Keep reading the news!

[Suikama]

"In a veritable Who's Who of Doctor Who, 10th Doctor David Tennant is marrying Georgia Moffett, the daughter of 5th Doctor Peter Davison, who played the Doctor's daughter in an episode of Doctor Who. Except that the Doctor's daughter was a clone of the Doctor, which meant that she really was Who. So a newer Doctor is marrying an older Doctor's daughter, who is a clone of the newer doctor, but only has half the DNA of the older Doctor."

ahahahaha

:colonveeplusalpha: :colonveeplusalpha: :colonveeplusalpha:

[Dizzy H. "Muffin" Muffin]

Psh, the Tenth Doctor is twice the Doctor the Fifth One was. *badum-tsh*

[Quad City QBs]

Even in Italy don't go to law school

All the professions are feeling it to some degree or another, but it's still sad the way the legal industry is going.  200 accredited schools (owing to the ABA's DeviantArt-esque standards), churning out 40,000 new grads a year, for maybe 30,000 jobs.  Oh, you'll settle for a smaller firm?  So will 50 other grads from schools better than yours, and none of them are getting hired either.  Settle for a local prosecutor/DA's office?  Haven't hired fresh grads since the budget crises hit.

Really, in all, there've probably been few worse times to accrue 5-6 figures of student debt.  I wonder if IBR is the only thing standing between us and Greece/Italy/Britain-style riots.

[Silent Harmony]

Judge, 5 others killed outside an Arizona grocery store.

EDIT: To nip the rage in the bud:

Lets get all the facts before we start blaming anybody for anything. The guy sounds deranged. Sarah Palin didn't cause it. Obama didn't cause it. The gun didn't cause it.

[Edible]

Even in Italy don't go to law school

All the professions are feeling it to some degree or another, but it's still sad the way the legal industry is going.  200 accredited schools (owing to the ABA's DeviantArt-esque standards), churning out 40,000 new grads a year, for maybe 30,000 jobs.  Oh, you'll settle for a smaller firm?  So will 50 other grads from schools better than yours, and none of them are getting hired either.  Settle for a local prosecutor/DA's office?  Haven't hired fresh grads since the budget crises hit.

Really, in all, there've probably been few worse times to accrue 5-6 figures of student debt.  I wonder if IBR is the only thing standing between us and Greece/Italy/Britain-style riots.

Hold off on the bar and work in an office for a while?  I can't really decide if the world being officially flush with lawyers is a good thing or a bad thing.  The law should not be so complicated as to require them in the first place, and yet here we are.

Judge, 5 others killed outside an Arizona grocery store.

Very sad.  What will be sadder is people who plan on milking this disaster to further their political agenda, which should sicken me... but is so commonplace now that it doesn't.

And yeah, this guy sounds like a nutjob.

[?q]

I can't really decide if the world being officially flush with lawyers is a good thing or a bad thing.  The law should not be so complicated as to require them in the first place, and yet here we are.

What's would make oversaturation of lawyers a good thing?

[Edible]

What's would make oversaturation of lawyers a good thing?

The world would hopefully then stop producing more lawyers.

[Tengukami]

Very sad.  What will be sadder is people who plan on milking this disaster to further their political agenda, which should sicken me... but is so commonplace now that it doesn't.

While I agree with the general sentiment, I still think it'd be a little short-sighted to stop short of investigating any political motivations behind the murder of a politician. This representative was on Sarah Palin's "target map", for example. This woman has used violent rhetoric in her calls to action among her fringe supporters. No, I don't think that means she's responsible for this representative's death. But there is very obviously a violent far-right movement in America, cheered on and advised by certain far-right pundits, Palin among them. You know what sickens me? The inability of the US government to call these people terrorists, and apply with equal rigor the same tenacity for justice that they do against foreign/Muslim terrorists. We've seen clinics bombed, doctors shot, politicians threatened with their lives - whether this murder turns out to be politically motivated or not, what is it going to take before we stop treating these nutjobs as just a couple gun-loving hillbillies and start treating them like anti-American terrorists?

[?q]

You know what sickens me? The inability of the US government to call these people terrorists, and apply with equal rigor the same tenacity for justice that they do against foreign/Muslim terrorists. We've seen clinics bombed, doctors shot, politicians threatened with their lives - whether this murder turns out to be politically motivated or not, what is it going to take before we stop treating these nutjobs as just a couple gun-loving hillbillies and start treating them like anti-American terrorists?

How do you suggest we do this, considering what we do to terrorists is arguably unconstitutional and/or immoral?

Or perhaps another take on the question - while the first amendment doesn't extend to things like clinic bombings, what about people who just believe that clinic bombers are justified without actively participating?  Should they be monitored (well, they probably already are) and/or legally corralled as a "threat to the nation"?

Constitutional measures that we'd rather not live without make it difficult to take out groups that are identified as domestic terrorists or otherwise watchlisted (PETA, Church of Scientology, Quakers :ohdear: , etc.)

[Edible]

While I agree with the general sentiment, I still think it'd be a little short-sighted to stop short of investigating any political motivations behind the murder of a politician. This representative was on Sarah Palin's "target map", for example. This woman has used violent rhetoric in her calls to action among her fringe supporters. No, I don't think that means she's responsible for this representative's death.

This is my point, really.  The "target map" is being dragged through the streets as "COINCIDENCE?!?!", but we're already pretty sure that the guy responsible had no affiliation with any political party, much less the tea party.  It's all pan-flashing in an attempt to throw dirt, justified or otherwise, onto a campaign.  And that isn't meant to defend Palin in any way, as I think she's far too incompetent to even hint at the assassination of anyone - she just does what she does to get attention (read: votes).  Not a day after the shooting and we already have people politicizing the crap out of it, when at the core of the incident is one lone, unstable, borderline insane individual.  A criminal investigation is something else entirely, and should one become neccessary to investigate any politician/fringe group/etc, I'd be all for it.

Edit: orite

what is it going to take before we stop treating these nutjobs as just a couple gun-loving hillbillies and start treating them like anti-American terrorists?

'We' as in the media?  When the few people left who buy newspapers die out.  'We' as in the American government?  Well, we already ban the mentally unstable from purchasing firearms, but that's only if they're registered as mentally unstable - information that comes from the NICS, which is pulled from very incomplete medical records stating if someone has been institutionalized - willingly or otherwise - in a mental hospital.  So the intent is there, but the means is not.  Naturally, there are very likely to be many crazies who've never seen the inside of a funny farm.  In short, a better solution is needed.

[Tengukami]

By "we" I was speaking more to the prevailing mentality that terrorists are brown people. The way I see it, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc. People such as Palin, Hannity, Beck and Malkin speak directly to these people, using their language and catch phrases to deliver their dog whistle messages. What I'd like to see, as I said, is great scrutiny placed on far-right terrorists within America's borders. Now, this doesn't mean I'd like to see the kind of disregard for democratic human rights that have been applied to terror suspects abroad. What I mean is, there is a seemingly great reluctance in the Justice Department to treat these groups as terrorists.

[Edible]

I wrote up a nice reply and the board ate it ;_;

Anyway, tl;dr version - I agree, but such a policy would be tremendously difficult to implement, as it would be unpopular among the general public and would be an easy target for politicians looking to garner rep with their constituents.

[JT]

I'm actually with Edible on this one. Here's a video from the killer's YouTube channel; he's obviously stone cold crazy. Even if he saw Palin's hit list, I really doubt that's what pushed him over the edge.

As for the terrorism thing, yeah, I agree that it's a problem. It's funny how conservative political figures throw around the word "terrorism" while doing things like openly calling for the assassination of political opponents. Fundies and Tea Partiers are insincere hypocritical assholes. Shocker.

[Tengukami]

Yeah, like I said, I'm not blaming this on Palin, nor am I saying the killer was a Teabagger. I just think the situation is a reminder of a growing but perennially ignored problem. And Edible's right that actually calling these crackers "terrorists" would be unpopular. So what? Integration was pretty unpopular throughout the south, too. To the point where we needed to get the National Guard down there at one point. Doing what's right and doing what's popular sometimes don't overlap.

It's just a classic example of the left being too terrified to try and control the dialogue. Someone shoots and kills a obstetrician, admitting that he committed the murder because the doctor provided partial-birth abortions. How is this not terrorism? Yet no public official stepped forward to call it such, because god forbid we alienate tax-protesting gun nuts who think Obama is a secret Muslim communist.

[MayKissingDoveWyks]

The problem is, it's hard to have a neutral point of view when calling certain events/people/incidents/objects certain things, or anything political for that matter.

Judge, 5 others killed outside an Arizona grocery store.

Things never change it seems.

The way I see it, there are going to be murders and assassinations as long as there are people who are deranged, crazy or unhappy. But there isn't any humane, moral, or constitutional way to stop it.

[?q]

What I'd like to see, as I said, is great scrutiny placed on far-right terrorists within America's borders. Now, this doesn't mean I'd like to see the kind of disregard for democratic human rights that have been applied to terror suspects abroad. What I mean is, there is a seemingly great reluctance in the Justice Department to treat these groups as terrorists.

It's just a classic example of the left being too terrified to try and control the dialogue. Someone shoots and kills a obstetrician, admitting that he committed the murder because the doctor provided partial-birth abortions. How is this not terrorism? Yet no public official stepped forward to call it such, because god forbid we alienate tax-protesting gun nuts who think Obama is a secret Muslim communist.

The major problem here is that these terrorists are just the militant few in a vast right-wing conspiracy like-minded constituency.  Regardless of if it's right, to a great degree it's what America is and has been for no small amount of time.

[Tengukami]

The problem is, it's hard to have a neutral point of view when calling certain events/people/incidents/objects certain things, or anything political for that matter.

I've tried to parse this sentence several times now and still don't see your point. Are you seriously suggesting we don't call things, um, things? Because it seems then you're going to run into a language problem. We understand the world around us by giving names to people, actions, and events.

The major problem here is that these terrorists are just the militant few in a vast right-wing conspiracy like-minded constituency.  Regardless of if it's right, to a great degree it's what America is and has been for no small amount of time.

I disagree. There's a difference between believing abortion is wrong and actually killing a doctor over it. The people in the latter group are not a significant group of people by any means, but they are dangerous, and should be treated as such. Sure, some people will politicize it as the oppressive left-wing government trying to trample civil rights, but honestly, I think I've had about enough of this administration walking on eggshells lest it offend the batshit insane.

[Iryan]

Sure, some people will politicize it as the oppressive left-wing government trying to trample civil rights,

The left are trying to deny Americans the right to murder other Americans?

And yet, I agree that there are people who would argue as such.  :fail:

[MayKissingDoveWyks]

I've tried to parse this sentence several times now and still don't see your point. Are you seriously suggesting we don't call things, um, things? Because it seems then you're going to run into a language problem. We understand the world around us by giving names to people, actions, and events.

I'm trying to say that it's hard to discern things because bias and majority are always factors

[Tengukami]

I'm trying to say that it's hard to discern things because bias and majority are always factors

I think it's bit of pointing out the obvious to say that there are no neutral observations, and that we all have biases. Giving names to things, however, can actual level out bias - if we have an agreed-upon definition for "terrorism", for example, we avoid this double standard that it's only terrorism when brown people do it.

[JT]

I'm trying to say that it's hard to discern things because bias and majority are always factors

I agree. Things may involve bias from time to time, and the majority is always a factor. There are three important things to consider in such circumstances: information, context, and concepts. What is "bias?" For years, scientists and philosophers alike have struggled in vain to find an answer to this quandary. It's like asking, "What are birds?" -- we just don't know. Some say that these considerations are specific in nature; others believe them to be things that are not knowable in ways of knowing. People say things are things, and politics become involved in these things. Thing factor knowledge consideration perhaps.

[?q]

I disagree. There's a difference between believing abortion is wrong and actually killing a doctor over it. The people in the latter group are not a significant group of people by any means, but they are dangerous, and should be treated as such. Sure, some people will politicize it as the oppressive left-wing government trying to trample civil rights, but honestly, I think I've had about enough of this administration walking on eggshells lest it offend the batshit insane.

I don't see where we're disagreeing with each other.  What's wrong is wrong regardless of which faction the criminal claims.

The issue is that there's a reason for the government not to offend - there actually ARE so many people who are far-right or at least supportive of them over leftist alternatives.  We're talking about people who tried to proactively outlaw Sharia law on a state-wide level, for instance.  Yes, not engaging them only gives them more leeway to incite craziness, but there is a reason they aren't doing it, for better or worse.

[Tengukami]

Oh, OK, I guess I misread you then. All I'm basically saying is, the Dems are sniveling pussies who let the most insane people in the country control the dialog. My cousin's a Teabagger, and I'm not afraid to laugh in his face when he starts spouting that Birther nonsense. It'd be nice to see more conservative denounce these idiots, too.

[Edible]

Very sad.  What will be sadder is people who plan on milking this disaster to further their political agenda, which should sicken me... but is so commonplace now that it doesn't.

Dum dee doo...

[Fetch()tirade]

Dum dee doo...

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.

Now that sounds exploitable.

[Edible]

He's also criminally retarded if he thinks that'll pass.  Arguably the most important function of the first amendment is the ability to criticize the government without repercussion.  Having to watch your damn back every time you offhandedly say something like "God, I wish (insert politician here) would get hit by a train"... no thank you.

[Tengukami]

Dum dee doo...

If the problem was a crazy person was able to get a gun and consequently killed people, wouldn't fixing the legislation to help better prevent such a thing from happening be a reasonable response? Or are you only talking about Brady's response, which is indeed laughable?

[Edible]

If the problem was a crazy person was able to get a gun and consequently killed people, wouldn't fixing the legislation to help better prevent such a thing from happening be a reasonable response? Or are you only talking about Brady's response, which is indeed laughable?

The latter, though there are plenty of other problems with the former - as mentioned previously, the existing law already does exactly that.  It's a well-meaning law that is poorly maintained due to inconsistent records.  The person who brought it up, Carolyn McCarthy, is kind of the gun control equivalent of Christine O'Donnell in that she talks a good rhetoric but doesn't actually know the details of the laws she's supporting.

Edit: Although my purpose for linking the article was to show off how quickly people maneuver politically after this sort of event.

[Tengukami]

Although my purpose for linking the article was to show off how quickly people maneuver politically after this sort of event.

I understood that; I do think though that there's a difference between saying, "OK, X happened, so maybe we ought to examine the relevant legislation and try to fix it" and the sort of empty grandstanding that Brady is demonstrating. I think the former is not only fair but also a desirable response from an elected official. I would hope the people I vote into office would be able to recognize and try to amend flaws in existing legislation. Whether flaws exist in existing gun legislation is a whole other matter, but I do think it's worth at least a review. I'd be kind of disappointed if legislators didn't do this regularly.

[Edible]

Heh heh.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7092G220110110

Looks like you got your wish, Amat.