Redstate

That anyone who seriously believes he died as a martyr should be summarily disqualified from running for public office on the grounds of their manifest mental illness.

Because my interpretation of it was that the martyrs were the kids who were on the wrong end of the gun in the seats.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Does Barack Obama think he was a martyr? The statement can be read either way.

But Obama, at the *VERY* least, has plausible deniability if he is publically challenged about how he called Kazmierczak a martyr.

If one wants to move beyond the very least, one could interpret his statement that he was talking about "the victims" of the shooters, rather than about the "the set of victims which includes the set of the shooters because the shooters also shot themselves".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I agree that Kazmierczak's victims in the audience shouldn't have been forced to be victims. I think they should have been armed.

That's my motto!

But I also understand how that personal motto isn't an election winner (though, I grant, it ought to be).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

This is not a statement from the Obama campaign, it's a delusional acolyte in the press.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I'd like to know whether Mary Mitchell believes it and thinks Barack Obama does.

Because the wife has been bugging me about going to that and I want to know I should see this as "okay, I've had a negative balance of husband points for a couple of months" thing or if it's a legit "not bad if you sneak in a hip flask" kinda movie.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

But Mitchell's column raises a number of questions about not just her reality testing but her motives.

I'd like to ask what her implication is with this statement, also:

How is it that we live in a country where a young man can get his hands on four weapons, including a shotgun?

Well, he was a 27 year old man who lied about his past and was "revered" by the faculty and students at the school he attended, and he purchased those weapons legally -- but she doesn't mention that. She characterizes him as a "young man" -- nothing more, nothing less. The clear reading of that statement is that as a remedy she would support making it illegal for any adult of his age to purchase those weapons, do you agree?

She doesn't even say: "A young man with a history of psychiatric trouble." Who, I might add, spent more than a year in a residential psychiatric facility in her own city, apparently without any meaningful results.

Now, I have no doubt personally that Mary Mitchell would dearly love to confiscate every lawfully owned weapon in the United States (she also uses the word "nation" -- not "state" or "city" or "campus.") I lived in Chicago and I've read her column going back many years. But instead of asking this rhetorical question, why doesn't she just come right out and say what the clear implication of her question is?

I'd like to know whether Barack Obama really wants these kinds of "positive" editorials being written about his "hope."

Why do you care what she thinks?

Does she really strike you as a writer that "undecideds" read?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I care what she thinks because Dan posted the blog entry and I responded, first of all. And I care because I've read her column for several years, and even though I disagree with almost everything she writes I feel it's important to comment on it if Mary Mitchell is going to have her soapbox. You seem to be saying that either:

1) I shouldn't care what Mary Mitchell thinks, because it's irrelevant.
2) I shouldn't care what Mary Mitchell thinks, because there's nothing I can do about it.

or

3) If I don't agree with what she writes, I should just be quiet.

None of those apply, because I do care what she writes and I think she's wrong.

Or do I need a license to post comments on this blog?

It strikes me that you have misinterpreted her statement.

The reference to martyrs was not a reference to the murderers (despite the fact that they are also dead - by their own hand) but to the murdered.

You seem to be saying, nope, I read her right, she is one of those people who would include the murderers in the set of "Martyrs"... verily, she's one of those people who would have the set of "Martyrs" include no one *BUT* the murderers!

It is my position that this view is out of the mainstream.

Moreover, it is my position that this view is out of the mainstream to the point where it cannot have impact upon the mainstream. We're not in "we should legalize marijuana for cancer patients on chemotherapy" territory, we're in "we should legalize PCP and sell it in vending machines in elementary schools" territory for that view.

If that's the case, she is a walking version of DU and will have as much (or, more precicely, as little) impact as that website will.

Dude. I'm a libertarian. The *LAST* thing in the world I would argue is that you shouldn't be posting what you feel like posting. Seriously.

I do find myself moved to post stuff like "seriously, dude, I think you've totally misinterpreted your opposition" from time to time, though. Which is not the same thing as telling you how to live, let alone how to post.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

She is even to the left of Jesse and Al, which is an accomplished feat in and of itself, and something that few journalists are able to do successfully while keepingt heir careers. BTW, the Suntimes is definitely the garbage tabloid paper of the two we have, I wouldnt use it for toilet paper even though its covered in crap.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.