×
- Nothing in our politics is responsible for Saturday's horror. But it was inevitable that a discussion about the tone of our politics would ensue. It was a problem before Saturday, and it remains a problem now. Here's a quote from a Tea Party leader, defending his members' revolutionary language: "When we talk about Barack Obama, we've got to be clear, it's not personal. When we say he's destroying this country, we are not saying he's doing it out malicious intent and a desire to cripple us. He has good intentions and he's wrong. I worry when that gets lost." One does not blunder into destroying the country. It absolutely implies intent. And to suggest otherwise is irresponsible, which I think is nature of the liberal critique of this type of rhetoric.
- On the policy side of the equation, the only thing we should be discussing are reasonable limitations on the availability of weapons designed to kill other human beings, and whether or not mental health is being adequately addressed in this country. On the former, the Second Amendment can co-exist with, say, background checks and making concealed-carry licenses a privilege, not a right. On the latter, it is worth asking whether public funding of mental-health care could reduce the possibility of acts of violence from occurring. If there's a chance that lives can be saved, shouldn't these policy options be on the table?
- "If only it were about the science," Andrew Stuttaford laments, in reference to climate change. No, he sees instead the regrettable sin of attempting to play God, or something. I have no doubt he believes this, but it's a deflection of the issue at hand. Either the science is correct, or it is not. And scientific consensus is scientific consensus, not some larger morality tale about the Folly of Man.
- Remainders: I'm shocked someone as intelligent as David Frum would mount an argument this stupid; APSA and political science blogging, finally together; and Kentucky jumps on the "punish women for having uteruses" bandwagon.
