27 Dead, Most Are Children, at an Elementary School in the U.S.

It's interesting as I definitely heard your initial comment from a very North America-centric cultural position. Rather than considering where MSNBC editorial opinion might sit on a globally referenced political spectrum I heard you say that Fox was ideological and MSNBC was not. I see MSNBC as politically progressive, and I see politically progressive in America as on the left of and sometimes to the left of the Democratic party. Left on social issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control and favourably inclined to expanded government roles in things like health care and the redistribution of wealth via taxation and social programs. I wouldn't say there is a voice for Palestinians in the way I think you mean it. There is no strident and rigid pro Isreali stance either like on Fox News or like they currently have coming out of whatchmacallit...that country to the north of the United States. I forget the name of the place but I'm sure most of them up there are pretty embarrassed about it. Rachel "Genius" Maddow did say something like "Ixnay on the whole ground war with Gaza thing Isreal" a month or so ago, if that's illuminating at all. In general the issue is covered comparatively shallowly relative to domestic issues with a degree of removed interest reflective of the fact that MSNBC is a progressive voice but the United States does remain an ally and supporter of Isreal.

It matters less to me what they cover than the fact that how they cover it tends to leave people half ignorant and fully dug in. Multiple surveys show Fox News viewers are the least informed consumers of news, but not surprisingly MSNBC viewers are never too far behind. Generally second only to Fox, on one survey they were more likely than consumers of any other media source to be uniformed about a key aspect of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Ideological news outlets are awful places full of venom, foolishness, performing monkeys, idiocy and smugness. MSNBC is particularly smug, with Rachel Maddow the eye rolling crown princess of smugdom. As relates to engagement with issues and events, If one seriously wants to be a thoughtful, empathetic and informed person open to good ideas from anywhere you're better off soaking your head in acetone than watching Fox News or listening to "geniuses" like Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews or the departed Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

MSNBC as Fox's liberal evil twin (NY Times):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/msnbc-as-foxs-liberal-evil-twin.html?_r=0

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

There's a lot wrong with my country, but I wouldn't consider living anywhere else because, in my less than partial opinion, the USA is the greatest place on earth - faults and all. I do think, however, the best way to show patriotism is to acknowledge the homeland's shortcomings, not to pretend the homeland is exceptional simply because it exists. Without addressing failures, how can one improve?

[/QUOTE]

^ this is why I like you so much.

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]

I'm not up on the story behind each mass shooting in the last few decades, but I can't really remember any where a bystander with a weapon 'saved the day'.

[/QUOTE]

It hasn't happened.

If it did, the NRA wouldn't have secluded themselves into a cave. They'd be hammering this point home ad nausea.

@Holly:

It's not true that the European left is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Aside from the fact that there are large differences of opinion within the left, most of the European left *does* support the pacifist and left-wing Israeli political parties, they (me included) just detest Likud, Israel Beithenu and it's pro-war allies. At the same time, only a small minority supports the ultra-nationalist Palestinian parties. On the whole, the European left favors a two-state solution, while the right supports a one-state solution where the Palestinians are considered Jordanians and/or Syrians.

Just watched the most obstinately dumb and misleading press conference by the NRA which can be summed up as follows:

Guns aren't the problem, people are. And Hollywood movies. And violent music. And video games.

So everyone should be armed to protect themselves from other people, and every school in the USA should have armed guards.

How fucked up are these people?

The only interesting bit was when a protester held up a placard and due to the camera angle it looked like the NRA spokesman was saying: "NRA KILLING OUR KIDS"

Piers Morgan lost his shit on similar logic on CNN the other day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

Is that your polite way of telling me to calm down GF? :)

It's a bit unfortunate that I find myself on the same side of the debate as someone as odious as Piers Morgan but sometimes even his ilk get it right.

I've found it very difficult to watch any of the coverage of the massacre or the debates afterwards. Today was an exception, and I'm already regretting it. There's only so much inflexible dimness I can listen to before losing the rag.

No! LOL. I just thought you might find it interesting to see a fellow Brit similarly moved by the infuriating logic of the pro gun lobby. My vague sense of Piers Morgan is of somebody who had some kind of taloid career in Britain but usually cleans up well enough for CNN and looks a bit like an elf when he smiles at Susan Boyle. I didn't mean to compare you to somebody odious. You're not odious! :)

Beyond the initially intended point there is I suppose some value in a cruelly neutral look at that exchange and the NRA comments you saw. Even if you strip away the parts where Piers went over the top and invites some criticism the fact is that what we have on this side is a more difficult argument to articulate. It's more complex and diffuse and when reduced to "You're all so fuckingly fucking ridiculous" it's a vulnerable one in the war of rhetoric. In the United States you don't have to be a crackpot to embrace pro gun beliefs. Perfectly normal people far more like you or I than not find logic and appeal in the idea of personal and community safety and responsible self sufficiency through private arms. The opposing argument to that is that a similar sense of personal safety and security is achieved all the time without guns for self defence in other places and that giving up some autonomy on self defence over time is worth the benefits to society and individuals alike. Whether we like it or not guns probably do prevent some kinds of crime and the significant number of people who currently perceive safety and autonomy though gun ownership live in a country unusually vulnerable to sudden public violence. It's an argument that has to be won incrementally and with patience and compromise and an understanding that convincing people to introduce an element of tangible risk in their lives to prevent a theoretical one to themselves or somebody else will have to be earned.

I hope a reasonable place to start will be restricting the use of the assault style weapons and getting rid of the high capacity magazines completely. God or whoever willing. For the sake and soul of that counrty I hope so.

This just happend a couple hours ago in Pennsylvania

http://news.yahoo.com/four-dead-three-police-wounded-pennsylvania-shooting-paper-180118893--finance.html

Latest NRA brainfart: the best way to protect children from gun-toting madmen is to post gun-toting madmen at every school.

Yeah, a heavily-armed janitor is a perfect solution, because they can never, ever go berserk, and if they do (which they won't ever do), they certainly wouldn't target, say, the children in the school where they keep their arsenal of guns.

Seriously, how can it be that ANYONE takes these scumbags seriously? In any civilized country, they'd be considered a borderline terrorist organization or at the very least dangerous extremist nutcases. I'd at least expect the roughly 25 civilized states of the US not to pay them any attention or give them any exposure, but reality seems to hold a different opinion...

[QUOTE] [b]greaserkat wrote:[/b]

This just happend a couple hours ago in Pennsylvania

http://news.yahoo.com/four-dead-three-police-wounded-pennsylvania-shooting-paper-180118893--finance.html [/QUOTE]

I just read about it. But of course, guns still aren't a problem. The NRA will be releasing a press-statement in a week or so, when they've thought of a sufficiently crazy argument along the lines of "if the gunmen hadn't had a gun he'd have killed way more people 'cause everybody knows you can kill way more people with a knife/a truncheon/your bare hands than with an assault rifle, which is really just a piece of sporting equipment, like a football".

ThomasQuinn, I don't think the janitor would ever be armed.

Maybe you are just practicing in case you are ever hired as an expert commentator for MSNBC.

[QUOTE] [b]Donna13 wrote:[/b]

ThomasQuinn, I don't think the janitor would ever be armed.

Maybe you are just practicing in case you are ever hired as an expert commentator for MSNBC.[/QUOTE]

They proposed to place an "armed guard" (their words) at every school. I don't think calling him an "armed janitor" is stretching the truth very much. It seems to me that you're looking for some flaw in my argument to latch on to, and apparently saying that the person in question wouldn't be a janitor is the best you can do. You're right Donna13, it's a guard, not a janitor. The rest of the argument, i.e. the part that matters, still stands.

ThomasQuinn, I am just teasing. It was an MSNBC joke. If you were also joking, then that was pretty good. I realize that humor doesn't translate easily. But I appreciate all attempts at it here, that's for sure.