Bob Costas on Sunday Night football

[Tamara]

Bob Costas is and assclown, always has been, always will be. My ears usually go shut when he speaks up anyway.

Don't blame Bob. If it weren't for the easy availability of microphones, he never would have made that idiot statement.

[BaiHu]

Don't blame Bob. If it weren't for the easy availability of microphones, he never would have made that idiot statement.

Outlaw the mics and maybe less innocent people will be injured when the likes of Bob Costas and Chuck 'the Schmuck Schumer' run towards one.

[NETim]

Outlaw the mics and maybe less innocent people will be injured when the likes of Bob Costas and Chuck 'the Schmuck Schumer' run towards one.

Indeed. One could ask how far Der Fuhrer would have gotten without a mic.

[LittleLebowski]

I leave it to you, Tamara, to take this to the extreme. It was certainly not my suggestion...but yours. You can take ANY initiative and turn it into a STASI-scare, whether it's the USDA, Aetna, or the CIA. We don't do that here in America because we have protections against those extremes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...s-home-over-g/

[Erik]

Has anybody noticed most of the gun and bow violence of late is mentally ill people and not cold-blooded murderers?

How have I missed this uptick in bow violence?

[cclaxton]

Edits in caps... Let's go all the way, why don't we.?

The whole notion of "somebody shoulda done something" rings hollow for me on this. From the accounts I've read, nobody suspected anything beforehand. To use this incident as the rallying cry for more "proactive intervention" feels like guilt winning out over facts in evidence. Pandering in pursuit of further erosion of Liberty.

Liberty does not mean Anarchy, either.

I like the phrase, "Liberty and Justice For All."

I think the two go together. Our Constitutional Rights do have limits, just as our ability to provide Justice has its limits. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to find the right balance. The Constitution also says it should, "promote Domestic Tranquility" and this, too, demands that we find that balance.

I don't subscribe to the idea that "somebody shoulda done something", but more this idea: If we could have reasonably prevented violence because *someone* knew that a person was unstable and potentially violent, then we should try to intervene taking into account their individual rights. And, YES, that is possible.

Here's an example of how it seemed to be handled appropriately: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ebook-threats/ Medical Doctors will be able to work with Raub and tell authorities whether he is dangerous or not...albeit within a reasonable doubt. Given time, Raub should be able to get out if he is deemed sane and stay longer is he is deemed not.

We have background checks for mental/emotional treatment for good reason. We don't want crazy or potentially violent people legally buying guns. 91% of Americans support background checks. (IPSOS, April 2012) Doctors, and not prosecutors, make those recommendation and decisions, even though Doctors are not perfect, but the measure of a policy is not based on whether it can be done perfectly. That seems to me to be the right balance.

CC

[cclaxton]

How have I missed this uptick in bow violence?

http://global.christianpost.com/news...d-class-85910/

[Erik]

http://global.christianpost.com/news...d-class-85910/

I'll be damned. There ought to be a law!

[jetfire]

Liberty does not mean Anarchy, either.

I like the phrase, "Liberty and Justice For All."

I think the two go together. Our Constitutional Rights do have limits, just as our ability to provide Justice has its limits. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to find the right balance. The Constitution also says it should, "promote Domestic Tranquility" and this, too, demands that we find that balance.

I don't subscribe to the idea that "somebody shoulda done something", but more this idea: If we could have reasonably prevented violence because *someone* knew that a person was unstable and potentially violent, then we should try to intervene taking into account their individual rights. And, YES, that is possible.

Here's an example of how it seemed to be handled appropriately: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ebook-threats/ Medical Doctors will be able to work with Raub and tell authorities whether he is dangerous or not...albeit within a reasonable doubt. Given time, Raub should be able to get out if he is deemed sane and stay longer is he is deemed not.

We have background checks for mental/emotional treatment for good reason. We don't want crazy or potentially violent people legally buying guns. 91% of Americans support background checks. (IPSOS, April 2012) Doctors, and not prosecutors, make those recommendation and decisions, even though Doctors are not perfect, but the measure of a policy is not based on whether it can be done perfectly. That seems to me to be the right balance.

CC

You think a dude being detained by law enforcement and forced to undergo a mental health examination over posting conspiracy theories on facebook is "handled appropriately?" Damn bro, I'd hate to see what you think is excessive intrusion by the state, because I read the story you linked and it got my wookie-suit all riled up.

[BaiHu]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...s-home-over-g/

That is a horrible story. I'll be interested in finding out more about this case over time.

Thanks for posting LL.