With more guns than people and a health care system that puts crazies on the street, who needs terrorists?

Dark thoughts contemplating the cinema killings that happened early this morning in Aurora, Colorado.

A recent medical school dropout, a 24 year old white man named James Holmes, surrendered to police without further violence after killing 12 theater-goers and wounding as many as 50 in a bullets and gas-grenade attack on a crowded midnight showing of a new Batman movie.

Little is currently public about the shooter, but seasoned observers (make that an armchair ‘expert,’ me) strongly suspect that Holmes is himself the victim of the onset of schizophrenia, which likely first caused him to drop out of medical school and now, in response to what he may very likely describe as irresistible impulses or voices in his head, has acted out his illness, helped along by the nearly endless supply of firearms and ammunition to anyone with a few bucks to rub together.

If one state’s laws prevent such a person from legally acquiring guns in that state, there’s usually a nearby state with much more lax gun laws all too willing to help out. And then there are gun shows, where sales are often largely unregulated and often occur completely extra-legally.

We’ve tightened up our national security to the extent that it appears to be increasingly hard for foreign terrorists to strike within the US.

But we are still vulnerable to what has often been our own worse enemy as a nation: ourselves.

UPDATE

Think we don’t live in a violent society?

Among the Aurora shooting victims was aspiring newscaster, Jessica Ghawi (who used the professional name Jessica Redfield).

Only last month, Ghawi left a Toronto shopping mall only 3 minutes before a gunman opened fire there, killing two and wounding six.

Ghawi wrote about it in her blog:

“My receipt shows my purchase was made at 6:20 pm,” she wrote. “After that purchase I said I felt funny. It wasn’t the kind of funny you feel after spending money you know you shouldn’t have spent. It was almost a panicky feeling that left my chest feeling like something was missing. A feeling that was overwhelming enough to lead me to head outside in the rain to get fresh air instead of continuing back into the food court to go shopping at Sport Chek. The gunshots rung out at 6:23. Had I not gone outside, I would’ve been in the midst of gunfire.”

Dow Jones MarketWatch: Obama spending binge never happened

Strongly recommended…

Dow Jones’ MarketWatch investor news site is rolling with this analysis of government spending growth that clearly puts the lie to frequent claims that Obama is a ‘big spender’ and that his administration has presided over a huge growth in government spending.

In reality, Obama has increased government spending less than any president since Dwight Eisenhower, first elected in 1952.

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Dow Jones’ MarketWatch: Obama spending binge never happened

TED censorship controversy spindown instead spins out of control

OK… it should probably surprise no one that a technology, entertainment, and design conference where a single ticket costs SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS is an elite affair. Organized by elites. Presented by elites. For elites.

But sometimes the presentations of new technologies are just so damn cool you want to believe that they’re not like all those other elites.

Yeah. Right.

At the most recent TED, Nick Hanauer, who describes himself as a wealthy entrepreneur, gave a very short talk on how the middle class are the real job creators in the United States economy.

This was apparently ‘too partisan’ for TED to release in video format — although it is part of their stated ‘mission’ to disseminate information from the ultra-pricey conference to ‘the rest of us’ — and although TED has presented roughly 100 politically themed video presentations of TED presentations in the past.

When word leaked out that TED was censoring one of their presenters, Chris Anderson, TED’s founder took to his TEDchris blog to issue a mealy-mouthed ‘explanation’ for the censorship that, judging from the flood of scalding negativity in the comment section of the post, was not received at all well by TED fans and friends.

Or perhaps we should say ex-TED fans and friends.

http://www.upworthy.com/breaking-you-know-that-nick-hanauer-ted-talk-you-werent-supposed-to-see-here-it-?c=cp2

You can read TED founder Chris Anderson’s exceptionally poorly received ‘explanation’ and the responding comments here: https://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405

We can’t guarantee that all those comments will still be there when you get there — there are at least several hundreds as this is being written (although the ‘high-tech’ TED blog software counts them as “0 comments” — shoulda used WordPress — oh wait, I guess that’s not elite enough for TED.)

It seems that the last time there was a controversy involving TED founder Anderson, it was because he had insulted TED guest presenter Sarah Silverman in a Twitter tweet and then — when the fur started flying — deleted it.

UPDATE: This looks like it’s turning out to be a real publicity nightmare for TED.

Anderson, who, we would have thought, has at least half a clue about technology, chose to make his lame apologia on the Posterous system.

Unbeknownst to those posting — there was NO notice anywhere — everyone posting comments (which are running about 40-1 by my guesstimate against Anderson) with their real email address is receiving an email every single time someone posts a comment– and since there are over 400 comments and counting, this is becoming something of a major annoyance for these people.

It appears that a complaint is in the offing to the FTC for not complying with Federal anti-spam laws that require unsubscribe notices in bulk email (the emails have no way of unsubscribing and if one then signs up for a Posterous account with that email and changes his preference settings to NO notifications — they keep on coming anyway! )

And extraordinarily incompetent operation all the way from TED founder Chris Anderson to the apparent techno-know-nothings at Posterous.

Republican economic numbers — fifty years of them — look BAD…

A piece on Politico by Jennifer Granholm uses numbers from Bloomberg’s BGOV Barometer to illustrate just how disastrous having a Republican in the White House really is for America’s economy, from the little guy to the board room.

Among her findings…

For the near half-century following the Kennedy administration, Democrats created nearly twice as many private-sector jobs as Republicans. Even though Democrats held the presidency for only 23 years compared with 28 years of Republican rule.

Private-sector payrolls increased by 42 million jobs under Democratic administrations, and 24 million under Republican ones. That’s an average of 150,000 new paychecks a month under Democrats and 71,000 per month under Republicans.

Jobs, schmobs. What about the market? That’s what counts to the nation’s investors, right? And how about the GDP and personal income?

Again, Bloomberg analyzed the data. Investing $1,000 in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 index over the past 50 years would have returned $10,920 when Democrats held the White House. The return when Republicans were in power? $2,087.

Annualized returns were 11 percent for the Democrats, 2.7 percent for the Republicans.

What about gross domestic product growth? Through 2008, real GDP grew faster under Democratic administrations — 4.1 percent to 2.7 percent for the GOP.

Income growth? Under Democrats, the real median income over the past 50 years grew at 2.2 percent. Republicans? 0.6 percent.

 

Read more:

Facts show Democrats are job creators

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76338.html#ixzz1v4oeJRQa

Was it his personal style — or his lifestyle?

Conservative, outspoken, even confrontational, Richard Grenell was presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s national security and foreign policy spokesman for less than a month.

Accused of sexism for snarky tweets about the appearance and style of women like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, talk show host Rachel Maddow and Callista Gingrich, Grenell had strong support from policy conservatives like former UN ambassador John Bolton — but his own sexual preference was a multiculural bridge too far for Republican social conservatives, who reportedly exerted pressure on the Romney campaign to throw him on the fire.

From the Washington Post

Gay Romney aide steps down, citing backlash over sexuality

That’s just how Ted is, don’t you see?

Some of the talking heads tell us, ‘Oh, Ted probably didn’t really mean his threat. He’s just like that.’

Precisely.

This is a aging hasbeen — a mediocre, crotch-grabbing fret grinder whose playing is the guitar equivalent of hearing a meth-addict grind away his teeth — a buffoon long laughed at by other musicians — yet whose endorsement the Romney camp not only crowed about for days, but had actually courted for months.But the talking heads tell us, ‘Well, you have to expect Ted to be Ted. Everyone knows how he is.’

Precisely.

This is a man who was arrested for wearing a loin cloth that didn’t cover his privates in public, in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This is a man who urinated on a nun.

This is a man whose gung ho cheerleading has accompanied every Republican twitch toward the trigger of war and destruction — yet who, when threatened with being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War, fouled his own trousers for a week to convince army doctors they didn’t want him. And they didn’t.

So why does Mitt?

What can that possibly say about his judgment?

Mitt Romney’s illegal voter problem… will it put him in a Massachusetts prison for 5 years?

The Daily Caller has called attention to a little problem from 2010 that might come back to haunt Mitt Romney.

Though he was once governor of the state of Massachusetts, it appears that Romney registered illegally to vote in the election to replace Ted Kennedy as one of that state’s U.S. Senators.

Romney, who owns a number of mansions, beach houses, and other residences, claimed he was living in his son’s unfinished basement in order to register.

But Massachusetts voter registration laws state that a residence, for registration purposes, is “where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social, and civil life.”

As a former governor, Romney may have a hard time pleading ignorance of the state’s law.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/23/romney-voter-fraud-allegations-loom-as-general-election-liability/#ixzz1sQq7BmeZ