Because even if we tried, we couldn’t come up with more interesting posts
What are the other kids writing about today?
Over at Lawyers, Guns and Money, Scott takes a look at Juan Williams’ latest piece of spectacular hackery:
Anyone who looks at the totality of Bush’s policy and then holds up Rod Paige and wonders why Bush isn’t gaining traction is a fucking idiot.
That’s a roger.
At My Blahg, Robert provides some useful debunking of the claim that the CRTC (Canada’s equivalent of the FCC) has allowed Al Jazeera to broadcast but has banned Fox News:
Well, it’s a funny thing, but apparently the CRTC has no recollection of any attempt on their part to block Fox News from broadcasting in Canada. In fact, it would seem that a licence was issued in 2000 for Fox to start up, in conjunction with Global TV, Fox News Canada. It also seems that there is currently a proposal on the CRTC’s list of cases for this year to allow the actual Fox News to broadcast in Canada.
Tim Lambert reports that John Lott isn’t the only pro-gunner who makes shit up:
Back to Kevin Baker?s post. He conceded that British law allows self-defence, but argued that prosecution of self-defenders means that it is not legal in practice. I challenged him on this, pointing out that he didn?t have a single case where this had occurred. In his latest post Baker tries to find “just one example of the government prosecuting someone for an obvious case of self defense”. […]
There is a pattern here. In the obvious cases of self-defence, the ones where the fatal wound was inflicted in the front, the killer was not prosecuted.
And lastly, SullyWatch offers his thoughts on F9/11:
The soldiers, and indeed all the regular Americans shown in the film, really stand in stark contrast to Bush, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz and all the other officials. It?s hard to imagine that even the most partisan red-state Republican is not going to feel at least some empathy for Lila Lipscomb, the deeply religious conservative Democrat who, in the most painful scene, reads her late son?s last letter, urging her to vote Bush out, from Iraq. Piss on this movie and you piss on her.
Oh, I’m sure the fright-wingers have no compunction about pissing on Lila Lipscomb. Their hatred knows no limits.
Gee, Sadly, did you try reading my side of the argument before leaping to your conclusion? At least Tim (finally) acceded to the fact that a “chilling effect” exists. Now he just has to make the jump as to where it originates.
Read the report of the case. Tell me that Osborne’s actions were not justified, given what he believed at the time of the attack.
Gee, Sadly, did you try reading my side of the argument before leaping to your conclusion?
Let’s see: you argued that self defense is illegal in the UK, a claim that is demonstrably false. Tim wrote that “there may be” a chilling effect, which you “quote” here as meaning that he acceded to the fact there is a chilling effect.
We think we picked the right side on this one.
Did you read the whole multi-post several month exchange, or just Tim’s Part IV?
Let me guess.
Let me guess.
So what’s your guess?
Well I did read the whole exchange.
Kevin said that there is an effective change; that even if the actual law still allows some version of self-defence, the evidence is that people believe they are likely to be made to suffer by the legal system, and so do not exercise their rights.
In addition, aggressors and criminals are well aware of this and capitalise with high hot burglary (home invasion) rates. Bullying and thuggery short of actual violence are very common in the UK, as is actual violent assault, and this is one reason for it.