user
Accomplished Advocate
1. They've identified a person whom they say is the perpetrator of the offense, but there have been no news reports that I've heard that specify how they did so. They keep plastering the grinning face on the news with the clear implication that he's guilty as sin (while calling him a "suspect"), but I don't know how they come to that conclusion.
2. I strongly suspect (but don't know) that Judy Clarke, the lawyer appointed by the court to represent the "suspect" is one of those whom I call, "tame lawyers". (There are also "tame judges", btw.) Such people are there to provide the illusion of due process while making sure things go the way The System wants them to go. They are not appointed in the usual way, they are specially selected. The argument being that their long experience makes them competent to handle the case (which is probably true). But I think we can be sure that if that guy has any valid defenses, the court won't hear about them.
3. The guy is accused of "political rhetoric" that other people didn't understand. They won't tell us what that consists of, though it sounds like he was unhappy that the general public has no idea what the Constitution says, and that politicians have a demonstrated lack of willingness to comply with terms and limitations expressed in The Charter. The clear implication is that people who like the Constitution are probably crazed killers.
4. Chris Matthews presented a highly-edited version of an earlier interview he did with a guy who'd carried a gun to an Obama rally some time back. I recall having seen the original interview, and the complete story presents the guy as intelligent, articulate, and clearly interested only in being able to defend himself and other innocent third parties. Then Matthews leaps to the conclusion that all guns are evil, that guns necessarily beget violence, that violence leads to violence, and the mere presence of guns guarantees that incidents like this one will occur. What I was thinking after having seen a bit of that (I turned to a movie, couldn't take too much of it), was that I wish that gun-totin' guy had been in the crowd. Someone should have shot that dude before he'd killed five or six people. Arizona is supposed to be a big gun-totin' state, the news makes it sound like every citizen of Arizona is a six-shootin' cowboy. Why wasn't there anyone present who could have shot that guy before he'd killed so many? We need more guns, not less (and maybe publicly-funded educational programs for law abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves).
5. Russian TV wants exactly the same thing as Chris Matthews does. I can see why Russia wants the American populace to be disarmed, but what's up with Matthews? Why is he against self-defense? Interesting, I thought, that Al-Jazeera has been the only network whose reporting on that issue has been neutral.
6. I find it appalling that so many politicians have cynically jumped on the opportunity to castigate law abiding citizens' interest in defending themselves, their homes, and their familes, as gun-crazed lunatics, or as political whackos (like those who feel the Constitution should be "preserved, protected, and defended, against all enemies, foreign and domestic"). I saw Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., NJ) this morning on one channel arguing that we need new laws at the federal level to ban any handgun capable of holding a magazine containing more than ten rounds. His theory was that a Glock something or other was used to shoot the people in Az., and that all such guns are therefore evil, and their owners are also a threat to other people. I can see why representatives of the Vatican (e.g., Lautenberg), Russia, and other foreign states want to see the United States disarmed. That's the first thing I'd do if I wanted to be able to exploit the economic and military power of the U.S. for my own interests. Pinky and The Brain try it every single night, but they always fail because they forgot to disarm the people first! Seriously, I regard Lautenberg as a threat to national security.
7. Why haven't we heard anything about the federal judge who was killed? What was he working on at the time, what were his leanings, etc. I think that's far more important than a member of congress, in terms of the threat posed to the United States. I wonder why the news people haven't said a thing about what cases he was in the process of adjudicating, what papers he's written, and what his judicial history has been. The fact that this congresswoman has been the complete topic of reportage (when they're not showing pictures of the adorable nine year old girl), to the total exclusion of what the judge was working on makes me suspicious.
"And that's all I have to say about that."
2. I strongly suspect (but don't know) that Judy Clarke, the lawyer appointed by the court to represent the "suspect" is one of those whom I call, "tame lawyers". (There are also "tame judges", btw.) Such people are there to provide the illusion of due process while making sure things go the way The System wants them to go. They are not appointed in the usual way, they are specially selected. The argument being that their long experience makes them competent to handle the case (which is probably true). But I think we can be sure that if that guy has any valid defenses, the court won't hear about them.
3. The guy is accused of "political rhetoric" that other people didn't understand. They won't tell us what that consists of, though it sounds like he was unhappy that the general public has no idea what the Constitution says, and that politicians have a demonstrated lack of willingness to comply with terms and limitations expressed in The Charter. The clear implication is that people who like the Constitution are probably crazed killers.
4. Chris Matthews presented a highly-edited version of an earlier interview he did with a guy who'd carried a gun to an Obama rally some time back. I recall having seen the original interview, and the complete story presents the guy as intelligent, articulate, and clearly interested only in being able to defend himself and other innocent third parties. Then Matthews leaps to the conclusion that all guns are evil, that guns necessarily beget violence, that violence leads to violence, and the mere presence of guns guarantees that incidents like this one will occur. What I was thinking after having seen a bit of that (I turned to a movie, couldn't take too much of it), was that I wish that gun-totin' guy had been in the crowd. Someone should have shot that dude before he'd killed five or six people. Arizona is supposed to be a big gun-totin' state, the news makes it sound like every citizen of Arizona is a six-shootin' cowboy. Why wasn't there anyone present who could have shot that guy before he'd killed so many? We need more guns, not less (and maybe publicly-funded educational programs for law abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves).
5. Russian TV wants exactly the same thing as Chris Matthews does. I can see why Russia wants the American populace to be disarmed, but what's up with Matthews? Why is he against self-defense? Interesting, I thought, that Al-Jazeera has been the only network whose reporting on that issue has been neutral.
6. I find it appalling that so many politicians have cynically jumped on the opportunity to castigate law abiding citizens' interest in defending themselves, their homes, and their familes, as gun-crazed lunatics, or as political whackos (like those who feel the Constitution should be "preserved, protected, and defended, against all enemies, foreign and domestic"). I saw Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., NJ) this morning on one channel arguing that we need new laws at the federal level to ban any handgun capable of holding a magazine containing more than ten rounds. His theory was that a Glock something or other was used to shoot the people in Az., and that all such guns are therefore evil, and their owners are also a threat to other people. I can see why representatives of the Vatican (e.g., Lautenberg), Russia, and other foreign states want to see the United States disarmed. That's the first thing I'd do if I wanted to be able to exploit the economic and military power of the U.S. for my own interests. Pinky and The Brain try it every single night, but they always fail because they forgot to disarm the people first! Seriously, I regard Lautenberg as a threat to national security.
7. Why haven't we heard anything about the federal judge who was killed? What was he working on at the time, what were his leanings, etc. I think that's far more important than a member of congress, in terms of the threat posed to the United States. I wonder why the news people haven't said a thing about what cases he was in the process of adjudicating, what papers he's written, and what his judicial history has been. The fact that this congresswoman has been the complete topic of reportage (when they're not showing pictures of the adorable nine year old girl), to the total exclusion of what the judge was working on makes me suspicious.
"And that's all I have to say about that."