Previous 11 - 20 Next
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 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.
In response to:

Libertarians, Ferguson, and "Racism"

Geoff34 Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 3:41 PM
The suffix "-ism" (or in the case of an individual "-ist") typically connotes the presence of an ideology as a primary element of identification. Thus, a "racist" is one whose belief system centers primarily around racial beliefs more than, or to the exclusion of, other types of beliefs. Thus, in practical terms, a "racist" is essentially an ideologue, who believes that the most important factor, perhaps even the only factor, involved in governing people's beliefs and behavior, is their racial background. There is nothing in the Libertarian philosophy that would tend to support such belief system. While Libertarians may have an issue with excessive legal restrictions on citizen's individual liberty, and with excessive use of police force, I doubt they support racist anti-police sentiment, per se. It's just not a Libertarian talking point.
Why doesn't Holder just take the money he would spend on this stupid investigation and use it to build another golf course somewhere close to the White House? In the long run we'd all save money on BHO's recreational trips, and it will have the same relevance to ISIL. I'm sure they're just shaking in their boots at the thought of being investigated by Holder and his buffoons. What is there to investigate? Is it illegal to behead a journalist? Here, yes, there, no. So who cares what Holder and his stooges discover in their idiotic investigation? If the administration wants to "hold them accountable" the don't need investigations, they need B-52s (and, of course, balls). Now THAT would be "accountability!"
In response to:

Marijuana vs. Scotch and a Low IQ

Geoff34 Wrote: Aug 21, 2014 12:48 PM
The studies to which this refers are either incompetent or political hit jobs. Consider for a moment: How could one even design a study that could rationally conclude that pot lowers one's IQ, causes loss of motivation, etc, etc? It would necessarily REQUIRE a control group. That is, there would have to be, at the least, a group who smoked pot regularly and frequently for several years, and another, otherwise similar, group, that did not. Both groups would have to have their IQ, motivation, brain imaging, etc, done both before and after the years of use. Such a study would be both unethical and illegal. Otherwise though, there is no way to know if the pot smokers were different before smoking (it's equally feasible that aberrant brain structures CAUSED them to become pot smokers, as that their smoking caused the development of abnormal structures, for example). Think about the dopers you knew in high school: were they the highly motivated kids before they did dope? It's quite plausible that low motivation CAUSES kids to smoke pot, rather than the other way around. Relying on garbage studies like these only muddies the waters and make the science behind this less likely to be trusted.
I predict Holder et al, will continue to have autopsy after autopsy after autopsy, until either they can get the anti-white cop results they want, or there is too little left of the remains to do another autopsy, whichever comes first.
I think much of the problem lies in the fact that so many people today still foolishly think the US is a "racist" country, and that white folks, especially those in positions of authority, regularly abuse their authority and abuse minorities. Yes, I know that there are a disproportionate number of black folks behind bars. But that alone doesn't mean they are there because of racists or a racist "system." Given that this statistic is a nation wide one, consider the magnitude of the conspiracy theory this would demand. Unlike the state of things in the 1950s, '60s, an even early '70s, we no longer have segregation, we no longer have a white dominated society. We now have a Black President and Attorney General, Black and Hispanic congressmen, news reporters, lawyers, DAs, cops, judges, jurors, police ombudsmen, citizens groups, etc. To maintain such a "racist system" nationally, would absolutely require that most, if not all, of them be part of a huge, very secret, anti-minority cabal, operating right under everyone's nose. That is utterly ridiculous, and anyone who gives it any thought at all must immediately realize it. Since the incarcerated minorities are almost never those who have embraced traditional (read "middle class") American values, it leaves us with a strong suspicion that perhaps there is something about the cultural values being inculcated in minority groups, that makes it MORE likely they will run afoul of the law. Well, maybe we should consider the lionizing of the "Thug life" so popular in Rap music and the gang culture. That seems like a much more likely culprit, and one that does not require us to believe an absurd conspiracy theory.
Previous 11 - 20 Next