TheLeviathan

CNN would get some serious kudos if they respond to that demand with a "meh".

Oh goodie, I get to be the bad guy. All I can think about when I hear all this is the great Lego movie quote of how most of this is "hippy, dippy, baloney". So let me put it in political terms I know most of you will agree with and show you how you're just doing the same thing, but you don't notice it because you think your side is right. One of the biggest damn problems we have is a lack of relevant discourse. Nothing gets solved in this country because no one wants to stay on the damn point and talk about what actually matters and how you can actually solve a problem. We just want to score points for our "side" Not only do I feel it's not necessary to recuse myself, it should be the duty of every thinking person to try and stop this kind of tangent, irrelevant discourse from happening. We NEED to set parameters. Every time some Republican talks about climate change we need to make that half-wit stays within the parameters of science and fact. Letting him wander into carrying snow balls into Congress or any other inane, non-scientific argument is letting the conversation go off the rails. We need parameters to tell that guy to either keep it to facts and science or stop talking. Every time a Republican makes up stuff from a heavily edited video about Planned Parenthood to drum up political support and divisively wedge the conversation in the wrong direction - we need some damn parameters. Every time some racist right-winger thinks black violence is because people are black and not from hundreds of years of oppression - we need some damn parameters. I could go on. Nearly every important issue gets side-tracked by one side or the other because we think "just having the conversation" is what's important. I'd rather we have one that's based in facts and good sense rather than distortions and rhetorical nonsense. So excuse me if I don't back down and insist that the parameters of the discussion stay relevant, meaningful, and true. And rhetorical nonsense is exactly what is happening here. We have wed mental health and gun violence because we think the former is a powerful vehicle to make the latter a reality. (Or, in the case of some right wingers, that emphasizing the former will give the latter a pass) Why the hell do we have to talk about gun access for the mentally ill to talk about how to improve the general mental health of the nation? We are these tied together constantly? Why are we talking about mental illness and gun access when we know nothing about how he acquired his fire arm and we know that there is no diagnosed mental illness? The reality is that most people with actual mental health issues aren't the ones committing these horrendous acts. Wedding the two issues suggests otherwise and is dangerous in how it presents the mentally ill. Hell, the vast majority of people in need of mental health care will never be cited for any violent act much less something as horrendous as this. It shouldn't be part of this issue at all because it isn't relevant and is dangerous rhetoric of the same variety that may have lead to these murders.

I'm ok either way with Fien but I agree with this. I don't mind a tender to him on one condition: He's seen as one of the bottom guys in the pen and the team still plans to aggressively add better options.

Yes, it does. Wedging in mental health to a case where it doesn't belong belittles what actual needs there are in the mental health system and distorts a real issue with a phony one.There is zero reason for it to be involved in this case but for stupid political talking points. The second prong you talk about is more about our mental health system and how we both identify and help people who are struggling. That has literally nothing to do with guns in 99.99999% of cases so the first prong is utterly irrelevant. You've wed two completely different issues for absolutely no reason. That's not an avenue for discussion, that's just phony BS.

This is perfectly said. It's why my blood boils the second anyone tries to tie these two issues after someone murders people. And in this case there is ZERO reason it should ever come up as a thing and yet time and time again with these shooting incidents we have a very large group of people talking mental health and guns. It's so misguided as to what actual mental health issues mean and usually totally erroneous about the reality of these situations.

Last night was good, a shifted focus but good.

1) The original poster made the religious zealot connection. Yes, all religions know zealots, but the implication was that this somehow puts Christian zealotry on the same level as Islam. It's absolutely absurd. 2) It's fine to want more willingness to declare mental illness, but that has negatives as well. If we become too eager to declare people mentally ill it can have many ramifications beyond just gun ownership. Neighbors thinking you're weird should never be enough for someone to claim a murderer is mentally ill. He could just be a freaking murderer. 3) Pass gun laws. That's fine. But don't imply that this situation would've been prevented by gun laws. It wouldn't have. Saying otherwise is just factually incorrect.

I agree, it was a horrible act of domestic terrorism. And I do blame Republican rhetoric in part for it. That doesn't disagree with anything I said.

This murderer was never diagnosed as mentally ill. At most his neighbors say he was weird. Any laws designed to stop the mentally ill from getting handguns with the implication this situation would've been stopped is absolutely false. We somehow believe that comments after these situations that someone was "weird" or did strange things equals an actual mental health diagnosis. It's manipulative and false. Secondly, Christianity has a long and storied history of violence and oppression. But if we're going to label this "Christian Terorism" and suggest that it in any way rivals the scope of "Islamic Terrorism", that notion is delusional and complete false. That's just not the reality of the world today.

Well, both seem pretty based in fact. I suppose a reasonable person could choose to ignore facts, doesn't seem like a good approach to an opinion.

I think this is getting lots of coverage and deservedly so. This needs to be an issue that gets pressed on Republicans who are stepping up the rhetoric to dangerously stupid levels. But let's be clear, Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism aren't in the same ballpark. Anyone who makes that comparison almost immediately disqualifies their opinion in my eyes. It's just absurd. Let's also be clear on the gun issue, this guy (so far as I know) has no history of documented mental health that would make a difference in gun laws. Yes, we need less guns, but there is often such a rush by some to tie mental health and guns that they fail to actually check if the facts back them up. This was a horrible act and made for likely horrible political and religious reasons. Hopefully this hurts the Republicans and their rhetoric and ends some of that madness.

I think he'd be an ideal signing. We need a guy that can step in if (and it's a fairly likely if) Buxton has to spend time in the minors.

Kobe just confirmed what everybody already knew. Meh.

Yup, we need to make a backup CF a priority.

There is still some blame for these teams for the manner in which they conducted themselves. You still have a responsibility to think about what money you take.

There is no deeper pit of waste and corruption in spending than our military.

I continue to be concerned about Rubio. He's a good player, but "brittle" is becoming more and more appropriate as a label. Man would I like to see Lavine get time as an off-guard with Wiggins and Rubio.

Nihilism is a good word, but maybe almost too "big" to capture the plight of many black families. I was truly scared by some of the things I heard 13 year old young black men saying about life and what mattered. (And, maybe most scary, what didn't matter)

Well said Brock. We forced black communities into desperation and the consequences of that are profound and far reaching. There are some real issues in the black community that have to be addressed, but that's where today's racism comes in. The problem is that a strong segment of the white population thinks these problems are because the people are black not that they are the consequences of decades of institutional oppression against black people. That line gets even more blurry when you are confronted every day with those consequences/desperate behaviors like many cops, teachers, and community leaders have to. And the problems just compound each other and keep racism alive and active.

Working as a cop in Chicago is nothing short of a nightmare job. I lasted four months in the juvenile system before my confidence in humanity was so shaken I had to leave.

The north Minneapolis situation is a microcosm of a lot of problems we have right now. We have deep and justified mistrust in olice by one community as well as a a police force tasked with the near impossible. We have a bad situation made worse by a rush to determine what happened without facts and an investigation union driven that has little interest in much more than protecting the cops. And that ****-storm and others like it are the framework for most of our racial conversations today. Ugh.

I thought it was a good episode, but not as good as recent weeks. Overall the show is still fantastic. It may have the best pacing and dialogue in all of television. It's not phony or trumped up like even True Detective Season 1. This is just a damn good story told with damn good dialogue and given to us by some damn fine actors and actresses.

I only hope that Trump is ending his own campaign with this stuff. Hopefully the Republican field starts to hold him accountable for this stupidity in debates. They started to last time, but it's time to put that sideshow to bed.

No one wants to force a Plouffe deal, but I'm glad indications are that conversations are happening. Having demand for a player is the first step in having value and if the rumors are true than there appears to be some demand. Hopefully it's enough to entice someone to give up something spicy.

We get a good taste of this weird dynamic again: Plouffe is too valuable for us to deal but he's worthless on the market. Regardless, he shouldn't be moved for a poor return, but I do hope these rumors indicate an active conversation(s) is happening.