Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 12:20 PM
Alimony used to be awarded in virtually every divorce. On the other hand, divorce was less common. And it was reasonably assumed that most women would not reasonably be able to support themselves.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 12:19 PM
Honestly I think gay marriage will 'win' in the end and I don't see that as a major problem. I only want it to be a changed law rather than a court decision.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 12:04 PM
"How can tradition be a reason for anything?" One wonders if this judge was wearing robes, or people were told to 'All rise' when he came in. But mostly one wonders if he has ever heard of stare decisis.
Sounds like she can check International Relations and Chair a Peace Summit off of her to-do list.
In response to:

The Fight Against Political Correctness

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 3:46 AM
This is the link I meant to post as it is the article I read and copy/pasted the quote from. http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/08/26/professor-bans-college-students-from-saying-bless-you-in-class/ Which is somewhat embarrassing as I had not yet read that article (1st link) in which a student got in trouble for saying 'bless you' on the basis of not having religion in the classroom. That teacher is a bizarre tyrant. btw, I still say 'bless you'. People either like it or tolerate it. There's no meanness in it and it acknowledges another person's inconvenience.
In response to:

The Fight Against Political Correctness

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 3:37 AM
Hold the phone. http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/now-lawyers-involved-in-bless-you-sneeze-fight/ According to the #6 under the “Behavioral Deduction” section of the syllabus, students’ grades will be lowered for: “Saying ‘bless you.’ We are taught that it is polite to say ‘bless you’ when someone sneezes. However, if you say this while I am talking, it is NOT polite, it is very rude!” Religion seems to have nothing to do with it. He wants absolute silence in his classroom. The prof may be a jerk, but he's not a PC jerk.
In response to:

Militarization of Police II

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 3:28 AM
“Should police not be permitted to wear helmets and bullet-proof vests? Should they not be allowed to carry guns at all? What about armored vehicles with bullet-proof windows?” How about tanks, mortars and flame-throwers? “… there is no non-arbitrary point at which to say: “Ah ha! The police are ‘militarized’!!”” That’s probably why people are saying ‘becoming militarized’. Which is correct; they are more military-like than they have been in the past. “…Tony Laudicina, military man and former military advisor to police…” Who knew that police needed military advisors? I wonder how often such people advise less militarization. “…a criminal threat which was better armed and willing to use tactics that the police were vulnerable to.” The Thompson submachine gun was invented in 1921; the Molotov cocktail in 1934; the ‘Handy-Talkie” in 1942. “Libertarians… should consider spending a fraction of the time that they reserve for blasting the “militarized” weapons of police…for blasting the outlaw thugs that made these weapons a necessity. “The latter is more politically incorrect, and certainly more dangerous to one’s reputation, but it’s also more truthful.” Is Kerwick actually saying that Libertarians are critical of the police because they don’t want to be politically incorrect by being critical of the rioters? My guess is that the Libertarians (I’m not one but like Kerwick I often agree with them) aren’t being critical of the rioters because it sort of goes without saying. I feel considerable contempt and loathing for people who take or destroy other people’s property, more contempt still when they do so in the name of seeking justice, and yet more when they are damaging the very community they live in. Most people feel this way, including Libertarians. We need fewer no-knock warrants. Fewer flash-bang grenades. FAR fewer home-invasions of non-criminals due to address errors. Fewer police dressed as SWAT who don’t know squat about SWAT. Fewer police dressed as soldiers. If you want police dressed as soldiers call the National Guard.
In response to:

Exploiting the 'Sex Box'

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 2:14 AM
My mistake - I read the article too fast and thought there was only one -tv station rather than two. I apologize.
In response to:

Exploiting the 'Sex Box'

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 29, 2014 2:34 PM
Hey, Bozell! You know another way to remedy the fact that 'Few Americans have ever heard of the cable channel WE tv"? You could talk about it in your column and promote it in general. Instead of waiting for them to mess up so you could do your outrage schtick. Gee, thanks.
In response to:

Exploiting the 'Sex Box'

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 29, 2014 2:30 PM
So did Bozell.
Best guess is that they want to limit students so as to build rep.
Previous 11 - 20 Next