I would say that you can avoid this kind of thing by declining to hire crazy people, but they seem to avoid showing the crazy until after they are hired, and it's probably illegal to discriminate against crazy people in hiring too.
Maybe it would work to say "I hired a man named John, not a woman named Tamara. When John stopped showing up for work, he was fired."
House Panel demands environment group's communications with EPA head
It's mainly news because Congress has apparently caught on to the fact that officials in Obama's administration are quite willing to withhold their communications on any pretext or no pretext at all. It also sheds some light on the "dark money" issue the left keeps yelling about:
In other words, what Lerner was angry about was her subordinates in Cincinnati putting things into emails and documents that were discoverable to Congress and looked bad... in other words, angry they got caught. She was perfectly fine with what they were actually doing, targeting political opponents of the President.
In other words, her subordinates are writing about specific Congresspeople and political parties in connection with the targeting. Are they saying things like "Senator X asked me to shut this group down" or "Representative Y is supported heavily by this group"? That would certainly be very embarrassing for the IRS and Congress, as well as clearly illegal. And Lerner's emphasis is not on behaving properly but on making sure nothing is written down that can be found out by Congress.
It might just be possible that the differences in test scores are the result of individual differences rather than a biased test. Mind you, it's also possible the test could be biased somehow. I'm no expert on fireperson testing. But I'd want to see some specific sources of test bias and an explanation of how that bias is improper before I agreed to throw out the existing test and replace it at much time, trouble, and expense.
For example: If the fireman test requires you to lift and carry a mannequin weighing 200lbs, a lot more men will pass that part of the test than women. Is it biased? Not really; the standard is the same, but inherent gender differences are going to make it harder for women to pass. Should we lower the standards to allow more women? Or do we want emergency responders to be the best possible emergency responders even if that means there are more men than women carrying people out of burning buildings?
On the other hand, if candidates are being tripped up by test questions on the average velocity of a swallow in flight, those test questions can probably be safely discarded.
The point is that waving the percentage around is insufficient. You have to actually prove the there is improper bias rather than simply picking the best people for the job.
Many state governments confiscating and destroying guns
They do the confiscating following a domestic violence restraining order or mental health issue, and then refuse to return the guns when the owners resolve the charges. Or, they charge storage fees more than the value of the gun; or they destroy the guns and bet that the legal fees to recover their value just aren't worth it. Many of the states are relying on a Department of Justice letter requiring that owners prove their ownership through registration records or receipts, but most states don't have registration systems and won't honor receipts given at the time of confiscation. The result is, once confiscated, most guns are never returned.
Except anti-gun states honor neither amendment in this case. The courts will have to apply pressure until police departments shape up.
Leaving aside the fact that there was someone there with a camera, which Slager probably did not notice until after the fact, why would Slager think he could get away with shooting someone 8 times in the back while they were running away?
I suspect in large part it's because he wasn't thinking. There seems to have been a fight, and the officer appears to make the decision to draw and fire even as the victim is making the decision to run. It takes time to recognize that the threat has ceased. The result is tragic, possibly even justified if the victim had struggled for the officer's taser and the officer had fired during the fight, but not premeditated.. and definitely not justified once the victim is running away.
See, this is the thing. The law is almost entirely a matter of cooperation. We don't go through our lives paying taxes, obeying traffic laws, and without murdering everyone around us because there are police who will step in and prevent such actions. We follow the law because, mostly, everyone agrees that the law is a rough approximation of the right thing to do, and that it's generally to our benefit to follow it so that everyone else does also. One of the assumptions built into that social model is that the law will be enforced impartially; that it doesn't matter if a police officer likes you personally or not, you will be safe from him if you follow the law.
The IRS is now widely considered to have violated that rule of impartial behavior, and that means people are that much less inclined to cooperate with them. Since there's no way the IRS can audit everyone, and documents are filed voluntarily, without cooperation our tax system becomes a lot more difficult to manage.
Let's play the substitution game. If George W Bush or one of his chief staffers invited two dozen journalists and staff members to have dinner at his house, would it not be a conflict of interest for them? Wouldn't they be criticized for accepting the invitation?
Rather than considering the Iran deal as what it is, a treaty which requires the Senate's consent by a two-thirds majority, the legislation will instead require the Senate to vote to impose sanctions on Iran if it disapproves of any deal the President reaches. Instead of holding an up-or-down vote on the treaty, if this legislation passes -- at this writing, it passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously -- the deal will be considered in effect unless and until the Senate, and possibly the House as well, vote to reimpose sanctions. Such a vote would require a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, plus 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and 67 votes to overcome a veto... instead of Obama needing to convince 67 Senators to vote yes for his treaty to have any effect whatsoever.
In short, the Senate has surrendered the treaty power to Obama if it passes this legislation.
Contact your Senators. Tell them to oppose this legislation. Tell them why, because many of them have been told by their leadership that this legislation limits Obama rather than enables him. Demand an up-or-down vote on any agreements Obama purports to make with Iran, with two-thirds of the Senators present concurring in order to pass, and demand your Senator vote NO.
Why should you demand a NO vote, aside from the whole surrender of Constitutional powers to the President issue?
If we cannot demand that our negotiating partner in this purported agreement stop committing acts of terrorism against us, how can we possibly trust them to honor this agreement?
Lincoln Chafee announces exploratory committee for presidential run
Gentlemen, I would like to propose a toast.
Confusion to the enemy!
I would also like to recommend that Boehner take a hint from Chafee and formally switch his party affiliation to Democrat. That way, he can openly advocate what he presently advances in secret backroom deals, and we can have a Speaker who actually represents us.
This is almost the right answer. You need to stop the questioner, provide your alternate target and question, and then stick to it. Move directly into the next question, call on the next interviewer, or just keep hammering your point home. Do not stop after your challenge and give them dead air to follow up. Turn the tables, attack the question, attack the questioner, return to your prepared script. Keep track of whether your questions get asked and when they try again, remind them.
The pathetic embarrassments to journalism at all the major TV networks, Fox News included, are the enemy.
If you are taking flac, you must be over the target.
As a libertarian I might make those arguments. I have in the past -- without the caveats about discriminatory action, because we have the right to freedom of association. But the sort of liberal or progressive who can even comprehend those arguments, much less volunteer them, is an antique specimen indeed. One might even say obsolete.
The new progressives are all fascist, all the time.
To have a valid treaty, Obama needs 67 votes for his treaty in the Senate. But both the Republicans and Democrats are arguing over whether the Republicans can get to a veto-proof 67 votes against. It's complete and utter nonsense. There is no treaty without a two-thirds vote in favor of the treaty.
And even that is meaningless, because the President doesn't even have agreement with his negotiating partners in Iran. He doesn't even have a signed piece of paper. He left the talks and presented his talking points to the press about the "deal"; Iran went home and presented their talking points to their population and immediately began yelling about how Obama was lying. They couldn't even maintain an agreement in public for 24 hours, much less the 10 years the deal is supposed to cover.
So let me tell you what is going to happen.
Obama and Iran will, eventually, pretend to agree to something. Obama will wave a piece of paper (having learned that verbal agreements with the Iranians are worthless) and proclaim peace in our time. The Iranians will go home and resume work on their ICBMs and nuclear warheads and uranium enrichment. The sanctions will be lifted because Obama trusts Iran and wants them to have a nuclear weapon so long as they get it after he leaves office. Congress will hold votes on whatever agreement Obama claims to reach, and the agreement will certainly not come close to 67 votes in favor; but Obama will order his administration to cancel the sanctions anyway.
And shortly after Obama leaves office, the next president will learn that Iran has already built nuclear weapons and mounted warheads on missiles that can target American cities.
House to consider IRS reform legislation this week
Do those sound like helpful reforms to you? They sound like weak sauce to me. If you want to fire someone for slow-walking you have to prove they did it and prove they did it for political reasons. That's a whole long process that would be made difficult by employees losing their emails and pleading the 5th. Requiring the IRS to issue regulations allowing for appeals is going to be an exercise in frustration, because the IRS will simply write the regulations to ensure the appeals reach the same result. Having a broadly-worded taxpayer bill of rights is useless without an enforcement mechanism and penalties for violating it.
But it gets worse.
In order to reach that entirely unnecessary two-thirds, the legislation will need to be substantially watered down in advance. Which means it will be carefully structured to protect Democrats from being exposed, and when it goes to the Senate, Republicans there will be in a weaker bargaining position as they seek to overcome a filibuster, and weaker still if they need to overcome a veto.