The Swamp

mister d wrote:Someone mourning a family member's or a friend's death should not be contacted for an interview. Even if the reporter is very polite.

So you were against all of the stories about people on 9/11? I'm not attempting to draw an equivalency at all by asking that question or elevate the status of this even slightly. But no one should be contacted about the death of a close person? Ever? Is there a timeframe?

brian wrote:Not trying to interject myself into the discussion but this is one of the reasons I got out of the news business. I found myself interviewing a woman whose daughter had been struck and killed by lightning and eventually decided I couldn't do it anymore. I don't fault people who can but I couldn't.

I think it's why you see people get so jaded who have been in the news business for a long time. Depressing topics become, well, depressing.

You're altering his words. He said his participation was the impetus, not merely being exposed to depressing news.

I mean ... seriously ... previous circles or not you can't tell me you see nothing wrong with the parents of a toddler who drowns being politely contacted about an interview. You just can't.

As soon as you cash a check for writing a piece, it has become a commodity. Product/payment. Even if you call it something else.

mister d wrote:You're altering his words. He said his participation was the impetus, not merely being exposed to depressing news.

No, I'm not. I was not talking about simply exposure.

mister d wrote:I mean ... seriously ... previous circles or not you can't tell me you see nothing wrong with the parents of a toddler who drowns being politely contacted about an interview. You just can't.

Why is this a right/wrong issue? There can't be levels of other? And again, serious question. Police are called to a drowning at a lake. Media knows and reports it. It's a toddler. Since it's a toddler, they shouldn't ask for context from those (perhaps family) who witnessed the incident? It should simply be ignored?

I realize that you're coming at this by being the parent of young children. That doesn't escape me. But I'm simply asking the questions rather than disagreeing. The above scenario is a shitty fucking situation, regardless.

And do you want to answer the "ever" question? Or was that a sweeping statement not intended to be taken literally?

Giff wrote:

Pruitt wrote:

A_B wrote:What's the name of this fantasy show, Pruitt?

Nina's World. It's a show being coproduced by a Canadian company with the Sprout pre-school network out of L.A.

A number of animation writers I know don't like writing for the younger audience, but as I get older, I find the sweetness of the tone and the simplicity of the messages make me very happy.

Got to finish a scene where the main character and her grandmother are feeding bread to some silly ducks in the park.

On a day like this, it beats the hell out of writing drama.

Dude, that's fucking awesome. My daughter loves Nina and Star.

Feels odd to be talking about this show on this thread...

Michele Lepe - the latest Nina - is one of the Executive Producers of the show.

Tell your daughter that Michelle (or Nina) is very sweet, not far from her onscreen persona.

Brontoburglar wrote:Why is this a right/wrong issue? There can't be levels of other? And again, serious question. Police are called to a drowning at a lake. Media knows and reports it. It's a toddler. Since it's a toddler, they shouldn't ask for context from those (perhaps family) who witnessed the incident? It should simply be ignored?

It's a right/wrong issue because picking up the phone and calling the parents of a toddler who wasn't dead that morning just so you can get an exclusive interview or an emotional video clip is wrong. It might be "how it is" or consented to (in part because that's how it is), but it's wrong. And I don't think you would do it, probably for that reason.

When I saw the shooter's name and picture yesterday, I had a brief Oh Shit! moment. He bears a more-than-passing resemblance to a friend of mine who has the same last name. I'm not sure Flanagan is a terribly common last name for African-Americans and with this happening in Virginia, not too far away from here ... I was worried they might be cousins or something.

A little digging taught me that the crazy guy was actually from California, so hopefully it's just a coincidence.

We just had a shooting here - a cop was shot in the back on a traffic stop.

This is the suspect. He apparently has "a history of DUI and narcotics":



That's the thing about the argument that it's no good to ban guns because people will get them anyway.

Some people might get guns even if they are banned. But losers like this guy?

Lone wolf. Great parents. Not a bad kid, just has some issues, made some mistakes.

mister d wrote:Lone wolf. Great parents. Not a bad kid, just has some issues, made some mistakes.

Shocked that it would happen here. Such a quiet street...

Pruitt wrote:

mister d wrote:Lone wolf. Great parents. Not a bad kid, just has some issues, made some mistakes.

Shocked that it would happen here. Such a quiet street...

Would have found a way to kill that cop anyway, gun or no gun...

travzilla wrote:

Pruitt wrote:

mister d wrote:Lone wolf. Great parents. Not a bad kid, just has some issues, made some mistakes.

Shocked that it would happen here. Such a quiet street...

Would have found a way to kill that cop anyway, gun or no gun...

If only the cop had a gun, the guy never would have tried to shoot him knowing the cop had a gun.

South Carolina Gamecocks to honour the people killed in the Charleston Church shooting.



Not sure whether to laugh, cry or sneer.

Are those supposed to be doves flying off of a tree? The Rebel Flag seems less offensive.

I am not areligious man - an agnostic with a spiritual streak (maybe) - so something about portraying the victims of a hate crime (and gun violence) as doves flying up to heaven really offends me.

The idea that they are going to a better place is a sop to the people who shed tears over such events and then move on without doing a thing to change the circumstances. Just wait until the word "healing" is used during their game against Ole Miss or Kentucky. As in "the Gamecocks are helping the entire state heal after the tragic events..."

Man - if I didn't love the sport so much, I would ate everything to do with football.

Wow. you guys are hardasses. Pretty slick if you ask me.

A_B wrote:Wow. you guys are hardasses. Pretty slick if you ask me.

It IS a slick design, and on a basic level, it does work...

But I can't help but think of the context, and the fact that there will be 70<000 people doing the moment of silence thing while not doing a damn thing to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

Pruitt wrote:

A_B wrote:Wow. you guys are hardasses. Pretty slick if you ask me.

It IS a slick design, and on a basic level, it does work...

But I can't help but think of the context, and the fact that there will be 70<000 people doing the moment of silence thing while not doing a damn thing to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

Honoring and avenging aren't mutually inclusive.

A_B wrote:

Pruitt wrote:

A_B wrote:Wow. you guys are hardasses. Pretty slick if you ask me.

It IS a slick design, and on a basic level, it does work...

But I can't help but think of the context, and the fact that there will be 70<000 people doing the moment of silence thing while not doing a damn thing to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

Honoring and avenging aren't mutually inclusive.

Not implying vengeance. Implying action to change the gun culture. Naive, I know...

My second sentence was tongue in cheek. My first was legitimate curiosity. It looks like spilled ink.

10 dead 20 reported wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg Oregon

Man interviewed on CNN just said it's something you'd never imagine happening there. Where have we heard that before?

There was no way to prevent it.

12 year old uses shotgun to kill 8 year old who wouldn't let him see her puppy dogs.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... es-sheriff

Think we'll use the go to quote in situations like these.

Jerloma wrote:There was no way to prevent it.

Daily Show takes down Ben Carson's idiocy on mass shootings:


http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2ybqd8/th ... he-victims

I'm all for creating measures to reduce gun violence and gun crimes, but I really wish people would stop using Australia as the example we can absolutely follow. 17 million people came to the conclusion that guns were bad. America has 320 million people. And a vast majority are entitled assholes. We cannot just simply have a collective change of heart the way they did. But dammit if people (obsessed liberals) can't wrap their heads around it.

But we've made massive changes in the past. I'm sure there were people who weren't awful racists but thought the logistics of desegregating schools would be too daunting. Status quo is obviously easier, but it's not justification.

like Atticus Finch!

mister d wrote:But we've made massive changes in the past. I'm sure there were people who weren't awful racists but thought the logistics of desegregating schools would be too daunting. Status quo is obviously easier, but it's not justification.

I'm not advocating status quo. I'd like for change to happen. But the idealist perspective here is an overnight change -- and one from within exactly like Australia. Not going to happen. Not in the Entitled States of America.

The gun problem, like all American problems, is a symptom if a greater issue. That issue is "Fuck you. I'm better than you and I deserve whatever the fuck I want." There's no greater good ideal in America. It doesn't exist. It used to. But profit margins became more important than humans at large.

Living overseas changed my perspective considerably. Rules like "salt the sidewalk in front of your house because you're responsible for anyone who slips near your property" and "drive in the left lane only to pass" and "don't mow your lawn on Sunday" are in place here. They could never exist in America. Or if they did someone would sue. And then the American justice system would uphold the lawsuit -- because fuck you, I can do what I want.

Until you remove that element, you won't ever see true progressive change. 17 million people in a country that values the lives of others more than their own can go "holy shit" and change. Consider it a wake up call or whathaveyou. But shit, in America? No way. Why else can a goddamn presidential candidate say "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away" if a large population wouldn't agree?

Excellent summary Johnnie.

The Carson quote "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away" is chilling in its implication that the philosophical underpinning of the state is more important than the rights of the individual. 2nd amendment trumping the 1st.

It really smacks of a totalitarian mindset.

Johnnie wrote:

mister d wrote:But we've made massive changes in the past. I'm sure there were people who weren't awful racists but thought the logistics of desegregating schools would be too daunting. Status quo is obviously easier, but it's not justification.

I'm not advocating status quo. I'd like for change to happen. But the idealist perspective here is an overnight change -- and one from within exactly like Australia. Not going to happen. Not in the Entitled States of America.

The gun problem, like all American problems, is a symptom if a greater issue. That issue is "Fuck you. I'm better than you and I deserve whatever the fuck I want." There's no greater good ideal in America. It doesn't exist. It used to. But profit margins became more important than humans at large.

Living overseas changed my perspective considerably. Rules like "salt the sidewalk in front of your house because you're responsible for anyone who slips near your property" and "drive in the left lane only to pass" and "don't mow your lawn on Sunday" are in place here. They could never exist in America. Or if they did someone would sue. And then the American justice system would uphold the lawsuit -- because fuck you, I can do what I want.

Until you remove that element, you won't ever see true progressive change. 17 million people in a country that values the lives of others more than their own can go "holy shit" and change. Consider it a wake up call or whathaveyou. But shit, in America? No way. Why else can a goddamn presidential candidate say "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away" if a large population wouldn't agree?

You can get a ticket in the US for driving in the left lane and not passing.

ETA: There are also many municipalities where you are responsible for the sidewalk in front of your house.

It's also worth pointing out that we're not talking about majority/minority when it comes to guns. We're talking about an extremely influential minority in terms of lobbies and a primary field where appealing to fractions of the population is the best way to get attention.

That's the most important point. How many in 100 Americans would truly dig in if hunting rifles only was the proposal.

mister d wrote:That's the most important point. How many in 100 Americans would truly dig in if hunting rifles only was the proposal.

I'd love to see that restriction. But, I think you'd be surprised if such a hypothetical vote ever occurred. I think pretty much every state that regularly votes Republican in presidential elections would vote against such a gun restriction. Said more clearly, all the south, all the west except the west coast states, and also the more conservative midwestern states.

sancarlos wrote:

mister d wrote:That's the most important point. How many in 100 Americans would truly dig in if hunting rifles only was the proposal.

I'd love to see that restriction. But, I think you'd be surprised if such a hypothetical vote ever occurred. I think pretty much every state that regularly votes Republican in presidential elections would vote against such a gun restriction. Said more clearly, all the south, all the west except the west coast states, and also the more conservative midwestern states.

A vote would follow the electoral college model?

Just spitballin', there.

sancarlos wrote:Just spitballin', there.

Oh, I simply asked because I wanted to make sure my assumption was correct from how I read your post.

Johnnie wrote:

mister d wrote:But we've made massive changes in the past. I'm sure there were people who weren't awful racists but thought the logistics of desegregating schools would be too daunting. Status quo is obviously easier, but it's not justification.

I'm not advocating status quo. I'd like for change to happen. But the idealist perspective here is an overnight change -- and one from within exactly like Australia. Not going to happen. Not in the Entitled States of America.

The gun problem, like all American problems, is a symptom if a greater issue. That issue is "Fuck you. I'm better than you and I deserve whatever the fuck I want." There's no greater good ideal in America. It doesn't exist. It used to. But profit margins became more important than humans at large.

Living overseas changed my perspective considerably. Rules like "salt the sidewalk in front of your house because you're responsible for anyone who slips near your property" and "drive in the left lane only to pass" and "don't mow your lawn on Sunday" are in place here. They could never exist in America. Or if they did someone would sue. And then the American justice system would uphold the lawsuit -- because fuck you, I can do what I want.

Until you remove that element, you won't ever see true progressive change. 17 million people in a country that values the lives of others more than their own can go "holy shit" and change. Consider it a wake up call or whathaveyou. But shit, in America? No way. Why else can a goddamn presidential candidate say "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away" if a large population wouldn't agree?

You make some great points, especially about living abroad and being able to view US society from an outside perspective. If more Americans were able to, maybe we would lose some of the selfish, 'Murican exceptionalism bullshit. My only disagreement is I don't think anyone is looking for an overnight Australia fix. Most of the people I've heard calling for gun regulation start by saying they don't have an answer, but there needs to be a conversation. The problem is the NRA, their cadre of purchased legislators and their devotees screaming that giving an inch is akin to letting Hitler take all of our guns. There is an enormous middle ground between an all out confiscation of every gun in America and doing nothing and screaming that any regulation whatsoever is a Constitutional violation. There are limits on all Constitutional Rights, and many of the same people are really quick to toss aside the 1st Amendment Rights of Muslims and the rights for the poor and minorities to vote, but don't regulate our guns!