The video below exemplifies the strength of the Second Amendment argument forwarded by those wishing to preserve their right to protect themselves from attack. The video clearly shows that the armed men kicking down this single moms door, returned after being warned by her that she was armed…… she had to shoot again to scare them off.
Who does not want that mom to have a gun at that time?
We all recoil in horror when there is a school shooting, someone walks into an office and shoots his/her coworkers. Then,as always, the reflexive there are too many guns, that’s the problem. How do we take away some of these guns ?
Gun control advocates are seemingly mystified as to why Americans do not remove from office anyone crazy enough to not support gun control. The reason is, most Americans do not have gun violence as a part of their life in anyway except through news from elsewhere. My home town of 60,000 never has had a shooting. There have been homicides just not by gun. This is what most communities experience or, only once in a blue moon there is a gun incident. Gun violence is very concentrated, in many ways.
I don’t own a gun, never have. It does not bother me that my neighbors do.
This man would have been spending 5 years for the crime of getting beat up. I am a big supporter of the police. Having a camera on each officer all the time has proven to be incredibly effective means of lowering the number of complaints against officers.
The police have amazing powers over citizens. Like we see and record everything in court. For the good cop it should be a tool in the tool chest, for the bad cop it says don’t sign-up we watching.
From saving on lawsuits against officers, to supplying moving video evidence to convict or acquit it seems a no-brainer.
The injustice that would have been done to this one young man, wrecking his life, would be worth the investment.
A final, sad note: the officer making the exclamations “quit trying to take my gun” are reminiscent of the Mad Dog Savagery in Fullerton. Cameras save the reputations of the good cops, too
If Glenn, Matt and Jeremy have enough faith in this guy, I’m in. The funding to do the kind of journalism that these journalist like to do has never been available. Possible media game changer? The alternative media is slaying the MSM beast with a million cuts. It may require the big sword, First look Media, to finish the beast off.
Today is my last day at Rolling Stone. As of this week, I’m leaving to work for First Look Media, the new organization that’s already home to reporters like Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras.
I’ll have plenty of time to talk about the new job elsewhere. But in this space, I just want to talk about Rolling Stone, and express my thanks. Today is a very bittersweet day for me. As excited as I am about the new opportunity, I’m sad to be leaving this company.
Whether or not one believes their is a funding problem with Social Security almost everyone would agree that removing the 113,000 dollar cap is the way to resolve the issue. Narrowing the argument to the solution, that an overwhelming majority of Americans would support, that is so simple, so elegant “Remove the cap”. The thought that every American would pay the same amount, on each dollar they earn, to fund social security. We are not asking that the rich pay more per dollar they earn, that they have and expect to retain special interest exemptions, is patently bizarre.
They can only maintain the position that cuts are necessary by excluding the most logical resolution to the “problem”. When “removing the cap” is interjected as the solution to the problem the opposition is required to make an indefensible argument, that is why there is a 100% political/MSM blackout on this solution. They(MSM/Politicians) do not argue against this solution, they act like it does not exist.
When they placed this, special interest, cap on earnings for their major campaign contributors the congressional debates, underwhich this legislation passed, forwarded, manifestly, that if there were a funding issues in the future, removing the cap would be the way to resolve it. Dennis Kucinich was a lion on this issue, you barely hear a progressive polititian whisper it, pathetic-public-option-sell-outs.
Each time you, write, talk about the SS “problem” narrow it to “remove the cap” only silence on this issue keeps a positive resolution from coming to fruition. It is something your Grandma or Dad can understand. It is one of those issues that would collapse support for those standing by their wealthy donors on this issue. It is such a raw, ugly, Libertarian, wealth distribution argument that would clearly be rejected by the American people.
We should do all we can to force them to make that argument. We should reflexively demand “remove the special interest cap on earnings”. Then they would say “there is not a problem, what problem?”
How about Firedog being the initiator of the white house petition to answer the question Why not remove the earnings cap to resolve all or part of the “Social Security Crisis”?
If we can successfully interject the “remove the cap” resolution to the crisis it will, to a degree, indemnify social security against attack as they would have to pay and they dont like that. If we can not interject this simple argument into the debate, we will lose this epic battle. If “remove the cap” were to prevail, the positive effects would be equally as grand and have a ripple effect- its a great issue to champion.
Conan has done a half a dozen of these “Continuity of Media” bits. This is another demonstration of that 1% media control at your local news station. Heck, David Koch sits on the board of PBS, with his other billionaire buddies. That Conan can, with such ease, lay bare the fact that someone, somewhere is scripting local stations right down to the Valentine’s Day silly stuff. That would be the same cabal that put Koch the board of PBS and has financed the PBS hit piece on public pensions.
Alternative media is mankind’s last, best hope to have a say on its future.
“WNET, the New York City affiliate of PBS, said production on the planned series, dubbed “Pension Peril,” would be suspended indefinitely after journalist David Sirota of PandoDaily revealed the money was coming from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
John Arnold, a former executive at the disgraced Enron before who became one of the youngest billionaires in the US, was once the leading financial backer of a political movement to slash retirement benefits for firefighters, teacher, police officers, and other public-sector workers.
“The series, promoting cuts to public employee pensions, is airing on hundreds of PBS outlets all over the nation,” the journalist wrote. “It has been presented as objective news on major PBS programs including the PBS NewsHour.”
Sirota revealed that, not only was Arnold behind the “Pension Peril” series, but the PBS affiliate itself had approached him for funding.
“As a taxpayer-funded entity, PBS’s official rules clearly prohibit the funding of programming by a benefactor who ‘has asserted, or has the right to assert, editorial control over a program,’” he wrote in the article originally published Wednesday. “Those rules also do not allow programming to be funded by a benefactor who is ‘pre-ordaining the conclusion the viewer should draw from the materials presented.’”
Since the report began making headlines earlier this week, WNET had defended its decision to accept the grant from Arnold, even though his foundation said on its website that it “has encouraged governments to face the true magnitude of their pension problems and to develop structural reforms that are comprehensive, sustainable and fair.”
A spokeswoman for the foundation told the New York Times that it did not receive any editorial control over the content, although it was the only financial supporter of the series. The PBS affiliate announced that “Pension Peril” would still be aired on outlets throughout the US but that the money would be returned.
WNET’s vice president for programming Stephen Segaller said “We made a mistake, pure and simple” before explaining that company would abide by a “perception test” when considering future decisions.
Segaller told the Times WNET after PBS officials reminded WNET to consider “both the facts and the optics. We all take very, very seriously any suggestion that there’s a perception problem about the integrity of our work or the sources of our funding, and we came to the conclusion that it’s better to err on the side of caution.”
MyFDL is the community site of progressive political blog Firedoglake. Anyone can participate by writing a diary, commenting on others’ diaries, or joining groups to find other people in your area. Content posted to MyFDL is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to Firedoglake.