Previous 21 - 30 Next
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.
He's smirking BECAUSE he's destroying the country and getting away with it.
In response to:

Sad News: Jon Huntsman Passes on 2016

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Oct 08, 2014 10:01 PM
When I first saw the headline, I thought the sad news was that Huntsman had passed on. After a double-take, I realized that he was declining to run for president. I agree with Danny252, below. This is very good news. The Republic is on the verge of tyranny, collapse, or perpetual Democrat rule—but I repeat myself—and another talking suit is the last thing we need. Reading on, I was struck by this passage: "no-shot politicians oftentimes run for president (for financial and commercial gain, networking purposes, or to stroke their own egos)." I'm fairly sure that Barack Ebola fell into this category in 2008 and that he and many of his supporters (but probably not his handlers) were as astonished as everyone else when he won. His expectation of defeat helps explain why he got off to a slow start and never seemed to catch up. (The main reasons, however, are that he's an educated idiot and that he cares more about living large and leaving a legacy of putting America in its place than about the tiresome duties of the presidency.)
"[T]the Consitution nowhere puts any authority to speak to marrkage on the shoulders of FedGov. Therefor, the DOMA act is unconstitutional insofar as it places such authoity into the hands of FedGov. Even requiring one state to recognise and approve what another state does or does not do is not FedGov's business." You were on a roll till the third sentence. Regulation of marriage is reserved for the states or the people. If the states were prescient, they wouldn't have gotten involved in a traditionally religious matter. The full-faith-and-credit clause of the 4th Amendment, the same passage that makes it hard to argue cogently that one state may refuse to recognize another state's concealed-carry permits or driver's licenses, makes it equally hard to argue that states can invalidate one another's marriages. When disputes among states occur, the federal government is obliged to step in. If the states had stayed out of marriage, perhaps the feds wouldn't be up to their eyeballs in it, too. But no one could have predicted even a generation ago that a few activists would or could redefine the institution for the entire country.
What difference does it make? Well, let's see. . .Madam Secretary is revisionist krap that tries to combine the myth of Cincinnatus with the 3-a.m.-call ad and snippets of Wonder Woman. It's an obvious attempt to influence the coming elections. As such amounts to an illegal multimillion-dollar campaign contribution. Reality is still reality, and fantasy (e.g., the ongoing lies about Benghazi and The Video) is still unreality. I could go on, but I need to visit the medicine cabinet. The thought that a serial criminal, probable traitor, and unhinged creep such as Hillary Clinton may be the next president is turning my stomach.
Previous 21 - 30 Next