http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:36:18 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/233618.php Robbie PortAs I watched the end of Hannity & Colmes tonight I saw an announcement for an upcoming story about prescription drugs. The announcer said that some states were considering a new option for lowering the prices on prescription drugs. One of those states is my home state of North Dakota.Senator Dorgan, a Democrat and one of my representatives in congress, has an online petition going meant to garner support for opening up the American prescription drug market to competition from Canadian drug companies.Senator Dorgan is calling his program the Prairie Prescriptions Pilot Project. His plan would allow licensed pharmacists to purchase FDA-approved drugs from suppliers in Canada. Canadian drugs are, on average, far lower in price than their American counterparts. In fact, many North Dakotans already make special trips into Canada for the express purpose of purchasing prescription drugs.Allowing Canadian drug companies to compete in this manner would almost assuredly cause American drug companies to lower their prices. This would mean that average citizens would have easier access to drugs at a more reasonable price.So what's the downside? Well, may will probably say that we'd be sending our money across the border never to see it return. That's not exactly true. I'd be willing to wager that the people who are saving money on prescription drugs aren't exactly going to be stuffing that saved money into mattresses. They'll likely invest it or spend it on things other than drugs which means some of the loot the drug companies are currently hoarding will be spread around a little bit. That's not such a bad thing.Plus, the amount of drugs that would actually be purchased from Canada remains to be seen. I'd expect that if Senator Dorgan were to get his way American drug companies would respond by making their prices competitive with those from Canada. So a lot of the prescription drug business would likely stay in-country any way.The way I see it, this plan has a lot of potential and not a lot of negatives. The only change I would make in Senator Dorgan's plan would be to make the program available to the entire nation, not just North Dakota. Culture14021@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:36:18 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/230716.php Robbie PortAccording to Reuters, gas prices in this country have hit record highs:The average price for regular gasoline struck $1.738 per gallon, up a tenth of a cent from the previous record hit in late summer 2003, according to the motorist group's survey of more than 60,000 stations. While an all-time high in nominal terms, the current price of gasoline is still significantly lower than the inflation adjusted peak of $2.94 hit in 1981, and well below the prices seen regularly in European countries. "Economists may find it helpful to discuss inflation adjustment, but a big increase in the monthly gasoline bill is a large burden to this country's families and businesses regardless," said AAA spokesman Geoff Sundstrom.He ain't kidding. High gas prices put a pinch on everybody, both personally and professionally. We all use gasoline in one way or another. When it costs more it hits us where it hurts the most...in the pocketbooks.A lot of times we complain about oil companies raising prices or OPEC manufacturing supply shortages in order to drive up prices. Maybe something we should be looking at is how much gasoline is taxed in this country.I don't know what its like where you're from, but here in North Dakota the tax on fuel is $0.21/gallon. To me that seems like an enormous amount. Can you imagine the amount of money the government could put back in our pockets if they lowered the tax even a nickel per gallon? Not to mention the positive effect it would have on businesses like pizza delivery and couriers.I'm no economist. Maybe there's a good reason for not cutting the fuel taxes that I'm not aware of, but given what I know right now it would seem to make a lot of sense to give Americans a tax break when it comes to gas. Especially in light of rising gas prices. Culture14020@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:07:16 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/22/234521.php Robbie PortThe death of a cameraman, who was shot and killed in Iraq by an American soldier, has been ruled tragic, but justified.From Reuters:The report, made public seven months after Dana died, found that the soldier's "decision to fire at Mr. Dana, though tragic and regrettable, was justified based on the information available to him at the time." Reuters said it could not agree that the death of Dana, a prize-winning Palestinian cameraman, was justified and called for the urgent implementation of recommendations in the report to improve the safety of journalists in war zones. It said Dana would not have died in the shooting outside Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison on August 17 if the recommendations had been in place. The Army report said the soldier, who shot from a tank, had a "reasonable certainty" that Dana was about to fire a rocket- propelled grenade (RPG), having mistaken his camera for a launcher. But it said the tank commander recognized Dana was holding a camera immediately after the fatal shots were fired.This is indeed a tragic situation, but I have to side with the Arm on this one. If Reuters would like its media personnel to be safer in combat zones then maybe they should be a little less aggressive when sending them in. Are soldiers have all they can handle keeping themselves and other innocent citizens who get caught in the crossfire safe, they shouldn't have to worry about reporters getting underfoot as well.I don't blame the soldier for shooting the cameraman. He was in the midst of combat when he saw a Palestinian man kneeling and pointing something large and black at him. What was the soldier to do, wait and see if a rocket came out of the black thing first? That's like asking a police officer to wait until a bullet comes out of a gun before deciding if its a toy or not.Sometimes a little personal responsibility from the victim is in order. Culture13989@blogcritics.org Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:45:21 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/01/234623.php Robbie PortThis year I chose to watch the Super Bowl with my family. Me, my sisters and my nieces and nephews all met at my parents house for sub sandwiches and football.Everything was going fine. We laughed at the off-color Bud Light ad about the flatulent horse and the ad about the donkey who wanted to be a Budweiser Clydesdale. We were all looking forward to the halftime show where we expected to see a good show put on by MTV. What we didn't know is that we were going to be in for a peepshow.Boy were we surprised. When Nelly came out on stage and sang about how hot it was and how everybody should take their clothes off, we looked at each other and shrugged. Those lyrics are a little inappropriate for the kids, but oh well.Then we reached the end of Justin Timerblake's spot. Just as the music was ending, Timberlake reached up and fondled one of Janet Jackson's breasts, then he pulled part of her shirt off exposing, or at least appeared to expose, her breast. From where we were sitting, it looked like she was halfway topless.Now I'm wondering, why did they have to do this? What was the point? We were enjoying the half time show up to that point. In fact, I had just got done telling everybody how much better I thought this year's show was when Justin exposed Janet. Maybe Janet is trying to drum up some hype for her "sexiest album yet," but I wish she'd have found a better way to do it than exposing herself to my nieces and nephews.If the Super Bowl wasn't such a family event, I'd say "big deal." But the fact of the matter is that the Super Bowl is a family event. Many families watch the game together, why should they have to sit through Janet exposing herself like that? I'm not trying to be a prude here, but its hard to explain to the kids in the room why the woman on the television exposed her breast in front of milliions of people. I'm not against sexy performances, but that type of entertainment should be reserved for a time when not as many kids are watching.I plan on contacting the NFL to let them know that I'd appreciate it if they'd return the Super Bowl to the standards of family entertainment.If you'd like to do the same you can send a letter to this address:National Football League 280 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017You can also call them at (212) 450-1860.Update:Apparently, not even the folks at CBS knew that the "surprise entertainer" at MTV's halftime show was going to be Janet's right boob. According to Justin Timberlake, neither did he:CBS apologized on Sunday for an unexpectedly R-rated end to its Super Bowl halftime show, when singer Justin Timberlake tore off part of Janet Jackson's top, exposing her breast. "CBS deeply regrets the incident," spokeswoman LeslieAnne Wade said after the network received several calls about the show. The two singers were performing Rock Your Body, a flirtatious duet to end the halftime show. At the song's finish, Timberlake reached across Jackson's leather gladiator outfit and pulled off the covering to her right breast. The final lyric of the song goes, "Going to have you naked by the end of this song." The network quickly cut away from the shot, and did not mention the incident on the air. Timberlake said he did not intend to expose Jackson's breast. "I am sorry that anyone was offended by the wardrobe malfunction during the halftime performance of the Super Bowl," Timberlake said in a statement. "It was not intentional and is regrettable."So it was an accident. Maybe. Or this could just be spin. It sure looked like Justin meant to rip her top off to me. If it was an accident, what exactly was he doing with his hand there and why did he rip it away like that? Further, why would she be wearing the jewlery seen in this picture and this picture? (WARNING: Nudity.)On the way home from my parent's house I was able to catch part of Drudge's radio show. I don't have a link to the transcript, but here's what he had to say about it:Basically, what we got was a big floppy boob on national television brought to you by the new AOL 9.0 optimized.This is a real low-point for pop culture. Video12252@blogcritics.org Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:46:23 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/01/124238.php Robbie PortDean Esmay of Dean's World has written an essay about prostitution based on this Robert Heinlein quote:A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other professionals offering services for pay -- such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients? It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.Dean makes the point that prostitution is, in essence, a meeting of two predators. Prostitutes play on the insecurities and loneliness of their clients for monetary gain. Johns go to hookers to rid themselves of that loneliness, or perhaps to exercise a type of sexual deviance that is not permissible in their regular relationships.But James from Outside the Beltway disagrees, in part:Heinlein appears to mean "professional" in the sense of "making a living at it" given the list: "dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc." Most of us wouldn't consider hairdressers to be "professionals" and plumbers are skilled craftsmen instead.As to the exploitation issue, Dean is correct in principle. Still, don't lawyers, physicians, and plumbers exploit the misery of others to make a living? Their clients are being sued or facing prison; miserable and/or dying; or just had their pipes burst or their toilets overflow. They probably haven't budgeted for these emergencies but have little choice. In a larger sense, isn't the entire economy predicated on exploitation? I like my job, but there are days I'd rather go to the movies or something. But The Man won't pay me for doing that, so I am forced to go into the office. I have an innate human need for food, but the folks at Safeway won't give me any without my turning over some money. And so it is with most of my economic existence. Oh, the humanity!Now, it is certainly true that prostitution is more degrading than the other lines of work Heinlein lists. Would you rather your daughter or sister grow up to be a prostitute or a lawyer? [What's the difference? -ed. Stop that.] I think almost anyone would agree that there's not much of a contest there.Prostitution has been called the oldest profession. Most scholars would agree that it is older than any of the other professions Heinlein lists. Sexual desire has been inherent in humans since, well, the beginning. How long would our species have lasted had man not felt a sexual craving that he sought to satisfy? But times have changed. Sex is no longer a simple means to ensure the continuance of our species but is rather a means for us to entertain ourselves, most of the time. Judging by dropping U.S. birthrates and the amount of sex being discussed in our culture, I think its a safe bet to say that there aren't a lot of people doing it for the sake of procreation any more.So suffice it to say, the hooker-john relationship is one that has existed for centuries. Many would tells us that in our enlightened age prostitution should be brought out from under the rug and made respectable, and there are a lot of good things to be said about doing that.For instance, regulation would greatly reduce the number of minors involved in the trade and could also help cut down on the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Prostitutes would be more likely to report crimes committed against them if they didn't have to fear arrest once reporting it. The trade could also be taxed, putting money back in the pockets of taxpayers. Law enforcement could also focus resources formerly reserved for vice operations on other areas.So why haven't we legalized it already? Well, for one thing its hard for most Americans to wrap their minds around legal prostitution. Most of us would simply shrug our shoulders if informed that a certain woman was a prostitute. As long as its not somebody close to us, we don't really care. But those would change, for the majority of us, if that prostitute were our daughter, or our niece. Or our son.So what do we do about prostitution? Do we legalize it, regulate it and tax it and hope that our children don't grow up to do it, or do we continue to fight it watching our officers arrest the same people, time and time again, for the same crime.To tell you the truth, I don't have a good answer for this one. I just know that I'd hate for my daughter to ever have to earn a living through sex, so it'd be hard, nay, impossible for me to vote for a law that would allow the daughters of other fathers do it. Politics12235@blogcritics.org Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:42:38 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/122625.php Robbie PortFrom the BBC via The Agitator:Some of the world's largest alcohol companies are facing a US lawsuit from angry parents worried that adverts are aimed at teenagers.Diageo, Heineken, Bacardi and Coors are among seven producers named in a lawsuit that accuses them of deliberately targeting young drinkers....Health groups link a surge in underage drinking to aggressive advertising....The US Federal Trade Commission said in a September report that it "found no evidence of targeting underage consumers" in the alcopop market. That hasn't deterred the parents and guardians who are demanding the companies pay damages and return profits.As if the current crusade to put the tobacco industry out of business wasn't enough some people now want to blame their inability to control themselves on the advertising of the alcohol companies. When my town enacted its "smoking ban" in restaurants I told everybody who would listen to me that law like that, on the local, state and federal levels, set a dangerous precedent for other lawsuits aiming to shift the responsibility from the one using the product to the one producing it. Here's exactly what I said in a post on this website:Smoking is not a popular habit with most of us, but he next time you vote on a law about smoking start thinking about what they could ban next, it might be something you enjoy.Already this year we've seen lawsuits against the fast food industry and the gun industry. After these people are done with booze, what's next? Salt? Are we going to go after the salt industry?Listen, if your kids are out binge drinking it isn't Coors' fault, its your fault. Be a better parent. Kids don't learn about drinking from liquor ads, they learn most of what they know about drinking from their parents or older siblings or other kids at school. If you are a strong parent, set a good example for your children and stay involved in their lives they are not going to have a problem with alcohol. All the advertising in the world can't counteract good parenting.I'm also not sure how the alcohol industry can be accused of irresponsible advertising. The ads I see always depict people of age enjoying whatever beverage is being hawked. I see loud parties and cool guys with good looking girls. And, at the end of most of them, I see a "21 Means 21" logo or some other voluntary indication that underage people should not consume alcohol.I would also question the age 21 drinking law in the first place. I think that law should be abolished, or the age should at least be greatly reduced. Right now we have people over in Iraq fighting for this country who could not legally partake of a champagne celebration should we win the war tomorrow. Do you want to know why kids "binge drink?" Its because they're trying to thumb their noses at their parents. I am not so far removed from my adolescence that I don't understand this. Teenaged kids like to do what they're not supposed to be doing. If we lowered the drinking age the current crop of teens would probably take to partying like nobody's business, but for future generations it would soon become common place. Drinking and partying would still exist, but it would be controlled because its something they're allowed to do anyway. They probably wouldn't keep it a secret from their parents anymore either. No more binge drinking because they don't have to cram all their drinking into a few short hours on a Saturday night.It would also solve a lot of problems with the college part crowd. Most of these kids in college have had to wait their whole lives until the arbitrary age of "21" to drink. Why not let them start at a younger age? Why not have them grow up around alcohol. Let them have a few drinks with their parents while they're teenagers so that they know how to handle it responsibly.These "nanny" lawsuits sicken me. They seem to imply that the American public has no control over itself. They think that we're all just wide-eyed drones sitting in front of our televisions doing whatever corporate America would have us do. They'd have us believe that these commercials are going to have us mowing down children with submachine guns while binge drinking, smoking a cigars and clotting our veins with Big Mac after Big Mac. Well that's just not the case. The implication that we only do what commercials tell us to do is insulting.Millions of Americans are addicted to alcohol, but millions upon millions more use alcohol regularly in a responsible manner. All these lawsuits are going to do is interfere with the alcohol industry's ability to engage in free enterprise. If the lawsuits succeed the settlement payouts and advertising restrictions are just going to cause the average American to pay more for that Friday six-pack and that, I would say, is a crime. Politics10506@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:26:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/28/104428.php Robbie PortFrom the Drudge Report:Active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are upset over being forced take part in a military repatriation ceremony today for remains believed to be those of the non-military brother of presidential candidate Howard Dean, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned....JPAC was pressured to not only recover his brother's remains, but to bump Dean's recovery over numerous other MIA's who actually died fighting for their country, a well-placed military source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. Additionally, JPAC is being pressured to push up Dean's brother's identification ahead of approximately a hundred other service members remains, it is claimed. Says one source: "These service members were recovered from all US wars, whose families are waiting to finally get word that their loved one, who gave his life for his country has been identified and is finally coming home. It usually take 2 years plus for an identification. Apparently, this 'rush job' will be done in 4-6 months. That's not all, we are repatriating his Australian friend, with military honors, and pushing his identification ahead our service members also."...In the past, JPAC has recovered remains of civilians [specifically contract civilians working for the military], but never with military honors! In fact, one time, JPAC team members conducting the recovery had to actually pay the postage to FEDEX the remains back to the family because the government would not pay for it.According to this article, Charles Dean and his companion were considered to be "tourists" by both the United States and Australian governments. One would wonder, however, why anyone would choose to visit the Mekong River in Laos in 1974. Despite their reasons, Dean and his companion were not combatants, simply innocent civilians.I sympathize with the Dean family and hope that the remains found are, in fact, Charles Dean. I know that if they are it will bring closure and relief to that family.It does anger me, however, that the possible remains of Charles Dean (and his non-U.S.-citizen companion) are being given military honors. It also angers me that the identification process is being "fast-tracked" for this civilian ahead of many legitimate soldiers who died for their country. This type of service isn't being given to other civilians who have been recovered. In fact, the Drudge article even cites a time when the remains of a recovered civilian had to be FedEx'd to the next-of-kin because the government refused to pay for transportation.To quote the military official from the Drudge article, it is indeed a slap in the face to anyone who has ever served, or is currently serving, the United States as a soldier. Charles Dean may have been one heck of a guy, but he never did anything to earn the honors being bestowed upon him now.Military Honors are not to be taken lightly. An honor guard for your coffin is not a right bestowed on every citizen, but a privelege for those select few who gave of themselves for this country. To have a military escort for the coffin of a "tourist" who never served his country in the military is an outrage which tarnishes the image of the honor guard in the first place. What kind of an honor is having an honor guard if just any citizen can get one? I, as a citizen who has never served in the military, would be embarrassed to have an honor guard that I didn't earn present at my funeral.This wouldn't matter to somebody of Howard Dean's mindset. People like Dean seem to feel that simply being born American is entitlement enough for just about anything.I hope that Dean and his family learn quickly that there are still some things in life that you have to earn, and honors from the military are one of them. Politics10504@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:44:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/25/122045.php Robbie PortFrom Yahoo News:The U.N. Children's Fund announced Monday that it has appointed an HIV-positive puppet who stars in the South African version of Sesame Street as a "global champion for children." Kami, a furry yellow puppet who appears regularly on Takalani Sesame, represents a 5-year-old girl who has been orphaned by AIDS. UNICEF said she "has brought levity and compassion to a topic that so often evokes the opposite." Kami will help promote messages of acceptance and an end to stigma for HIV/AIDS sufferers across the world in a way that is appropriate to the age group, UNICEF said, announcing a partnership with the Sesame Workshop, which gives creative support to the South African makers of Takalani Sesame. Why are UNICEF and Sesame Workshop assuming that children in the Sesame Street age group (approximately 2 years old to 9 years old) need to learn about sexually transmited diseases? And why is a program like Sesame Street making that decision for parents?Sesame Street is a terriffic program. The basic lessons the show teaches, such as counting, reading, getting along with others, and sharing are important. But since when do five year olds need to learn about sexually transmitted diseases? Lessons about that topic should come later in life, not at the age of five.Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude. When the time is right I plan on being very forthcoming with my daughter about the topic of sex, safe sex and the possibility of diseases, but at three years old I don't want her running around talking about HIV. That's just not appropriate. At three, she should even know what sex is let alone what an STD is.Sex is a delicate topic and its introduction into a child's life shouldn't be left up to the parents, not beamed into the child's living room by television producers. Politics10434@blogcritics.org Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:20:45 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/25/121725.php Robbie PortFrom the KFGO website:The attack is on the from the conservative right. All you have to do is search on google for Ed Schultz, and I will give them a plug, and you will see some of the most outlandish things that have ever been said or written about me as a radio personality and as a person. One of the websites that caught my attention was the thenewrepublic.com. Where do they get this garbage? Stories made up about me that are outrageous, which actually is a compliment. These people are nervous. They want to do anything they possibly can to take me down before we get launched.What stories are outrageous? And why is he taking them as compliments? He says that the attack is on from the conservative right yet he doesn't site any examples outside of "thenewrepublic.com" which leads to a website which does not even mention Schultz's name. A search conducted for "Ed Schultz" on thenewrepublic.com does not produce any relevant results.Now a search for "Ed Schultz" through google does produce some results from The Free Republic website, which is probably what Ed meant to say. Of course, those of us familiar with Schultz know that he tends to ignore that which does not support his opinions or ambitions.If Ed Schultz is going to accuse a broad group of people like conservatives of attacking him I would expect him to at least link to some relevant examples. Or to at least make some sense, unless this sentence makes sense to you:Stories made up about me that are outrageous, which actually is a compliment.Ed Schultz would have us believe that he's a middle of the road guy. He doesn't take sides, he just reports on the issues as he sees them. This quote is also from the above referenced KFGO link:I'm not a left wing wacko, I'm not an off the wall democrat, I'm not an off the wall anti-American flaming liberal. I'm a guy from Fargo, North Dakota. I'm a guy whose got a track record in the industry of good ratings and hard work. I will bring entertainment to the microphone and I'm proud to say that I'm a progressive.He expects us to buy into this horse-hockey while in the same breath he talks about "attacks" from conservatives and a want to fight against the "conservative mantra." How can you start off an article with a statement like "The attack is on from the conservative right," and then finish it by declaring yourself party neutral by saying that you are a "progressive?"What a joke.If you listen to Schult's current radio program, News & Views on KFGO out of Fargo, you will soon learn of his intense hatred for conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. He accuses Rush of being a pawn for the conservative right. I would like to point out one thing about Rush Limbaugh: At least he doesn't try to hide who he is.How can Ed Schultz decry the so-called "conservative mantra" when he has taken up a very liberal mantra of his own? Do his cries of conservative dominance not echo throughout the Democratic party? Are his views not very liberal? How can he claim to occupy the "middle of the road" when it is obvious that he is being supported by Democrats? Democrats even asked him to run for governor.I take politics very seriously. When I'm going to give my attention to any type of media (be it television, radio or internet) I like to know where the host or producers are coming from. When I listen to Rush Limbaugh I can temper his statements with my knowledge that he is a conservative. With Schultz you never really know. One moment he's rallying against conservatives and the next moment he's claiming the middle of the road again.I think Christopher G. Adamo summarizies the issue well in this quote from an article in the Sierra Times:An October 28, 2003 article in the Bismarck Tribune explains how North Dakota liberal radio personality Ed Schultz is being recruited as a national radio voice to counteract the likes of Limbaugh and rising conservative radio star Sean Hannity. But the forces at work to launch Schultz as a major personality are not the normal commercial interests that invest in promising individuals with the hope of a financial return. Rather, they are, according to the Tribune, "Democratic lawmakers in Washington" who have pledged $1.8 million in support of their cause.No doubt, they anticipate that conservatives will tremble in their boots at this possibility, as if Schultz has anything to offer that has not already been tried by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, National Public Radio, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times (to name just a few...). Among liberals, it is invariably presumed that the manner of the messenger, and not the message itself that carries ultimate weight.I don't think Schultz knows what he's getting himself into. If I were him, I'd stick to broadcasting football games because I don't think he's got a chance with a nationwide talk show. Culture10433@blogcritics.org Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:17:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/24/091400.php Robbie PortFrom CNN:A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun industry in a decision expected to re-ignite debate over legislation immunizing gun makers from being sued for crimes committed with their products. Thirty-three states already have laws exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from such suits. The House in April passed a bill to extend the prohibition on such suits nationwide and President Bush has said he would sign it. Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal. The 2-1 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to death and wounded five people -- including three children -- at a Jewish day care center in a 1999 Los Angeles-area rampage. ...Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals. None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages. Here we go again. This is the latest bit of lunacy in a trend that has seen smokers blaming their cancer on tobacco companies and fatties blaming their love handles on fast food restaurants. It seems as though many in this country have forgotten of the meaning of responsibility.Murder is a cruel, cruel thing. When a person is murdered it leaves a scar on those left behind. Those scars hurt and often drive the survivors to extreme measures in order to exact revenge. Some of the survivors try to harm or kill the one responsible for the murder. Some try to sue the gun companies.The gun compaines aren't responsible for gun violence. They are like any other business in that they produce and sell and sell guns while trying to maximize their profits. The implication that they "allowed" guns to reach criminals is nonsense. According to the article Glock, the gun company in question, sold the gun used in the murder to a law enforcement agency. That agency then sold the gun to a gun shop who in turn sold it to a gun collector. That gun collector then sold it to the murderer at a gun show. How, in that convuluted trail of ownership, can anyone trace the responsibility for that gun back to the gun company? The gun changed hands three different times before being sold to the murderer.A reasonable person would also wonder how the responsibility for the murders can be attributed to anyone but the one who pulled the trigger. We forget that the gun didn't murder the people, the person holding the gun did. The gun was just a means to the end. The gun was not smuggled through a network of owners into the murderer's hands so that he could use it to committ a crime, it was sold in a legal manner (with the possible exception of the last transaction) to a variety of owners before falling into the hands of a man who obviously was not right in the head. Would Ford be sued if the murderer had driven an Expedition into that daycare? Would Ginsu be sued if he had gone on a stabbing rampage? Of course they wouldn't have because those companies can't control what is done with their products once they leave the store.There are millions upon millions of gun owners across the nation who have never committed a crime using their firearms. It seems like every year that goes by a new gun regulation is passed further restricting a gun owner's right to own and utilize his or her firearm. Meanwhile criminals across the nation commit crimes with guns purchased illegally. More gun laws aren't going to help because the people committing the crimes with the guns aren't following them anyway. According to the article, our President is trying to get a bill passed which would protect gun companies from lawsuits, but guess what the Democrats are going to do? That's right, another fillibuster. The same thing they've done with the judicial appointments, medicare and the energy bill.Rather than sue the gun companies or pass more useless regulations on gun ownership, why not determine why the crimes are being committed in the first place? Why not try to take some of the tax dollars being used to enforce opressive gun measures and focus it on solving the reasons for the crimes being comitted with the guns?There is a saying that I have heard doctors use a lot. They say that you do not treat the symptoms, you treat the cause of the symptoms. Gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be solved. Take away the guns and these criminals will just find another way to commit their crimes.Appeals Court Reinstates Gun Lawsuit Court reinstates suit against gun manufacturers Anti-gun industry suit is reinstated Politics10393@blogcritics.org Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:14:00 EST