Page: « Prev 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31

Muddling Through

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jun 13, 2014, 07:54 AM
Number of posts: 17,981

Journal Archives

The dangerous myth of heirarchy of lethality

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/15/massad-ayoob-the-dangerous-myth-of-hierarchy-of-lethality/

Massad Ayoob

We live in a world where the entertainment media and the news media alike have demonized the firearm as a frightening, high-efficiency killing machine. A myth has arisen that I call “hierarchy of lethality.” It is the false belief that the firearm represents the nuclear level of hand-held weaponry, and is somehow more lethal than other deadly weapons.

The general public sees the knife as something less: after all, they’ll open their mail in the morning with something very much like your opponent’s knife, and will slice the roast at dinner tonight with something virtually identical to the blade your opponent wields.

Because it’s an accoutrement of everyday life, they just don’t see the knife as a weapon, even though they know cognitively that it can be turned from culinary aid to murder weapon in a heartbeat. An impact weapon, a “club?” Well, they may see that as even less deadly.

Now, the night comes when you are attacked by a homicidal perpetrator wielding bludgeon or blade. You are forced to shoot him in self-defense. I can almost guarantee where the subsequent attack on you is going to come from:

“He only had a knife!”


Balance of article follows at the link:

Something to ponder when considering self-defense. YMMV
Posted by Muddling Through | Sat Nov 8, 2014, 09:16 PM (16 replies)

EEOC says it's background checks are irrelevent.

Hmmm.... Would this be a case of "rules for thee, but not for me"?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/eeoc-says-its-background-checks-irrelevant/article/2554569

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told a district court that it should not have to reveal its own policies regarding criminal background checks because that information is not relevant to the discrimination cases it files against private companies.

"The EEOC said it doesn't matter if there are any similarities between its own policies and the ones it says are discriminatory because a different legal standard applies to government agencies.

"It is untenable for defendant to argue that EEOC's policies are relevant because they somehow establish the proper legal standard to be applied to the defendant's conduct in this case," the agency said in a filing to the District Court for South Carolina.

The document was in response to a discovery motion by BMW Manufacturing. The EEOC charged last year that the Spartanburg, S.C., carmaker's blanket policy of rejecting applicants based on their criminal records was racially discriminatory because it had a "disparate impact" on African-Americans."


Balance of article follows at the link.

So, BMW is being sued for conducting background checks on applicants by an agency that conducts background checks on applicants?
Posted by Muddling Through | Sat Oct 18, 2014, 10:39 AM (3 replies)

Harvard Law School Faculty object to new sexual harassment policy.

Looks like the adults are back:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html


"In July, Harvard University announced a new university-wide policy aimed at preventing sexual harassment and sexual violence based on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The new policy, which applies to all schools within the university and to all Harvard faculty, administrators, and students, sets up the Office for Sexual and Gender-Based Dispute Resolution to process complaints against students. Both the definition of sexual harassment and the procedures for disciplining students are new, with the policy taking effect this academic year. Like many universities across the nation, Harvard acted under pressure imposed by the federal government, which has threatened to withhold funds for universities not complying with its idea of appropriate sexual harassment policy.

In response, 28 members of the Harvard Law School Faculty have issued the following statement:

As members of the faculty of Harvard Law School, we write to voice our strong objections to the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures imposed by the central university administration and the Corporation on all parts of the university, including the law school."


Balance of article follows at the link.

This appears to be a well reasoned discussion of the issue of sexual activity on college campuses and a warning to avoid stampeding over the rights of the accused in an effort to "DO SOMETHING". YMMV.
Posted by Muddling Through | Sat Oct 18, 2014, 10:06 AM (1 replies)

Teen killed over "high end sneakers"

It sounds like society might be a little safer with these three off the streets.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/3-found-guilty-in-murder-of-14-year-old-over-sneak/nhdWk/

Police said the teen was killed over high-end sneakers.

Andrew Murray, Tavaughn Saylor and Larnell Sillah broke into Sampleton’s Gwinnett County townhouse, ransacking the home and shooting Sampleton in the head in December 2012.

Sampleton attended Grayson High School and was a star athlete who dreamed of playing Division 1 football.

Murray and Saylor were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the malice murder, a consecutive life sentence for the armed robbery, and a total of 120 years consecutive for the remaining counts.

Sillah was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the malice murder, a consecutive life sentence for the armed robbery, and a total of 135 years consecutive for the remaining counts.
Posted by Muddling Through | Sat Oct 11, 2014, 07:27 PM (26 replies)

Government "clarifies" position after "confusion"

"Federal regulators have backed away from pressuring banks to stop doing business with legal enterprises that the Obama administration labeled “high risk” — including selling guns, making payday loans, and trading in rare coins.

Late last month, the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation told banks that it had removed a list of 30 examples of “high risk” activities from the agency’s website, stating its list had “led to misunderstandings.”

By “misunderstandings,” FDIC apparently meant that its guidance led to sudden decisions by banks across America to close accounts with customers that fell under any of the listed categories.

If they didn’t close the accounts, bank officers thought, they could be subject to federal audits or other investigations.

FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray, in an interview this week with The Daily Signal, said:


The FDIC recognizes the confusion about the meaning and significance of these lists of examples of merchant categories, including the potential for the misperception that the merchant categories were specifically prohibited or discouraged."


So, was there really just "confusion" regarding the government pressuring banks to close accounts of lawful businesses, or did they just get caught?

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/15/federal-agency-blames-confusion-for-choking-business-owners-access-to-banks/
Posted by Muddling Through | Sat Aug 16, 2014, 08:22 AM (12 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31