All the News that Fits 0
Margaret Sullivan reminds us that it’s important to consider the source.
This is especially important if the story is spreading on “social” media.
America’s Exceptionalism 0
At the Hartford Courant, Karl E. Scheibe asks a (rhetorical) question:
Why is the United States uniquely troubled with gun violence?
Follow the link for his answer.
A Tale of the Trumpling 0
The Washington Post’s Stephanie McCrummen follows an Alice down the Trumpian rabbit hole.
No excerpt or summary can do this report justice.
Just read it. It is–er–disquieting.
“With Liberty and Justice for Some . . . .” 0
Bryan Clark finds the recent Supreme Court ruling in Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez troubling. Here’s a bit of his article; the rest is at the link.
And not because the court has weighed the evidence for and against guilt and come to the conclusion that the man is guilty. (The latest court to review the evidence in the case concluded he probably couldn’t be found guilty of anything.)
The court is pushing to execute him because it says the evidence showing he is innocent should not be considered at all.
Misty Water-Colored Memories 0
The writer of a letter to the editor remembers a different time.
Geeking Out 0
VirtualBox VM of Windows 8 on Ubuntu MATE under the Fluxbox window manager. The wallpaper is from my collection.
Fundamentals of Fundamentalism 0
At Psychology Today Blogs, Araya Baker explores religious fundamentalism, which he refers to as a “political-religious” movement, as distinct from a purely religious one. He notes that
I commend his piece to your attention, particularly for the list of characteristics that he suggests is common to fundamentalist movements, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist.
Courting Disaster 0
Dr. Kenneth Krell is concerned that the current Supreme Court, packed with Trumpettes by Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, poses a clear and present danger to physical health of the populace.
The Common Denominator 0
At The Roanoke Times, Sociologist Theodore Fuller points out that guns are the problem.
(snip)
We have not always had this distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment. The idea that the Second Amendment means that any Tom, Dick, or Harry has a Constitutional right to purchase any weapon, no matter how deadly, has been sold to the American people by the NRA. And the NRA did not always have this interpretation. They started selling this idea in the 1970s.
To put it bluntly, that’s when the NRA morphed from being primarily a safety organization for hunters to being the marketing agency for merchants of death.
Follow the link for the rest.
Devolution 0
At the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tony Norman marvels at the Republican Party’s journey from the party of Lincoln to the party of stinkin’.