Think of the worst teacher at your child’s school. Would you want him or her carrying a gun at school?
Not surprisingly, a lot of callers are saying, “no.”
One of the callers had the intelligent retort:
If you’re talking about just that one teacher, then the answer’s no. But if all the teachers could carry, then sure.
After all, those in favor of gun carry believe that knowing anyone could be carrying tends to discourage bad behavior. As the saying goes, “an armed society is a polite society.”
To illustrate the stupidity of Hewitt’s question, rephrase it by replacing the word “teacher” with “police officer” or “soldier” or “FBI agent” or anyone else who could carry a gun. The answer’s still “no.”
But in a free society we don’t grant “privileges” based on whether the worst of us will abuse them. We deny rights only for good reason and after due process.
Hewitt seems to think that just because the majority of parents would answer “no” to his question that it’s a good idea to ban teachers from carrying handguns on campus. I wonder if he’d also agree that it would also be a good idea to ban lawyers from being able to be talk show hosts on the AM dial. I bet we could get a majority in favor of that proposal, too.
Quotes might not be exactly word for word. After all, I’m a blogger, not a court transcriber. They do carry the central thought as accurately as I heard and can remember. Your mileage may vary. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate this post. Do not eat. This is not a toy. Do not use while bathing or standing in a bucket of water. See software user’s guide for patent information. Caution: Contents Hot. For external use only.
Ann Coulter spoke at CPAC last night. At the end of her speech, she said:
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot,” so I’m — so I’m kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.
Incredibly stupid. It’s really sad to see Coulter flush her credibility like that.
I believe a couple of apologies are in order.
Also unfortunate was the amount of laughter and applause in response to the CPAC. Maybe it was “polite” laughter (how’s that for irony?), but… I’ll withhold judgment because I can’t tell what percentage of the audience was responding positively. I truly hope it was a very small percentage.
Hugh Hewitt has a great post on the matter. Some commenters take Hugh to task for being too PC, because, after all, the Dems call names too. That’s not a convincing argument for me. We should be debating ideas, not calling names. Let’s raise the level of discourse, not race for the gutter.
In the closing weeks of the campaign season, I felt like I was a lawyer who had a bad client while writing this blog. That client was the Republican Party which had broken its Contract with America from 1994 and had become unmoored from its conservative principles. As its advocate, I couldn’t make a more compelling case for Republicans staying in power than the fact that the Democrats would be worse. I believed in that case, but when that’s all the party gave its advocates to work with, you can honestly conclude that Republicans got this drubbing the old fashioned way — we earned it.
Mark Halperin, ABC News’ political director, in an interview by Hugh Hewitt, wants consumers to judge the news media solely on their results, but is unwilling to provide the information necessary to evaluate. Give your MP3 player a break from music to listen to the three-hour interview (it’s shorter without the ads).
LC: Right. But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?
WB: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?
LC: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?
WB: With all due respect, with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.
LC: Oh, Wolf…
WB: This is reporting the news, which is what we do. We’re not partisan…
LC: Where did you get the film?
WB: We got the film…look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed, this is an issue that we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that. And I think, and I think, of your…
LC: Well, I think it’s shocking.
WB: If you’re a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn’t so good.
LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?
WB: And if you put it in context, if you put it in context, that’s what news is. We said it was propaganda. We didn’t distort where we got it. We didn’t distort anything about it. We gave it the context. Let’s talk about another issue in the news, and then we’ll get to the book. [Emphasis added.]
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Andrew Sullivan regarding his book, The Conservative Soul. Sullivan called it an inquisition. Although you could just read the transcript (still being entered at this writing), I recommend listening to the the audio. The transcript cannot fully reflect Sullivan’s contentiousness and combativeness and his utter confusion whether he’s being interviewed or debated.
Andrew Sullivan: You’re pathetic. You really are a pathetic — you’re such a pathetic pedant. You really are.
Hugh Hewitt: All right. Good. On that note…
AS: You missed the whole point of this book.
HH: We’ll be right back.
AS: You’re not interested in the truth, Hugh.
HH: Andrew Sullivan is my guest on the pathetic pedant show. Don’t go anywhere. (Source.)
Hugh Hewitt, in the same sentence, explains (maybe) why he he doesn’t have comments on his blog and at the same time destroys his ability to win a defamation suit against derogatory comments in a blog.
So let’s get a little bit more conspiratorial. Let’s say you want to take down a blog or at least bleed it a little. So you hire someone to post a series of defamatory comments about you or a close associate, and then you bring or finance the payback lawsuit.
Stop the world; I want to get off. Actually, I feel like I did and I’m trying to get back on. After being sick for over a week, going on vacation for a long weekend (while sick), and then having a two-day business trip packed with fun-filled meetings (yup, that’s the closest I’ll come to blogging about work; see Dooce for the reasons), I have no idea what’s going on in the “real world.” I don’t care.
Reading progress. I planned to finish Hugh Hewitt‘s book In, But Not Of while on vacation, but didn’t even pick it up. So much for giving it to my brother while on the business trip. That’s okay; he’s still reading Hewitt’s Blog.
After getting The Message for Christmas, I resolved (yeah, I lied, so sue me) to read it straight through. I’ve slogged through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and am now making quicker progress: I zipped through Joshua and am in Judges.
I’m convinced Moses was trained as a middle manager or accountant in Egypt. He tells you everything three times. “God told me to tell the Israelites X. I told the Israelites to do X. The Israelites did X.” Or worse, he gives painstakingly, redundant detail. (See Numbers 7.) I got it the first time. Is it cheating to skim?
Reading Joshua was a breath of fresh air. For example, there’s detail for day one marching around Jericho, and then: “On the second day they again circled the city once and returned to camp. They did this six days.” (Joshua 6:14, The Message.) Wow!
Well, I don’t feel quite so bad about not knowing the details of the president’s proposal on social security. Apparently, they haven’t been released. No matter. The democrats have started the battle to defeat any change. Hugh Hewitt has some details, some links for more information, and a suggestions for the GOP: start a social security blog.