commented on Mark Hughes, Gun Nut of Interest
Much of the gun control in America came from trying to keep guns out of the hands of minorities. Sadly, images that kindle thoughts of Black Panthers remind many Americans that open carry is scary. Without trying to say much about this particular individual, I think one of the best ways to promote gun control would be to get groups of minorities to walk around in public places, with guns, looking very militant.
Dec 14, 2012
commented on I didn't vote for you because you're good at sending condolences, Obama.
Mental health. Seriously. There is more than one issue at play here. We are gutting our mental health resources, and nobody cares because nobody wants to talk about mental health. You want to save the lives of millions of low income families, do something about mental health in America.
You may now go back to guns. Like politics, everyone has an opinion on it - a better opinion than those wack jobs on the other side - so it makes for good entertainment. You don't want change. You want to feel righteous.
Dec 14, 2012
commented on At Least 26 Dead, Including 18 Children, Reported at Connecticut Elementary School Shooting
Please, can we talk about mental health resources. Please. Everyone has a thought on guns, but we all try rally hard NOT to think or talk about mental health. We need a conversation, we need better resources, we need the equivalent of first aide. [If you have never noticed someone close to you in need (possibly dangerous need), it is because most of us don't know what to look for, and we certainly don't know what to do if we are worried.]
In summary, I would gladly give the NRA whatever they want for a positive culture around mental health and well funded programs for intervention.
Apr 19, 2012
commented on On the Preservation of Old Buildings
Charles, I would argue that your position is too extreme. The situation can be thought of like environmental concerns. Government regulation is the only tool available to make sure that the profit interest of few isn't going to have permanent direct negative effects on the many. It is a balancing act. Otherwise, Charles, you would be leaning pretty hard to the capitolist camp.
When people morn the loss of institutions they rarely patronized, I am with you. The memory on capitol hill and all of its transplants is short and their nestalgia that of a child that lost a cookie. However, to presume that land ownership alone, in spite of a successful business with cultural and geographical significance, is free reign to tear down and build whatever is simply near sighted. There are costs in transition and costs in the perceived lack of identity, and costs to the people who must move, and many other costs that play no role on the balance sheet of a developer that the people and the government should weigh from time to time.
In short, I am often with you on this point, but try to add some nuance and stop being such a damn free market capitolist.