Want to see just how pathetic we've become? Take a look at the Claremont College's April 2007 Crime and Incident Report. [The emphasis, as always, is mine.]A student reported a male pointed a gun at her as she walked by a group in a parking lot. Campus Safety and Claremont Police officers responded, and located a group of students filming a class project with unloaded BB guns. The reporting student declined to file charges, and the students were given a warning and banned from the campus. The guns were confiscated.That's right. They found out that the BB guns were unloaded and they still confiscated them.
The Claremont Independent will be running a story on guns and school police at some point during my tenure, but here's a great source for anyone who wants to know what CMC's gun policies are.“All weapons banned Claremont McKenna College specifically prohibits the possession of weapons by any employee while on College property. This ban includes keeping or transporting a weapon in a vehicle in a parking area, whether public or private. Employees are also prohibited from carrying a weapon while representing the College when off the College’s premises. Weapons include guns, knives, explosives, and other items with the potential to inflict harm. Appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination, will be taken against any employee who violates this policy.”
Monday, April 11, 2011
By Charles Johnson at 7:37 AM
By Charles Johnson at 6:36 AM
Note: Yours truly is fighting the thesis beast so I apologize for not having had enough to blog about the ongoings on our fair campus.
stealing borrowing a post from The Motley Munk:
..in a recent "study of studies" (a "meta-analysis") examining the effect of actual soda taxes implemented at the state level, two professors (Jonathan Klick of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, and Eric A. Helland of Claremont McKenna College) found the alleged health benefit from a soda tax is nothing but "a mirage."Thanks, but I prefer dieting to taxation!
Yes, the food police are correct, in that the taxes do in fact lead to a moderate decrease in soda consumption. However, the claimed correlation is absolutely false. The net effect of the taxes on obesity is next to zero.
According to Klick and Helland, when people cut down on drinking soda, they substitute to other high calorie drinks like milk and juice. Then, too, adults may trade a Pepsi for a Pabst, while others may decide that, because they stopped drinking Coke, they are free to have their cake and eat more of it.
So, the obvious solution?
"A comparable tax on all caloric intake might generate the health benefits policymakers seek. But despite the desire to fight obesity, no politician can stomach high taxes on food across the board," according to Klick and Helland.