No show today - due to President's Day corporate holiday. (No producer, no show.)
I took some time out of my President's Day festivities of wearing powdered wigs and buying appliances to do some advance prep work for Tuesday's show.
Raleigh voter asks for civility... outrage ensues
Over the weekend, a Raleigh City Councilwoman shared a tweet from a Democratic partisan hack - listing the Republican Party as one of the "greatest threats" to the nation.
One of her constituents didn't appreciate it.
.@StefMendell is free to espouse her views on Twitter but I think it’s a bad look for a city councilor to say her Republican constituents are a “threat to America.” We don’t need this mean-spirited, divisive, partisan rhetoric in @RaleighGov. #ralpol #NCPOL pic.twitter.com/NHxagCpoX5— Brent Woodcox (@BrentWoodcox) February 16, 2018
Mendell replied, "Please note I am criticizing the Republican Party for its complicity with the NRA. I am not criticizing individual Republicans many of whom have told me they feel their party has been hijacked by extremists."
This is disingenuous, as are the excuses for labeling half the country a threat to America.
The author of the list that Mendell shared weighed in - defending his Democratic colleague for retweeting his list of threats to America.
"We absolutely need leaders like @StefMendell to call out Republicans who are tied to the NRA. We don’t need someone who’s going to sit on the sidelines and give “thoughts & prayers.” Are you saying NRA-backed Republicans aren’t a threat to America Brent?"
"One thing that is dangerous is calling everyone you disagree with on a matter of policy of being a traitor to our country,"Woodcox responded. "That type of language is unhelpful to having a meaningful conversation on the issues. It’s inappropriate for a government official to use it."
When we view each other as threats to the nation, it permits the rationalization of violence and extremism.
Sadly, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is precisely what many Americans now want. (With the belief that the violence will be done by someone else, hurt someone else, and leave them in power.)
A way to find common ground on gun control?
David French at National Review proposes a new kind of restraining order aimed at people who become mentally unstable.
It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):
- It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
- It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
- It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
- In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
- The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
If you read French's explanation, does this seem like something that could work?
Can it pass?
Or how about this idea:
A rural Colorado school district decided Wednesday night to allow its teachers and other school staff to carry guns on campus to protect students.
The Hanover School District 28 board voted 3-2 to allow school employees to volunteer to be armed on the job after undergoing training.