Welcome to the new Hot Air!
posted at 10:12 am on February 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Yesterday was a travel day for me, so I missed a lot of the commentary on the acquisition of Hot Air by Salem Communications, the conservative radio network that features such luminaries as my friend and mentor Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and Michael Medved, and who bought Townhall from the Heritage Foundation several years ago. The commentary ranged from the objective, in Andy Barr’s straightforward reporting at Politico, to the hysterical at The Atlantic Wire, where Max Fisher described our comment thread as “turn[ing] ugly” after someone remarked that selling Hot Air was like “Dylan going electric,” and someone else replied “Yeah, electric accordion.” (I laughed out loud when I read that.) I’ve seen more pungent remarks in humpbot threads; I’m not sure what was ugly about normal concerns that arise with any acquisition. I’ve been through a few of them in my previous career, and change is universally unsettling.
If readers are unsettled, you can imagine how Allahpundit and I felt when we heard about the potential sale. After all, we provide almost all of the content for the site, and it’s not exactly a secret that we occasionally criticize the Right as well as the Left, and sometimes the center, too. We offer offbeat content from time to time that may not be the favorite of a network that bases itself on conservative and Christian themes. The questions being asked in the comments sections are the same that we brought to our meetings in Colorado Springs earlier this month.
What I can tell you is that Salem bought Hot Air because, if you’ll pardon a Sally Field moment here, they like us — they really, really like us. After all, they aren’t going to spend a boatload of cash (and no, I don’t have any idea what kind of boatload that might be) just to turn Hot Air into something completely different. If they wanted something completely different, they could have started something fresh with a lot less cost and competed against us instead.
When we negotiated our new relationships with Salem, both of us stressed the need to have the same editorial control and direction for Hot Air. Not surprisingly, Salem readily agreed. Now, they still own the business and can intervene when they see fit — just as Michelle could, but rarely if ever did — but they know us and our editorial choices. We clarified the process and the direction to our satisfaction. If we weren’t satisfied that we remained in position to maintain the current direction of Hot Air, neither of us would have stuck around. We did, and we’ll be around for a while, too.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be changes, of course, but most of those will be to broaden our impact and reach. Salem has a tremendous presence with its radio hosts, for instance, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see some synergy applied in that direction. Townhall, now our sister site, will remain separate from Hot Air, but we’ll probably have some opportunities to participate more often in the magazine in the future. I’m very excited about the potential for growth at Hot Air by being a part of the Salem family.
But that being said, I’m sad to leave Michelle Malkin’s family after two wonderful years at Hot Air. I don’t think I’m revealing any secrets by telling readers what a caring, sweet, and big-hearted person Michelle is. Working with her and her husband Jesse (who carried the weight of technical and human-resource management like a champ) has been the best professional situation of my life. We both told the Salem execs when we first met with them that they had very large shoes to fill, but as great as they’ve been, it will never be quite the same. Now we get to focus on being friends with the Malkins, and thanks to their many kindnesses over the past two years, we hope that lasts much longer.
For the best takes on the sale, read James Joyner and Jazz Shaw. Jazz’ conclusion is spot-on:
So now a new owner will pay the bills at Hot Air. It sounds, from what I’ve found out, like a good deal for all concerned thus far. Ed and AP will retain their platform and possibly even gain some new exposure options in a large network. Malkin gets rid of a well loved but time consuming project which she branded as a leading conservative voice. Salem picks up another outlet which is widely read on the Right side of the aisle without dictating the tone. (If they wanted to do that they could have simply offered Ed and AP a column at Town Hall.)
Don’t read too much into this. Businesses change hands all the time and the names on ownership papers and paychecks shift every year across the land. Hot Air will remain and you can all be the judges as to whether or not the quality remains at the current level. I for one have no doubt but it will.
It’s going to be a fun journey, that much I can promise.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
The problem here though is that it is becoming apparent that everything that could have been done was not done. The police did nothing with the information given them by Holme’s psychiatrist. I think we are kind of putting the cart before the horse here when we keep arguing about what little could have been done legally to stop Holmes when the police did nothing to exercise what authority they did have.
NotCoach on April 5, 2013 at 10:56 AM
What surprises me is that this psychiatrist did not inform the regular police directly. Campus police are more a protective presence and most likely have limited authority. If I were this woman I would have followed up immediately with the police and also applied for a protective order for myself.
“Tarasoff” is a court decision that even lesser credentialled counselors in every state know about. In most states there is a duty to warn anyone who is credibly threatened. While he didn’t threaten anyone specifically, it was obviously her opinion that she had a duty to sound an alarm. When a psychiatrist makes such a report, it is usually a BFD, and most police take these warnings seriously enough to follow up, at least in California.
Don’t know what the law is in Colorado, but someone certainly dropped the ball with tragic consequences.
marybel on April 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Good Lord.
Prisoners are converting to Islam. Holmes is in prison and has a beard. Ergo, he converted to Islam.
So every white supremacist in prison, with a beard, is a closet jihadi?
The conversions are occurring among the black prison populations, which is why its exploding, because the general population of prisons are majority black, and its in gen-pop where people divide based in groups, predominantly gangs.
A number of these guys are converting for the strength of the Brotherhood. It’s the one group larger than all the disparate black gang affiliations.
budfox on April 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Tort reform.
Vince on April 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM
That’s not what he said.
However, Holmes statement that he had converted to islam should pretty much do the trick.
Evidently, holmes is looking for some justification for his violence…and islam provides that – in spades. (He’s just a poor servant of allah on a jihad. lol)
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Folks in Colorado should be further infuriated that legislators have not only acted against their best interests, but blatantly lied to them in the process.
They should vote every last one of them voting for this tyranny, irrespective of party, right out of office.
Marcus Traianus on April 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM
When this all went down, a number of people here instantly realized that when the college went into silent mode, they were guilty.
And that are the facts bearing out.
The college decided the best solution was to fix the glitch and eventually he would disappear.
Instead, they set him loose on the community and then have been acting like it wasn’t their responsibility.
The final piece is what level of communication was occurring between Holmes family and the school?
Was it just the psych and his parents?
I have a feeling someone else in administrations was aware of the situation and responded by following the human resources guidelines.
Disconnect the school and act as if he’s a rational adult making his choices, freely independent of our knowledge.
budfox on April 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM
I was responding to someone who said that this guy had a family who didn’t do anything. I agree that the police and the psychiatrist completely dropped the ball on this one. That’s kind of my point though. If the police and the psychiatrist couldn’t/didn’t do anything with Holmes- what could his family have done in this incident?
melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Did you miss the Washington Times link where it states that Holmes actually DID convert to Islam?
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/aurora-theater-shooter-james-holmes-converts-islam/
melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 11:06 AM
The problem is that all 3 showed manifest symptoms of severe mental illness BEFORE their crimes. Loughner and Holmes were considered dangers to OTHERS. Loughner was forced to leave university because the faculty felt that he was an imminent threat. One girl said that, from the first day of class, she and others were afraid that he was going to open fire on them.
While I completely understand the fears that people have about giving doctors and the state more power to involuntarily commit people and depriving them of their rights, as I likewise recognise the horrors that took place in institutions like Willowbrook in the old system, we have to understand that being mentally ill and a danger to yourself and others is NOT a ‘lifestyle choice,’ as the ACLU often argues. Society has rights, too.
The one thing that always seems to tie these cases together is this: After the fact, the people that knew them say, “I feel bad for the victims, but I’m not surprised. The dude was a mental case. Always has been.”
Seriously, Loughner’s fellow Troofers in his UFOlogy club – that would be the dudes that believe in space aliens and spaceships – thought he was nuts. When you have nutters say “Dude looks like a nutter!,” he’s nuts.
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 11:07 AM
The psychiatrist this guy was seeing was worried enough about his behavior to warn someone. Yet, she, as a psychiatrist could not commit him when he became a danger. (sarcasm on) Yes, it surely sounds like guns are the problem here (sarcasm off)
TturnP on April 5, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Knee jerk responses aren’t always the best. Lets just hope it stays isolated to the states that want them, CA, CO, NY, CT and the list goes on. Sorry for those law abiding folks that have to live in these places.
DDay on April 5, 2013 at 11:09 AM
At a hearing, the shrink’s tapes and notes of their sessions would be admitted.
Live tapes and/or video of the sessions takes it out of the realm of “he said/she said”.
btw; It seems rather ‘important’ to you that holmes NOT be a convert to islam. Why is that?
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Was this part in there: the part where this SAME psychiatrist is asked by police whether she is wishing/ordering him to be picked up for an involuntary evaluation – police ASK her this – and her answer is:
NO.
She declined to have him taken in for involuntary hospitalization for evaluation. Declined.
It’s such a bewildering choice; it’s rooted in divided loyalty to patient and employer or incompetence or both.
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Every one seems to be missing this part – they asked HER whether he should be hospitalized.
SHE said no.
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Yeah, but criminal defense representation is a right. Medical treatment is not. I said it would have behooved Holmes’ psychiatrist to treat a sick individual, but that doesn’t mean she was under any obligation, particularly if Holmes threatened her.
The most important rule of medical ethics is that you can’t treat someone against their will, which is what made me think that Holmes broke it off. And as I said upthread, that doesn’t necessarily make it so; just what I think might have been the most likely possibility. Holmes threatening his psychiatrist did not necessarily preclude him from thinking, “Screw this. I’m not coming back.”
gryphon202 on April 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Why should he be banned for stating something that was all over the wire services?
It’s not his fault that you aren’t up to speed on this.
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Doctors can mess up to. They’re human. But if this was a mistake, what a mistake.
gryphon202 on April 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM
I don’t care what my husband says, those Duck Dynasty guys look a little sketchy to me. What if they are closet muslims?
Lily on April 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM
So why did she even report him to campus police than? CYA?
NotCoach on April 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM
It’s an ethical obligation. You can lose your medical license over failure to report overt threats.
gryphon202 on April 5, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Here is what Fenton did with her worries:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/doctor-psychiatric-hold-for-james-holmes.html
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Except they say their Christians while Holmes says he is Islamic. Who are we to doubt someone who self identifies their own religion?
melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 11:20 AM
She allowed him, likely hoped for him, to be “lost to follow-up” – which is exactly what happened.
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM
I missed the part where he asked I be banned. Haha…thanks for that. Wait, who’s the troll again?
Youngs98 on April 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM
What follow-up? I thought the problem was that nobody followed up. Or is that what constitutes “lost to follow-up?”
gryphon202 on April 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Yes, but what I wrote doesn’t necessarily mean that the suit is frivolous. It depends. In some cases, it would be wholly appropriate. In others, it would not. It is the responsibility of the attorney to decide, a professional responsibility. Courts do not impose nearly the sanctions that they should on lawyers that file frivolous lawsuits.
As for tort reform, make it: “Loser pays.”
Almost all, if not all, med-mal, PI, products liability, and other big ticket lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis. 33% plus fees, costs, and interest if settled before trial. 40%, plus fees, costs, and interest if the case goes to trial. If the plaintiff loses, the attorney gets nothing. He is putting up his money, which is why most of these cases settled. The insurance companies also have an interest in settling, especially in states with punitive damages. In this system, there is a benefit to settle and the threat of a huge damages verdict can act as a sort of extortion. So they are settled. But, they aren’t settled, usually, until right before trial or during trial. This allows the plaintiff’s attorney to both run up the damages tab, especially medical bills, etc, in PI/MM/PL cases, and exert maximum pressure on the defence.
Settlements may be good for the parties, but they are bad for policyholders and consumers, in general.
In a ‘loser pays’ system, there is still the risk of a huge jury verdict, but the plaintiffs’ bar also knows that they have more to lose than just their investment if they proceed. Under loser pays, the party that loses has to pay ALL of the costs of the other, including attorneys’ fees, expert costs, filing fees, discovery expenses, etc. Going to trial becomes high-stakes for both. State Farm may not want to pay out a huge damages verdict, but such will not put it out of business. A loser pays’ invoice CAN put a sole practitioner, small or even medium-sized firm out of business and it can substantially cut into the bottom line of a large one, if the defendant is a company like BP.
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM
I don’t have time to read all the previous comments, but this is not “news” to me. I read about this shortly after the shooting.
JannyMae on April 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Actually, the first story about holmes’ conversion was in the Washington Times…followed by Salon.
The Daily Mail (UK) and the Enquirer then had stories about it.
You *really* don’t want holmes to be a convert to that filthy islamic cult, do you?
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Of course they SAY they are Christian. But what if all the praying at the end of every show is just a ruse to throw us off the trail? They have bushy beards for crying out loud! How much more proof did you need?
Sorry I left the sarc tag off the first post.
Here it is…./
Lily on April 5, 2013 at 11:29 AM
melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 11:32 AM
What follow-up? I thought the problem was that nobody followed up. Or is that what constitutes “lost to follow-up?”
gryphon202 on April 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM
That is exactly the problem. She based her threat assessment and necessary police action to deal with any threat on him BEING LOST TO FOLLOWUP –
“out of her care, out of the vicinity, problem gone”
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Islam may simply be Holmes’s path to survival in a prison population. If it’s either that or becoming Bubba’s girlfriend, insh’allah!
slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM
The money quote:
. Fenton said [to officer following up on threat] Holmes had given notice that he was withdrawing from the university, so [a 72-hour mental health evaluation] wouldn’t be necessary. (emphasis added)
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Fenton reported the threats. That’s old news. Old. What isn’t being reported in the new story is that she told officers there was no need to pick him up for evaluation because he was withdrawing from the University.
He would be someone else’s headache.
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM
I’m fully aware of that (Would you like the cites for the Supreme Court cases? Medicare? Social Security? Type of treatment?). My point was that, a criminal defendant may have a right to a defence, but he doesn’t have a right to me. Could a court order me to represent someone? Yes. Could I relinquish my licence? Yes. Could the court then order me to represent him? No. As an aside, if a court ordered me to represent a criminal defendant and he was convicted, I might very well support his case FOR appeal based on insufficient/inadequate counsel since I am not a cd lawyer.
That was my point. She had not medical, ethical, professional or legal duty or responsibility to threat him if he threatened her with bodily harm. It would behoove a doctor in that situation, however, to inform the patient as to why she will no longer treat him and attempt to get him another healthcare provider; however, unless state law requires otherwise, she is not mandated to do so.
All true, but it also true that physicians do not have to expose themselves to danger. I have had friends in this situation and been asked for advice. My advice was to send a certified letter, return receipt requested detailing the events leading up to the decision and then explain that they would no longer be able to treat the patients. I also told them, if they could, to find suitable replacements and to either include the referral information in the letter or – better – make an appointment for the patient with the best replacement doctor and include the info in the letter. It would be an extra step and then the burden would have shifted to the patient to keep the appointment.
Perhaps, it is because I am a woman and had some ‘uncomfortable situations’ early in my career that makes me sensitive to this situation. OTOH, perhaps, it is because I’ve seen too many hide behind privileges and, indeed, have had to keep too many secrets. It is not always easy to keep communications privileged because so often your client or patient is just an absolute piece of shyt.
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM
She warned the campus, she warned police, but essentially negated any immediate threat warranting police action.
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 11:47 AM
People who sit in swamps all day making duck noises deserve a second, careful, look.
They’re obviously up to something.
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 11:49 AM
You also get better food in prison if you are Muslim.
nacho475 on April 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Yeah, you can bet it’s jihad, and heads will roll, if the food isn’t halal….and they get desert with lunch and dinner.
hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Ok My earlier comment is in error. My apologies to the cops (although they should have interviewed the not case anyway and made their own evaluation)
The doctor here is culpable. She fouled up.
dogsoldier on April 5, 2013 at 11:58 AM
I don’t object to anything. I didn’t know people were guessing about anything. I had read the reports that he had converted in prison before now. At the time I read it I thought to myself “Go figure. Nut job converts in prison. Usually the dudes who are facing trial announce they are “saved” as a ploy to get a lighter sentence. This dude is nuts so he converts to Islam. Like that will help.”
I just thought it was a little silly to equate sporting bushy facial hair with Islam. I know too many good Christian men who grow beards, especially guys who work outside in the winter, to think beard=muslim. And of course, the Duck Dynasty dudes, are known to be Christian while wearing beards.
Lily on April 5, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Nvm then.. I was oversensitive about your comment. I apologize. I can only claim that I love those Duck Dynasty guys. :)
melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM
We have it on DVR. Never miss it! Even our 18 year-old son is a huge fan.
Sitting in a swamp, with guns, shooting at waterfowl. It’s a matter of time before one of them snaps. I’d lay odds that Willie would be the first to crack. Or he would if he wife would let him.
Lily on April 5, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-117, a duty to warn is mandatory:
Relevant Colorado law on involuntary, mental health holds here.
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Thus far, all of the news agencies, etc., have avoided any mention of what – if any – psychiatric drugs holmes (and the other shooters) may have been taking. Specifically, SSRIs…some of which now, finally, come with a warning that they can cause homicidal and/or suicidal impulses and/or actions. Any question about their prescriptions is met with silence.
http://www.cchrint.org/tag/james-holmes/
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM
72 hours doesn’t include week-ends and holidays. After 72 hours, the person can then be certified short-term for up to 3 months pursuant to C.R.S. § 27-65-107. Short-term certification can be extended in additional 3 month intervals after petition to and obtainment of approval from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Evidently, the shrink felt she had done her part in alerting the campus police; and then not pursuing the matter when holmes left the college.
And the campus cops couldn’t go to the regular police absent a formal complaint from the shrink.
One wonders if the shrink didn’t call the campus police in the first place just to be sure her own butt was covered.
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Ed, you think people view this as and either/or approach?
I’ve heard plenty of anti-gun control folks say the only approach should be improved mental health systems/reporting. But I haven’t heard anyone who favors more gun control on some level suggest that there are no other issues to be addressed.
But maybe what you’re offering here is support for robust background checks.
verbaluce on April 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Tell me which of the following should require background checks, which should be a felony if none is performed, and who the government should prosecute:
1. Uncle George owns a farm, where he has taught his nephew Abraham shooting skills and gun safety over a number of years. On Abraham’s 18th birthday, Uncle George gives Abraham a 20-gauge shotgun once owned by Abraham’s grandfather.
2. Abraham lends the shotgun to his long time hunting buddy and best friend, who uses it on a hunting trip and returns it to Abraham ten days later.
3. Uncle George and his friends have an informal hunting club, which leases “hunting rights” from a rural landowner. The “club” holds shooting competitions on an open field on the landowner’s property. At one of these “shoots,” George allows another “club” member to use a pistol George inherited from his father.
4. George’s friend asks about purchasing the pistol. He visits George’s farm to discuss a possible purchase and examine the pistol carefully. George and his friend walk to a hillside well away from George’s house, where the friend shoots the pistol at targets on a dirt embankment.
5. George agrees to sell the pistol to his friend. Before doing so he calls a licensed gun dealer he knows, asking the dealer to run a background check on the prospective purchaser, just in case. The dealer agrees, and tells George by telephone that the purchaser checks out. After hearing this, George sells his friend the pistol.
6. George takes his family on a month-long vacation to Europe. Concerned about a break-in during his absence, he leaves his firearms and other valuables with a trusted neighbor for safekeeping while he is away.
7. Nephew Abraham’s apartment is burglarized. Thieves steal his prized 20-gauge shotgun. The day after the burglary he calls the local police. They come to his apartment, interview him, and tell him they’ll make some inquiries and get back in touch. Abraham takes no further action, waiting to hear back from the police.
(h/t Ray Hartwell for the time-saving scenarios)
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 12:33 PM
In this case what would a background check have revealed? NOTHING.
JFKY on April 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM
From personal experience:
Taking time off from work to go stand chest deep in a swamp, getting out to the point where you’re six inches from the top of your waders, in water just above freezing and air temperatures well below freezing, two hours before the sun comes up, with no lights and nothing reflective anywhere, with possibly only your eyes exposed, moving slowly like the hour hand of a clock so you don’t signal your presence to the birds even that long before dawn, and ready to do it again the next day. And the next. And the next. And…
It’s a wonderful sickness.
rogerb on April 5, 2013 at 12:39 PM
Currently…correct.
But that’s what folks are trying to address.
Ed is (perhaps unwittingly) offering support for the idea of warnings such as the one reportedly made by the doc here find their way into a database in place for background checks.
verbaluce on April 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM
“Cops refuse to investigate actual crime” is not a headline worthy of outrage, it is a fact of life in the United States.
If they’d been tipped off that Holmes was pushing cocaine, his house would have been raided, military-style, within hours.
Just another example of how made-up crimes that generate revenue for the jurisdiction (drinking and driving, speeding, war on drugs, etc) distort (corrupt?) the priorities of the police.
bocat on April 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Not sure if you’re offering a purely hypothetical question here…
but I don’t know the answer or answers.
That said, to use specific examples to denigrate the the possible benefits of a broad and comprehensive approach…seems a bit of an intellectually dishonest response.
I admit there are no guarantees.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea to wear a seat-belt in a car…or brush your teeth daily.
verbaluce on April 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM
The answer is “All of the above” under the universal background checks language in F*ck You Schumer’s proposed ‘common sense’ gun control legislation. A law-abiding citizen, who has his weapons stolen, or a grandfather, who transfers his prized rifle to his grandson, would be held to a higher standard than the dealer, who sells guns on the internet (such sales still require background checks and the purchaser must pick up the weapon at a local retailer, but the licenced dealer has access to the system; thus, it doesn’t cost him as much, if anything0.
Under Schumer’s proposed legislation, if you went go a gun range for lessons and your instructor trains you in different weapons, which he owns, he must run a background check on you for each firearm before you can use it in his presence…even if it is only for one pull of the trigger…and even if you have passed every other background check he has run on you in the past.
“You people keep using those words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean.”
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM
One wonders if the shrink didn’t call the campus police in the first place just to be sure her own butt was covered.
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 12:26 PM
She was a target herself, and she relied on information from them to form at least part of her threat assessment, which included, apparently, whether the college could just get rid of him.
But there does seem to be a strong “hide as much as possible – get rid of my duty as soon as possible” vibe to her actions.
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM
May God have mercy on your soul. LOL
Seriously, if you would rather do that than sit in your car in the parking lot of Hobby Lobby while your wife picks out yarn for her next afghan project, well, whatever dude. Knock yourself out.
Personally, I don’t get it. I don’t get a lot of things guys do. But then, I will never be able to grow a beard either.
Lily on April 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Hardly.
Since holmes had nothing on his record which would have prevented purchasing a gun, what good would a stronger intrusion on our rights have done?
He passed the NCIC background check and was allowed to buy his guns. And his shrink had not yet contacted the campus police about holmes – so his mental condition would not have been a matter of record to disqualify him. (IF it had been entered into the national database)
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM
How about this question –
Had there been a system in place where the doc’s concerns were addressed and acted upon…prior to his arsenal splurging…
would you have welcomed that such info to be available in a database that would have precluded his purchases, or at least flagged them?
verbaluce on April 5, 2013 at 12:54 PM
See above.
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Something similar happened with Jared Loughner and the idiot Sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik. His office had multiple reports about Loughner which he likely ignored because Loughner’s mother was a fellow county employee.
slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Holmes bought his guns BEFORE the call was made by the shrink to the campus police. In all probability, campus police departments do not – and will not under any new law – have a duty or a right to contact the national database to enter someone as a ‘possible nut’.
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Besides, it was easier to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
Just think…
Holmes shoots up a movie theater with red hair and claiming to be the Joker, but who/what’s to blame?
Guns and Holmes, in that order.
Movies?
Meh.
Islamists [AP, f*ck you, your Style Book, and the horse that rode in on you (intentional)] shoot up our consulate in Benghazi, murder 4 Americans, and wound dozens, but who/what’s to blame?
A ‘movie.’
Radical Islamists and the weapons that we most likely supplied them?
Meh.
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 1:00 PM
The debate is over how/whether systems can be improved moving forward…
not about how there was nothing in place that would have flagged Holmes.
What’s being discussed/proposed is changing things…making them not the same as as when a guy like Holmes was getting sick, armed, and evil.
verbaluce on April 5, 2013 at 1:00 PM
If anything is needed it is not infringements on the Second Amendment. What is needed is an “Amber Alert” type of system specifically for those who exhibit the types of behaviors in these situations. Instead of whispering, the community needs to hear a clarion alert resonated throughout the local and national media. Both Aurora and Sandy Hook had ample warning signs, but no system for responding to the warning signs.
Tripwhipper on April 5, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Lost your focus on that one.
But that’s what you get for bringing up Palin.
verbaluce on April 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Uh-huh.
So, you would advocate a system where someone could be “flagged” because they might – possibly – at some unknown time in an inexact future – get “sick”?
You people want “change” so that you can sniff your own farts and very smugly say that you’ve “done something”. It doesn’t matter at all to you that you have infringed on the Constitutional rights of millions of honest people…as long as you’ve “done something”.
Why don’t we ever here you shrieking about going into Chicago and cleaning up the gangs and getting the guns out of their hands? Why aren’t you yammering about going into L.A. and stopping the open warfare between the black and chicano gangs – and getting the guns out of their hands?
Of course, we know why you aren’t particularly upset about your own government shipping weapons to the mexican cartels – and being responsible for over 300 murders committed with them.
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM
“here” = “HEAR…”
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Funny. That’s the same thing algore said about “global warming” (lol).
That turned out to be stupid, too.
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 1:20 PM
You mean like the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, established by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, 18 U.S.C. §922(g), which prohibits declared, mentally ill persons from legally owning firearms and leaves the states to decide whether that means formally adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction or requests for inclusion in the Denied Persons File of NICS, with no specifics on the mental health issue required?
Look, it is not my fault that neither the Federal nor state governments enforce current gun laws. You and your cohorts are arguing “We need NEW gun control laws to enforce the ones that are already on the books even though”:
1. Gun crime prosecutions under the Obama administration have decreased by 45% from the Bush administration; and,
2. Only 71 – or 0.01% – of the 71,000 people, who lied on their background checks in 2009, were prosecuted by the Obama administration; and,
3. In 2010, 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun. 33,907 (47%) of those were denied because they lied about a felony indictment or conviction on their background check; yet, only 44 were prosecuted and 13 convicted of lying; and,
4. Even though people, who have been adjudicated mentally ill, are not allowed to own firearms under Federal law, ONLY 23 states and the District of Columbia had submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database, 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 mental health records, and 4 states had not submitted any in 2012; and
5. As Vice-President Joe Biden said:
6. Straw purchases are already illegal. Such laws did not prevent Columbine because they only apply retroactively, naturally.
Sooooo, let’s pass MORE gun control laws for the government NOT to enforce!
Without LibLogic®, life would be utterly boring…
PS: Before you say, “Well, we need to force the states to comply” just know:
1. The Feds can’t. See: New York v United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) and National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, No. 11-393 (2012) – You betcha that’s the Obamacare case, among others.
2. The Feds cannot commandeer state officials or employees, see Printz v United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), which involved the Clinton administration’s attempt to use state and local officials and employees to enforce the Brady Act.
3. The Feds can only tie ‘reasonable conditions’ to funds that are ‘substantially connected’ to the conditions (increase DUI laws or we will withhold part of your highway money) and are to be disbursed to the states without violating the Tenth Amendment. Among others, see South Dakota v Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). What state programme would be ‘substantially connected’ to the ‘reasonable conditions’?
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM
More like, THIS WAR ON GUNS IS LOST!!!
Pssst! The next time that you want sweeping gun legislation, you might wish to choose, as your general in the Senate, someone other than the guy, who stood next to Wayne LaPierre during the opening of the Clark County Shooting Park…which was financed with the land and $61 million that the leader procured.
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Compare his purported student ID and his mug shot. Look at width of nose, ears, eye color, and size and shape of lips.
Now tell me those two photos are of the same person.
Akzed on April 5, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Well Verbaluce I’d be OPPOSED to a “box” for the Doc to check, in a national background check. Just like the “No Fly List” it would easier to get added than removed. So No, I’d oppose his Doctor being able to say, “I’m concerned” and that prevent his purchase. Just think about your voting rights or Free Speech Rights, do you want them imperiled or subject to some busy-body or bitter-ex who can have them curtailed or suspended, as you try to prove a NEGATIVE-“I’m not crazy.”? Unless you are OK with the First being subject to a Doctor’s Veto, I am not comfortable with the Second being so subject.
JFKY on April 5, 2013 at 1:30 PM
So you support intervention-minded government databases when a medical condition poses a threat to the lives of others?
rogerb on April 5, 2013 at 1:31 PM
…it’s the guns fault!
KOOLAID2 on April 5, 2013 at 1:32 PM
OLD: FEMA Camps
NEW: HIV Camps
Akzed on April 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Akzed on April 5, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Did you know psychosis changes your appearance? Yes, its the same person.
SarahW on April 5, 2013 at 1:39 PM
So, Gov. HickenBlooper, what does this say about the way YOU, as Governor, lead the Administrative State, in Colorado?
Why didn’t YOUR UnivColo police report this guy, or have him locked up for “further evaluation”?
Aurora could have been prevented, and it could have been done within the parameters of laws already on the books.
You need to personally apologize to the families of all those killed and wounded in that theatre, and then RESIGN!
You are not the Best of Us, you are the Worst.
Leave us, Now!
Another Drew on April 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM
Huh, so it changes the size of your nose and color of your eyes? Ya learn something new every day.
Akzed on April 5, 2013 at 1:42 PM
Compounding the problem with Psychological holds being a part of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the following:
1) Psychiatry is NOT a “Science.” It’s at best, a Natural Philosophy-in Kuhnian terms. So unlike my doctor, who IS a member of a Scientific Community, a Psychiatrist/Psychologist is far less capable of making Predictive Statements. My MD can say, “If this person is let out on the populace with Diphtheria/Pertussis they WILL infect other people.” A Psychiatrist/Psychologist has a much lower chance of making an equivalent claim; and
2) The fact that the Mental Health Professions seem over-run with Politically-Correct practitioners who seem at least, determined to label “Conservatives” or “Conservatism” as a mental disorder; I am not comfortable granting my political foes the power to hurt me.
JFKY on April 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Dooood, I brought up Palin – of whom, I am not a big fan – because someone else brought up Sheriff Dumbshit.
You see, Sheriff Dumbshit, KNEW about Jared Lee Loughner’s possible danger to society. He had come in contact with the individuals and information on several occasions before Loughner massacred and maimed all of those people.
For Sheriff Dipshit, it was MUCH easier and more convenient to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party even though, in addition to the danger to society info, Loughner’s obsession with Giffords dated back to August 2007…LONG BEFORE MOST PEOPLE HAD EVER HEARD OF SARAH PALIN AND THE TEA PARTY.
It’s ALWAYS easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility for your own f*ck ups, but, you being you, I don’t expect you to understand that concept.
Got diversion? Good. FORWARD!
Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Is this some kind of Conspiracy Theory…that it’s NOT Holmes? Otherwise what’s the point?
What was the REAL Holmes killed? Spirited away by Aliens? Know so much that he was killed and replaced or simply replaced by a patsy look-alike?
What is the point of this?
JFKY on April 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM
Everyone knows that at 400 yards Palin could plink verbaluce like an outhouse rat then ponder the waste of perfectly good ammunition.
viking01 on April 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM
The point is, tell me those two pics are of the same person.
Akzed on April 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM
OK they are the same person….Alternatively, “OMG, that’s NOT Holmes!”
In any event, what difference does it make? Are you simply pointing out that “eye witness testimony” really isn’t that reliable as one can make a claim that Holmes looks very different in 2 photo’s or are you “just asking questions” like Troofers?
JFKY on April 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM
It is curious. Isn’t your interest piqued by those two photos?
cptacek on April 5, 2013 at 2:00 PM
No. Again, why ought it be? Until or unless you or Akzed or someone tell me WHY, I ought to wonder, I’m not really going to worry.
The ONLY reason, I can see, to ask that question is because, “OMG there’s a CONSPIRACY involved.”
They arrest Mr X at the theatre, they identified him as Holmes, Homes/Mr X has been incarcerated since his arrest…chain of evidence/chain of custody/Occam’s Razor say, “That’s Holmes.”
Now to begin any discussion other than that, sets my Spider Senses Tingling and soon I expect to hear about controlled demolitions, natural born citizens v. Naturalized Ctizens, and the Grassy knoll.
JFKY on April 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM
The “no action warning” ignored is typical after the fact and now we wonder are there others being ignored. The sanity of many professors still employed at colleges and universities is in question when they show up randomly in the news doing something that’s off the wall yet still employed.
mixplix on April 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM
And this stops a man hell bent on committing mass murdere how? You seem to be missing the point entirely here. There were advance warnings that this man was a threat to society before he killed anyone. Holmes should have been put under a psychiatric hold at the very least. Perhaps he might have been institutionalized and the citizens of Colorado might have been spared. Instead you would rather focus on the continuing idiocy of trying to deny law abiding citizens their rights that would have done nothing to stop Holmes.
Time and time again too many mentally unstable individuals commit these barbarous acts and the only solution your side can come up with is…gun control. How come you geniuses do’t advocate outlawing automobiles in order to stop drunk drivers from killing us all? That’s just as logical as your approach on guns you know.
NotCoach on April 5, 2013 at 2:27 PM
Kool-aid overdose.
And for a minute you seemed to actually be engaged in rational discussion…hadn’t even called me a name yet.
verbaluce on April 5, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Well Verbaluce s/he makes a good point….here you are focusing on Holmes and “Background Checks” which at best do no good, and at the most make millions of people Federal Felons (Pace Shumer’s Bill). But you ignore HUNDREDS of dead peole just to focus on a small case, who’s “solution” is worse than the problem…
You want to do good, GO TO CHICAGO/Camden/Compton and get the residents to stp killing each other. That will save far more lives than what you propose….but you don’t do you.
JFKY on April 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM
My eyes see what they see. How can a nose change like that? Did he have surgery? Is the first picture even him? It just looks weird.
cptacek on April 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Everything old is new again……
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-uplifters-try-it-again#axzz2PUPph1L2
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM
The entire premise of controlling guns is a heavier reliance on police.
Oops.
John the Libertarian on April 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM
My advice:
1) Stiop worrying about it; or
2) Bing the images of james holmes, there are multiple…determine a background object for scale, then scale the various photographs, and then compare the distances betweent he eyes and a number of other physical features.
Get back to me with your results, would you?
Until then, please leave the “asking questions” to Dylan Avery or Orly Taitz.
JFKY on April 5, 2013 at 2:49 PM
Hot Gas Weekend homework assignment:
As you’re enjoying the Final Four this weekend, pay attention to how many of your hometown newspapers even mention this story vs how many will favorably and uncritically report the 60 Minutes Gungrabpalooza/Obama love-in from CT.
Show your work.
Sacramento on April 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM
Annnnnd………………You avoid the questions I asked you.
Yeah. Yeah. I know. Taking the guns away from the gangs would be ra-a-a-acist.
As would taking obama and holder to task for their parts in the Fast&Furious debacle.
You’re a phony. And a hypocrite. Go back and tell your masters that you failed.
Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 2:56 PM
It begs the question, what greater alarm could there be? This isn’t a garden variety complaint alleging you think your neighbor is weird. This is an MD, a psychiatrist, no less, breaking the doctor-patient confidentiality, the kind of professional confidentiality that allows ministers and lawyers to shield those who confess to murder. BFD indeed.
Paul-Cincy on April 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM
What we need are SMART GUNS. Every gun owner, in addition to registering, must have a microchip measuring brain waves and location, implanted in the skull with identical microchip stamped into the trigger mechanism of the gun.When the SMART GUN detects “unusual” brain waves, the barrel automatically self-seals, the user is tasered unconscious and a signal alerts the police to the “right wing nut’s” ID and exact location.
Other fortuitous features of SMART GUNS are that they are all union made in America, are mandatory for gun owners and prices start at $125,000 and then go up–thus drastically curtailing both guns and the number of “right wing nuts” using them.
MaiDee on April 5, 2013 at 6:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »