A quote from one of the anti-gun marches. Just... wow... ‘The kids did everything,’ said Jenn Hoadley, 36, who helped students organize a march in Anchorage. ‘All I did was say, ‘You want a stage? Cool. I’ll find one for you. You need a sound system? Cool. I’ll find one for you. You want to march in the park? I do paperwork to help you get that done.’ http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/28/march-lives-just-helicopter-protesting/#.WrvbpITVq6s.twitter "We managed this thing all on our own. Emma was the one who said "'hey, my mom can get all the signs printed at her work, and Cameron's dad works in stage production. So that's covered. Any of you know people who can drive us over there, and maybe also provide food, scripts, advertising? Oh... and we need a press agent to make sure we get on all the cool shows. We are KILLING IT!!!"
Not surprised that adults are exploiting the children and the shooting for their dumbass political agenda. Not surprised that some public school teacher is helping indoctrinate them with liberal BS on government time and at taxpayer expense.
Within ten years, liberal neuroscientist and one of the "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism" will come out as a conservative. It won't happen because of his embracing of conservative principles or policies but because it's the only ideology that, at least as currently constructed, let's him think. Link.
All tests and all data that suggest a fact I find surprising or inconvenient must be attacked; no, all people underlying that data collection must be destroyed.
Yep, and that's how totalitarianism gets instituted in a society. Certain information is deemed "dangerous," and those who find that information are ostracized or worse.
I was wondering when we would see this. Some Asian-Americans have sued Harvard, saying it discriminates by penalizing their high achievement to give preferences to other minorities, for the past several decades. Harvard is fighting release of any admissions docs, calling them "trade secrets." LOL https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/...mission.html&eventName=Watching-article-click "A group that is suing Harvard University is demanding that it publicly release admissions data on hundreds of thousands of applicants, saying the records show a pattern of discrimination against Asian-Americans going back decades. The group was able to view the documents through its lawsuit, which was filed in 2014 and challenges Harvard’s admissions policies. The plaintiffs said in a letter to the court last week that the documents were so compelling that there was no need for a trial, and that they would ask the judge to rule summarily in their favor based on the documents alone. The plaintiffs also say that the public — which provides more than half a billion dollars a year in federal funding to Harvard — has a right to see the evidence that the judge will consider in her decision. Harvard counters that the documents are tantamount to trade secrets, and that even in the unlikely event that the judge agrees to decide the case without a trial, she is likely to use only a fraction of the evidence in her decision. Only that portion, the university says, should be released....."
I wonder what took them so long. This has been openly going on as long as I can remember, and not just at Harvard.
Harvard will probably argue they take a holistic approach to admissions and show that Asians are well represented there relative to the nation as a whole.
Clearly they have reached their "critical mass" of Asians. I still believe Asians are discriminated against more than any other group, and it comes from the left. They just don't fit the narrative that whitey holds them down, or white privilege prevents them from succeeding, or its all of societies' fault that minorities can't succeed, blah blah blah.
So I wonder what this "knife ban" is going to look like. Is it pocket knives and switchblades? What about box cutters? Are they banned, and if so, what if you need to cut a box? What about kitchen knives? Steak knives? How about butter knives? Are they OK?
And I love this bullet point" The widely shared London Needs You Alive campaign brings together role models and youth influencers to send a positive message to young people - that they shouldn’t put their lives at risk by carrying a knife Do they know how dumb this sounds? If I'm carrying a knife, how does that put MY life at risk?
The London campaign is aimed towards young people. The insinuation is that carrying a knife escalates the possibility of violence.
Nothing in the Knife Crime Strategy speaks to a ban on knives. Replace guns with knives and this could be the bulk of the platform of conservatives in the US to fight gun violence.
I think that's what the intended message is, but that's not the insinuation of that quote. The insinuation is that on an individual level carrying a knife puts the knife carrier's life at risk, which is obviously absurd.
I was being somewhat facetious. I know it's not knife ban in the sense of being broad confiscation. However, if you read the report, you'll see that they plan to go after people who carry knives, which is already illegal depending on the knife. And listen to the rhetoric. "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law." It's pretty clear what the emphasis is on. And never a reason to carry a knife? Really? What planet is he on? I can think of a reason. Maybe the people of London want to have a chance to defend themselves if attacked in a city that now has a higher murder rate than New York City. He may not like that reason. It's very individualistic. It's politically incorrect. But it's a reason. And are they really unreasonable in wanting some basic protection when city leaders are obviously not able or not willing to stop the problem? We're not talking about guns that can easily be discharged accidentally and kill people. We're talking about knives. I don't follow your logic here.
- Greater enforcement of existing laws - Emphasize mental health - More community support to identify potential criminals Aside from "everyone should carry a gun", those are generally talking points for gun rights advocates.
