violence

He had been institutionalized for mental health ... by his own parents.

He was on mind-alterning prescription medication.

He pushed his girlfriend around, part of his "abusive" behavior.

He had a history of cutting himself.

He bought all four of his guns at one shop -- two of them just a few days before.

But what was the AP lead?

Steven Kazmierczak had the look of a boyish graduate student — except for the disturbing tattoos that covered his arms.

Yeah. Tattoos are the issue here. Right.

Let's also note that he had a computer (uh-oh) and was apparently drinking large quantities of energy drinks. He also played chess. (Ooooooh!)

He had served in the Army for six months (and current status not quite clear). He also "served as an officer in two student groups dedicated to promoting understanding of the criminal justice system."

He was also known to watch Oprah on weekday afternoons. (Okay, that part is made up. But those tattoos -- obviously that's where the story lies.)

After all, shouldn't a decent red-blooded conservative be allowed to use violence to prove just how not-gay he is?

Carlson said, "Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms." Carlson continued, "I've been bothered in Georgetown Park," in Washington, D.C., "when I was in high school." When Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being "bothered," as Abrams and Scarborough laughed, Carlson asserted, "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually." The laughter continued.

Carlson's comments, coupled with laughter from Abrams and Scarborough, suggested to viewers that physical violence is an appropriate response to an unwelcome overture. This is dangerous and wrong.

MSNBC has yet to acknowledge Carlson's comments or address why Abrams and Scarborough laughed while Carlson recounted his actions. Instead, MSNBC has treated Carlson's comments as a laughing matter, re-airing the portion in which Carlson claimed to have been "bothered," but omitting the portion in which he seemed to boast of physical assault.

Typical liberal media bias -- er, liberal blog bias, trying to oppress decent homophobes! Don't the violently-not-gay people in this world have the right to express themselves, too?

After all, it must be so hard for all these conservatives who had to choose not to be gay in the first place.

33 dead. It's a tragedy. It's shocking. Why? Perhaps only because what we consider so routine we ignore it on a daily basis happened all in one place, on one morning.

Some 16 thousand murders happen each year in the United States. That's about 45 people murdered each day.

45 people.

In our country. In these United States of America.

Where's the outrage about that? We hear about the troubled student and oh, what are we going to do about that? -- that kind of stuff. But what about all the troubled men -- and they are mostly men doing the killing -- what are we going to do about them?

Since that tragedy at Virginia Tech, how many more have been killed? When is that going to be a story within the United States?

Insight from the man at PC magazine:

Nastiness is an earmark of many bloggers, podcasters, and members of
the herd; a few insane people; and those who feel that being an
out-and-out mean and profane presence on the Internet is cool or funny.
The level of nastiness that floats around the Net in various forms,
forums, and Web sites is incredible. When O'Reilly first proposed his
rules of the road for bloggers, I thought it was silly at worst and
wishful thinking at best. Nothing would come of it except a debate and
various columns like this one and the one from Tennant. The thinking is
that once all this is brought to light, maybe people will rethink the
way they act online.—next: It's Hopeless >

It's hopeless. Nothing will come of it. After the Kathy Sierra thing
blows over, the meanness will continue unabated, with all sorts of
dispossessed and borderline psychopaths blowing off steam online in one
way or another—usually by calling people names or being hypercritical.
This seems to be a reflection more of society as a whole than of the
psychological problems of a few individuals. There are too many people
who go online searching for validation of their life choices. Anytime
they run across anything that questions or counters their decisions,
they see it as a personal attack, and they'll often strike back,
attacking the perceived "enemy" in a personal manner. It all seems so
ridiculous, since these people likely don't know each other at all....

...But no matter, the whole thing is hopeless. Let's just go back to work.

What is it that drives men to do this, anyway?

There is something else at work in America than the culture of mean.

One of the main conservative leaders who fought successfully to scare politicians away from the Equal Rights Amendment has now revealed some of her underlying thinking, including -- incredibly -- the notion that husbands have carte blanche when it comes to raping their wives.

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.

That's right, honey. Say "I do" and open your legs 'till death do you part.

She also seems to be oblivious to the changing world around her.

One came when Schlafly asserted women should not be permitted to do jobs traditionally held by men, such as firefighter, soldier or construction worker, because of their "inherent physical inferiority."

"Women in combat are a hazard to other people around them," she said. "They aren't tall enough to see out of the trucks, they're not strong enough to carry their buddy off the battlefield if he's wounded, and they can't bark out orders loudly enough for everyone to hear."

Never mind that women are taller and stronger today than before, thanks to less socially imposed norms of yore, such as the undernourishment of girls and the frowning on women participating in sports.

Besides, making grandiose generalizations based on sex when it comes to who's permitted to do what is a ridiculous claim, and politically is more in line with fascism than the old-line Goldwater conservatism that espouses small government and leaving people alone.

In summary, it seems that the woman who tried to claim that feminism was a victim mindset has completely swallowed whole a pathologically victim-oriented view of the world, where women are soooooo inferior that we should all just shut up, cook dinner and get on our backs for men.

Really some things in the news are just ridiculous.

Prince's acclaimed performance included a guitar solo during the
"Purple Rain" segment of his medley in which his shadow was projected
onto a large, flowing beige sheet. As the 48-year-old rock star let
rip, the silhouette cast by his figure and his guitar (shaped like the
singer's symbol) had phallic connotations for some.

A number of bloggers have decried "Malfunction!" — including Sam
Anderson at New York magazine's Daily Intelligencer. Daily News
television critic David Bianculli called it "a rude-looking shadow
show" that "looked embarrassingly rude, crude and unfortunately placed."

You know, I noticed that. In fact, it was pretty obvious, when he changed guitars to use this wacky axe shaped like is Prince symbol, complete with an arrow point at the head--

Oh dear! A phallic symbol!

It's funny how there's all this fuss about this when the Super Bowl broadcast was littered with ads for violent television shows, violent movies -- and ads that were just violent.

The AP story by Jake Coyle tries to make the claim that the phallic imagery was accidental. Ha! He also claims:

Always eccentric, he famously changed his name to The Artist Formerly
Known as Prince, then to simply a symbol and finally back to Prince.

I suppose you wouldn't expect the Associated Press to point out that he did this because his record contract forbade him from using the name "Prince" when recording with a different label.