1 - 10 Next
This may not be as farfetched as it sounds on the surface. I remember my old Navy days (that's a service and a mindset, not a clothing line), when we used to tie up in Taiwanese ports. The "Boarding Officer" always came aboard and told us which bars were "off limits" to Naval Personnel at the moment, and then gave each sailor a couple of forms, in rainbow colored triplicate, to be used when "socializing" with the locals. It quite literally required the sailor and the newly discovered love of his life, to fill in blanks disclosing the effective date(s) of their contract, exactly who the parties involved were, what bar/"house" the girl worked for, the date of her last weekly health exam, exactly what "services" were to be performed (in the most excruciatingly precise detail!), and what was to be paid for them, and was then signed by both of the parties and the girl's "manager." This was intended to reduce street violence and crime related to these types of service, because if either party failed to live up to the contract, the other party could just take their copy of the contract to any policeman and have it enforced or get their money back. The "service vendor," the "purchaser," and the "Mama-San" of the bar (or whoever else "managed" the girl) each got a different colored copy of the contract form before anything else got done. Sometimes (rarely) these liaisons even resulted in marriage; on the other hand sometimes they resulted in one of our sailors going AWOL, too. It may sound weird (at least if you've never been in the Navy), but on balance, it does seem to have worked pretty well in practice. Granted, these were "professional" ladies in Taiwan, but I don't see why it couldn't work in a modern collegiate atmosphere too, at least after the students got over a few "sexual hang-ups." Sailors didn't seem to have any of those, but maybe a few weeks at sea just changes your outlook about sex.
It's British English for "dirty diapers." Churchill was right, we really ARE two nations separated by a common language.
And it isn't just "who's been sexually assaulted," it also includes whoever was presumably reported by someone who may have known someone else who reportedly got drunk and said they heard someone say that (s)he may have been assaulted, or possibly at least may have had some kind of sexual interaction, possibly without his/her knowing consent. After all, consider how many of us have experienced the discomfort of being forced by peer or familial pressure, to tolerate nonconsensual osculation by a family member or inebriated companion at a party. Wouldn't THAT count too?
I bet it wasn't Penn State was it? Or did they have such a policy and Sandusky just slipped through the cracks?
I assume that professors will henceforth begin each class by making a formal "Informed Consent Statement" to the class, to the effect that, "Anything said or implied, in the class discussion or afterwards, that might be taken to imply an inappropriate sexual thought or action, will NOT be confidential, and will be reported to the Dean, regardless of your intentions or desire, and regardless of the accuracy, factual basis, or lack thereof, of the statement(s)." If this isn't done, at the very least, the door will be opened to all sorts of inadvertent disclosures and other problems based on "I have a friend who said..." or "I heard that..." type comments made in the course of class discussions. It cold easily be extended to hypothetical remarks of a "OK, so what if someone..." nature. Of course, if an "Informed Consent" statement IS made before each class, it will likely stifle class discussion considerably. Indeed, I find it mildly humorous that the same universities that think allowing concealed (and therefore unknown to anyone) carry of handguns on campus would somehow "stifle the educational process, and impair open discussions," while this Gestapolian (OK, that's probably a neologism, but if it isn't a word it SHOULD be!) policy will not.
It is interesting to note that, since their inception several decades ago, background checks have had NO, ZERO, demonstrable impact on either violent crime, gun crime, or suicide rates with guns. Everyone seems to think that they prevent zillions of "prohibited persons" from getting guns, but there is no evidence to demonstrate that is true. There is also little evidence to demonstrate that making it illegal for convicted felons to have guns has had any effect either. Mostly that law simply makes it easier for the police to arrest ex-felons in possession of guns, that were stopped for other reasons, but where there was no, or inadequate, evidence to charge them.
In response to:

Howard Fuller Has the Answer for Ferguson

Geoff34 Wrote: Sep 08, 2014 4:38 PM
I think Star Parker is not only very smart, but also a superb example of an American success story and I almost never disagree with here. However, THIS time, I am disagreeing with her. I agree that the best path to success, for blacks, whites, or anyone, usually involves getting a decent education. BUT, and it's a big BUT...it isn't just, or even primarily, education that makes a difference. Getting the education is feasible if you have the will, but meaningless if you don't. The single most important thing low income folks need is the WILL to work to better their situation, and the BELIEF that it is possible. Many people have been successful with relatively little education, but I dare say you can't find any who have good educations, that have been successful without the will to work hard and succeed.
In response to:

War Drums Along the Potomac

Geoff34 Wrote: Sep 05, 2014 3:52 PM
Most people in the world are going to look at this and say, "Yeah, right. If you are the group the Great Satan hates and fears the most, I don't want to be anywhere NEAR you, because when the B-52s arrive overhead, I don't want to be there." Being hated and feared by the most powerful military in the world is not a good thing in most people's minds. As for using that fact as an argument to get folks to join your Martyr's Brigade," well it may well work...for those who want to become martyrs. There is no faster way to meet Allah than to be on the receiving end of an "Arc light" strike. Maybe they could rename ISIS "AWR," for Allah's Waiting Room.
What kind of socially coerced moron needs to have others "change the wording" for how (s)he pledges allegiance to the country and its flag? If it bothers you to say "under God" when you pledge your allegiance to the US and its flag, than don't say it. You are under no obligation to use any part of the pledge with which you disagree. The idea is to pledge your faith and allegiance to our country. You can make up some wording of your own if it makes you feel better. Your honesty in pledging allegiance is the important thing here, not the exact words you use to do so.
You need to listen to what the idiot said. He's basically right...Britain didn't win two world wars.
1 - 10 Next