Previous 11 - 20 Next
No, really, this is okay because she's a Democrat woman who supports abortion of all kinds in all circumstances. Of course, if a Republican had done anything of the sort (remember James Watt?), he'd be hounded out of public life forever.
"First instinct is to trust what the WH is saying. . . ." So much for the adversarial press, eh? "[B]ut they've squandered a lot of that trust lately." He might just as well have quoted Marvin the Martian: "I'm not angry, just terribly, terribly hurt." Squandered trust or not, the government media will continue to participate in this regime's corruption while campaigning openly for the next crop of leftists.
In response to:

Look Who's Data Mining Your Toddlers

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 6:54 AM
That would be classified, along with his academic records and most of the rest of his documentary trail, somewhere above the hydrogen bomb.
And when the Charlotte Observer follows the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other dinosaurs into bankruptcy, its staff will be astonished and bewildered.
In response to:

Look Who's Data Mining Your Toddlers

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 6:40 AM
"Completely mad? No ... completely liberal/progressive/Ruling Class/Big Gubmint!" I thought I said that. :-)
Alas for Harvard. It was the first college in the Colonies. In its prime it was one of the best. Now it's little besides a storied history, a gigantic endowment with an anti-American agenda, and a growing list of self-congratulatory morosophs. Maybe it should move to France.
In response to:

Look Who's Data Mining Your Toddlers

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 5:34 AM
This system and its competitors are not just intrusive, creepy, and ripe for many kinds of official and commercial abuse. They also require that teachers spend a great deal of time producing and uploading "videos, audio files, journals and photos" of students, records of eliminatory habits, descriptions of how this child or that pulls the crust off sandwiches, and so on ad absurdam. One can easily imagine how much of a day these tasks and others not mentioned would consume in a class of 20–30 children. Consequently, such measurement schemes require that kids spend a great deal of time being measured—responding to emotional cues, interacting cooperatively, cooperating and sharing ideas and materials in socially acceptable ways, and jumping through other hoops within range of a camera, microphone, or notepad. No one would have many opportunities for dealing with colors, shapes, letters, or numbers. And who would maintain order while the teacher was in the bathroom making Johnny urinate for Mr. Cellphone? In essence, "whole child" measurement is whole-day measurement, which defeats the very purpose of schooling and reduces teachers and students alike to uncompensated employees of the testing company. This is completely mad.
In response to:

Good Old Joe

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Oct 09, 2014 8:48 PM
At Biden's age, it's not early.
And an unknown number got through.
"Ramesh seems to be believe . . . 2) men in committed relationships are just as much at risk of false accusations as men who sleep around; and 3) 'there will also be a big cost in unfairness to individual men who are kicked out of school and labeled sex offenders for engaging in behavior that a) doesn’t merit that response and b) does not typically receive it.' . . . "I do, however, believe that men in committed relationships will face far, far less risk of false accusation than men who sleep around." You and Ponnuru both miss the point. Sleeping around has nothing to do with SB-967. Men will be railroaded for walking around or simply being around. This law doesn't depend on physical evidence, third-party testimony, or security-camera images. Because it has no explicit time limit, it applies off campus, and it encompasses a wide range of nebulous offenses, such as stalking, it encourages the prosecution of cases in which physical evidence can't be recovered or can't exist. It allows summary punishment based on uncorroborated assertions about uninterrupted affirmative consent. Women can and will use this law to ruin ex-boyfriends, uninterested romantic prospects, difficult professors, uncooperative administrators, and complete strangers. And mark my words well—this law will be used only by women against men. No institution covered by SB-967 will ever take seriously any accusation by a man against a woman or any involving homosexual activity. There is no conservative, liberal, libertarian, black, white, vegan, Christian, Shinto, or Sagittarian defense for this law. It's indefensible, it's unconstitutional, it's insane, and it must be struck down ASAP.
Sheesh. What's wrong with you? Richie Rich. . .uh, Richman. . .and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and the rest are different. They're the people's billionaires. Don't take my word for it. Ask them.
Previous 11 - 20 Next