The TMR had planned a little Bing work to illustrate that we anti-gummint types do not hold exclusive rights to vivid speech.
No need. Kurt beat me to it.
Nothing much needs to be added, except maybe His Obamaness's pledge to keep keep his boot ready for neck-stomping.
Jan 10, 2011
Mental health
Analogies prove nothing.
With that out of the way, let the debate about who's mentally ill and who's not tip its hat to an historical observation.
In the fullest flowering of 20th Century tyranny -- Hitler's perhaps excepted -- a favored method of of human control was to dump inconvenient people into psychiatric hospitals, Lubyankas with white-coated attendants.
With that out of the way, let the debate about who's mentally ill and who's not tip its hat to an historical observation.
In the fullest flowering of 20th Century tyranny -- Hitler's perhaps excepted -- a favored method of of human control was to dump inconvenient people into psychiatric hospitals, Lubyankas with white-coated attendants.
Here we go again
A guy wishes we could let some of the Tucson dust settle before we begin what I suppose will need to be an epic defense of rights guaranteed by Amendment Two.
Not that our adversaries will take a deep breath and do a bit of thinking . The most usual of suspects, Carolyn McCarthy, is on the home stretch to orgasm with her new opportunity to decide what sorts of rights should be sacrificed in the wake of the Tucson madness. Right now.
Good politics, there, Congresswoman. Your plan to get your new bill filed today or tomorrow represents a sterling example of trying to draft carefully thought-out legislation.
And then, in the same Politico report, there's:
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Which is ill-advised unless we decide we must indict a certain high federal official for promulgating a symbol of death -- officially defined as such by federal authorities -- from and in the White House.
Photo credit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/craxxi/3287463155/
Not that our adversaries will take a deep breath and do a bit of thinking . The most usual of suspects, Carolyn McCarthy, is on the home stretch to orgasm with her new opportunity to decide what sorts of rights should be sacrificed in the wake of the Tucson madness. Right now.
Good politics, there, Congresswoman. Your plan to get your new bill filed today or tomorrow represents a sterling example of trying to draft carefully thought-out legislation.
And then, in the same Politico report, there's:
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Which is ill-advised unless we decide we must indict a certain high federal official for promulgating a symbol of death -- officially defined as such by federal authorities -- from and in the White House.
Photo credit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/craxxi/3287463155/
Jan 9, 2011
Tucson
1. The shooter had no political philosophy in any meaningful sense of the term. He was an emotional pimple and finally squeezed himself. The consequences are tragic.
2. The blaming of the gun is not so much muted as delayed. The media is still in its obligatory "Oh, how 'horrific' stage."
3. This is useful. Without the minute-by-minute expressions of ratings-building abject grief, we proles might think it only mildly annoying that the guy murdered a little girl, an apparently unobjectionable political operative, a judge, and three old folks.
4. Our opinion leaders will get around to the full-force horror of the armed citizen, per se, before too many more hours have passed.
Stay tuned.
2. The blaming of the gun is not so much muted as delayed. The media is still in its obligatory "Oh, how 'horrific' stage."
3. This is useful. Without the minute-by-minute expressions of ratings-building abject grief, we proles might think it only mildly annoying that the guy murdered a little girl, an apparently unobjectionable political operative, a judge, and three old folks.
4. Our opinion leaders will get around to the full-force horror of the armed citizen, per se, before too many more hours have passed.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)