Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DancesWithDogs's avatar

The 911 calls in itself runs down that entertainment path - but often I hate seeing children interviewed or shown in certain circumstances. I'm always suspect on whether parents were asked for permission, were they coerced, or chosen for the most dramatic presentation. It's in line with seeing children at protests - such as the prochoice/prolife rallies. 4-5 year old children holding signs for adults point of views. Similarly, 'representing' political parties, pro-teacher/pro-city during contract disputes ('You're taking my education from me', "I want to be safe in my classroom) Back to 911 - those who want to get the recordings will say "the public has a right to know' or we're permitted through FOIA have gone to far.

EDITORIAL BOARD: I suppose it could sway people - although I never was one to say "Finally, I'll be told who to vote for" it was always good to read both paper's endorsements. Clinton/Trump always felt like - we don't want to endorse either, Clinton is going to win the state regardless, let's talk Johnson. The Trib offered the Anti-SNL. SNL was bring them both on we have character actors for both -where are we going to find someone to do Johnson?

"Why should the “institution” of a newspaper..." oh great! I can see it now... People Magazine endorses... TMZ endorses... Fox Sports endorses... MLB endorses... Northwestern University endorses... Barnes and Nobles endorses... McDonald's Happy Meal Endorsement Meal Deal... The Golden Globes endorses...

Copless Pride Parade... BIG MISS. Acceptance, coming together, showing unity... except for you people because you make us feel uneasy. Many Pride Parades evolved from being banned from parades and said, fine we'll have our own and everyone can join. One of the many reasons being "I support LGBTQ. I support the Blue. So you want me to choose one over the other?"

Ohio Rep. Waiting for the statement "I know pornography when I see it."

Jean SmilingCoyote's avatar

Some people have suggested that the damage done to the victims' bodies by the AR-15 type rifle in Uvalde should be shown to the public in photos, with families' consent. I second the motion. Meanwhile: it would be easier if authorities obtained the body of a deer who died from a cause with little physical damage, and shot it through with an AR-15, then took good photographs of the damage and showed these to the public. The consequences would be very comparable. In addition to helping teach people why these assault-type rifles have, arguably, no place in civilian life, it would also show why they're really not good for hunting, because of all the damage done to the meat and hide, compared to our normal projectile weapons (including the bow and arrow). The only exception I might make for hunting is where people are trying to eradicate highly dangerous, destructive, invasive alien species, which in the USA pretty much means feral hogs. I've read these are an ecological scourge in many parts of the South, as well as being extremely dangerous. One well-placed shot from an assault-style rifle should be enough, but it's important to kill the animal right away.

21 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?