tapes provided by a single party with an obvious bias in how the information is presented. Without seeing the actual documents I do not know for sure, but she sure sounds wrong to me. If their firm wide code of conduct mentioned conflicts of interest, then I do not think she could issue her finding. It doesn't matter how bad the actual policy is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
He offered 'basic pieces of a policy', and according to the story had lawyers backing him up saying that 'no policy' couldn't be supported, but that didn't seem to be acceptable. The thing is as much as they claim otherwise, this is primarily an interpersonal conflict story, not one about what's wrong with this agency. There was so little presented around it, and the reporter was so willing to paint her bosses as the bad guys and distort what they said, that the end product comes out exactly the wrong way. Regardless of how I feel about what's wrong at the agency level, it only made me sympathetic to Silva and Kim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Ribsauce posted:Over-confidence is bad. It leads to this exact situation, where you are wrong and it is right in front of you in black and white and you cannot admit it. This lady thinks she is the smartest person in the room in every room she has walked in. She cannot comprehend she could be wrong about anything. She thinks so is so much smarter and superior than everyone else that within 90 days she is recording everything around her to one day show how smart she is. This is the same mindset that leads us into 15 year wars. Again, after reading a couple of articles and before listening to the entire thing, I was totally biased in her favor. I actually had to relisten to the entire show after the last 30 minutes. She comes off horribly, and this is from information she provided. I would not want to work with her. Yeah - the section about operating on "consensus" seemed underdone. Were they really advocating that the organization hire people and then give them free reign to regulate how they like, without oversight or input from the rest of the organization? The way they talked about that report left me with a lot of questions... namely how much weight to give it. I felt the same way about this episode that I did about the Hassidic Jews vs. Public Schools story two weeks ago. Both stories felt like they had lots of holes, and left me unsure that I could trust the conclusions of the episodes. They made some very big conclusions and didn't really show their work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
wafflesnsegways posted:Yeah - the section about operating on "consensus" seemed underdone. Were they really advocating that the organization hire people and then give them free reign to regulate how they like, without oversight or input from the rest of the organization? You cannot do that even if you want I am pretty sure. Governmental Auditing Standards (as well as others) require Adequate Supervision and Review for any report. I am not sure what standards the Federal Reserve performs their investigations under, but I would imagine they have similar standards they have to follow. If they don't, some moron could put out a finding which is factually incorrect and ruin the Agency's reputation (not that the Fed has a stellar one...but still) I looked again today and every article is still taking everything she says at face value. I am considering writing something showing why I believe she was wrong and this is unfair to her management and the Fed, but I would not even know where to put it besides here (side note: this thread comes up two times in the first three pages of google if you search "Carmen Segerra was wrong" that is how few places have even mentioned it)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/28/elizabeth-warren-new-york-fed_n_5896778.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013 Politicians are mad now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
To be fair, it's Elizabeth Warren. If she has success in this, he success rate will be 1-LOL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Elizabeth Warren saying something that leads to a formulaic click bait headline like WARREN TAKES ON BANKERS OVER NECROPHILIA that the 20 something demographic loves and clicks on is an entire industry that sustains like half the web at this point. That's kind of her thing. Nothing changes and nobody goes to prison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Serial is a new podcast from some of the people behind This American Life. The idea is that there's only one story, but it unfolds over the course of the entire season. Haven't checked it out yet, but figured someone here would be interested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
I listened to the first two episodes this morning. It's interesting so far and I'll continue listening. I'm curious how many episode they are going to do for one story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Serial is a new podcast from some of the people behind This American Life. The idea is that there's only one story, but it unfolds over the course of the entire season. Haven't checked it out yet, but figured someone here would be interested. Thanks for reminding me. I wrote a note to check it out and totally forgot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Serial is a new podcast from some of the people behind This American Life. The idea is that there's only one story, but it unfolds over the course of the entire season. Haven't checked it out yet, but figured someone here would be interested. The preview sounded good, but I really like that kinda stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Wow, the first two Serial episodes are really good poo poo. It boggles my mind that the testimony of one person could be enough to convict someone for murder, although perhaps there were other factors in the case that hadn't been revealed yet (like the cliffhanger of the second ep).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
drainpipe posted:Wow, the first two Serial episodes are really good poo poo. It boggles my mind that the testimony of one person could be enough to convict someone for murder, although perhaps there were other factors in the case that hadn't been revealed yet (like the cliffhanger of the second ep). Jurors have to weigh the trustworthiness of a witness's testimony. If they think one is good enough and convincing enough, then that's all it takes. It's not like murder usually takes place in a crowded theater. There usually isn't a ton of evidence, especially if steps are taken to cover up a crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Before even getting to the witness's testimony, there is the question of who is the most likely person to have committed the crime. Someone recently broken-up with is going to top that list, and if there aren't any other suspects, it's easier to convict them. I know that this is not how the law is claimed to operate, but for a jury trial, especially in a murder case, there's a strong tendency to want to find somebody guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
All the stuff with Asia is shady. Not sure why his lawyer never contacted THREE alibi witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
UltraRed posted:Jurors have to weigh the trustworthiness of a witness's testimony. If they think one is good enough and convincing enough, then that's all it takes. It's not like murder usually takes place in a crowded theater. There usually isn't a ton of evidence, especially if steps are taken to cover up a crime. Wait, what? I don't know too much about US law, is that really how it works? Why does it matter what anyone thinks or believes? Shouldn't they decide whether someone is guily beyond any doubt? Isn't "he probably did it but there's no real evidence" an obvious acquittal? It was kind of bugging me that the podcast didn't mention why he was found guilty, I hope it isn't really just that one dude saying he talked to him in the car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
cebrail posted:Isn't "he probably did it but there's no real evidence" an obvious acquittal? Hahahaahaha. People are jailed for life without parole and executed on these grounds. It's horrific.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Look at this dummy over here. He thinks it's standard in America for the system to be extremely careful when judging the guilt of a poor coloured guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Sounds like Episode 4 might get into some more of the reasons why he was suspected/did it, possibly. Anyone else finding it a bit odd that there hasn't even been a mention of the victim's side (even a "they didn't want to discuss it"), except by way of the case's evidence? I could even understand if they felt they shouldn't come to them, but I'd expect some acknowledgment to that effect, unless I missed it. Rabia Chaudry is blogging her reaction to the show which could be an interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Kangra posted:Sounds like Episode 4 might get into some more of the reasons why he was suspected/did it, possibly. I assume that comes later, unless they didn't want to be on the show. cebrail posted:Wait, what? I don't know too much about US law, is that really how it works? Why does it matter what anyone thinks or believes? Shouldn't they decide whether someone is guily beyond any doubt? Isn't "he probably did it but there's no real evidence" an obvious acquittal? Not sure if you want to read this, but it's heartbreaking and pretty typical. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/law-3
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
cebrail posted:Wait, what? I don't know too much about US law, is that really how it works? Why does it matter what anyone thinks or believes? Shouldn't they decide whether someone is guily beyond any doubt? Isn't "he probably did it but there's no real evidence" an obvious acquittal? I have not heard the episode, and I am not a lawyer, but a witness's testimony is evidence. It's up to the cross examiner to refute that evidence and the jury to determine its weight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Also the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is very (intentionally) different than"beyond any doubt." You try to leave your biases at door, but you shouldn't leave behind your common sense or ability to independently make connections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
The British reporter on act 2 of the latest TAL comes across creepy as gently caress, particularly with the enthusiasm and apparent joy he has for the story of his friend being confronted and propositioned in a bedroom by someone she knew because of her husbands deluded claims of her infidelity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
My feeling is that Jay and maybe someone else did it and they framed Adnan. Jay has to be involved somehow because he knew the depth of the hole and other details you couldn't just bullshit the investigators on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
I'm confused by this podcast on iTunes - there only seems to be one episode, and it's from a year ago?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 01:38
|
|
