Originally Posted by Xer H

And Palin charges critics with 'blood libel'

Sarah Palin......Give this women enough rope....I'm still mystified as to how anyone can support her.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Gun control is death for the Democrats in the battleground states.

They should keep their mouths shut, and let the right hang themselves rhetorically by trying to pass Jared Loughner off as the new John Hinckley.

If the gun control issue came up again, this purple state I live in would turn a solid red. I personally don't see anything wrong with RESPONSIBLE ownership and use of guns. Keep it out of the hands of the whackos by all means, but I have nothing against sensible gun ownership.

Oh, and venison is quite delicious--especially when cooked well.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

If the gun control issue came up again, this purple state I live in would turn a solid red. I personally don't see anything wrong with RESPONSIBLE ownership and use of guns. Keep it out of the hands of the whackos by all means, but I have nothing against sensible gun ownership.

Oh, and venison is quite delicious--especially when cooked well.

~Chas'88

I know people normally see this as a liberal/conservative issue. But I know plenty of liberal democrats who hunt and own guns. I don't think it's as black and white as most people believe. And I agree, the Democrats would probably be best off if they just drop the issue. They are really only cutting off their nose to spite their face. What's the point in losing all those potential voters and people over this one issue? Oh they may pick up a few people, like Eric, who strongly oppose it, but there are far more people they will lose because of it.

Although I can't say for certain, because I didn't live here back then, but I have heard from other people who are life long residents that Texas use to be a mostly Democratic state. I'd be willing to bet if that is the case, the gun issue was probably one of the main reasons why it turned red.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47445.html

Gun sales soared in Arizona and several other states on Monday after the shooting on Saturday of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to FBI figures provided to POLITICO.
Gun sales skyrocketed 60 percent in Arizona on Monday, Jan. 10, compared with the corresponding Monday last year. Giffords was shot and critically injured at a public event on Saturday. Six people at the event were killed; 12 others were injured.


Nationwide, sales were 5 percent higher on Monday than they were a year ago.
Gun sales spiked after the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech and ahead of Jan. 1, 2000, as some Americans anticipated a Y2K technology disaster.
In Ohio, sales spiked 65 percent on Monday, the FBI said. They rose 38 percent in Illinois, 33 percent in New York and 16 percent in Florida.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, cautioned that one day’s worth of data might not mean there will be a sustained spike in gun sales.
But he said it might indicate that some Americans fear tougher gun control laws in the aftermath of Saturday’s attack so they want to stock up now.
“What it shows is maybe gun owners in Arizona and these other states feel that there’s going to be some change in the law, which is what I hope our elected officials” are working toward, Helmke said.
Shares of gunmakers Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Smith & Wesson were up less than 1 percent in trading on Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1Apr9IpjG

Originally Posted by Poodle

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47445.html

Gun sales soared in Arizona and several other states on Monday after the shooting on Saturday of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to FBI figures provided to POLITICO.
Gun sales skyrocketed 60 percent in Arizona on Monday, Jan. 10, compared with the corresponding Monday last year. Giffords was shot and critically injured at a public event on Saturday. Six people at the event were killed; 12 others were injured.


Nationwide, sales were 5 percent higher on Monday than they were a year ago.
Gun sales spiked after the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech and ahead of Jan. 1, 2000, as some Americans anticipated a Y2K technology disaster.
In Ohio, sales spiked 65 percent on Monday, the FBI said. They rose 38 percent in Illinois, 33 percent in New York and 16 percent in Florida.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, cautioned that one day’s worth of data might not mean there will be a sustained spike in gun sales.
But he said it might indicate that some Americans fear tougher gun control laws in the aftermath of Saturday’s attack so they want to stock up now.
“What it shows is maybe gun owners in Arizona and these other states feel that there’s going to be some change in the law, which is what I hope our elected officials” are working toward, Helmke said.
Shares of gunmakers Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Smith & Wesson were up less than 1 percent in trading on Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1Apr9IpjG

Yep, same thing happened down here in Texas after Obama was elected. All these people feared with a Democrat in the White House, there would be tougher gun laws. It didn't happen. But this is a highly emotionally charged issue for gun owners and hunters.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Gun control is death for the Democrats in the battleground states.

They should keep their mouths shut, and let the right hang themselves rhetorically by trying to pass Jared Loughner off as the new John Hinckley.

Maybe not now, because the House GOP can put it on indefinite hold -- that is, until they are defeated in 2012. Likewise, mental health is an appropriate aspect of national health care, and paranoid schizophrenics usually lack the means with which to take care of themselves.

Question: which do we value more? Elite indulgence or the value of human life?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Maybe not now, because the House GOP can put it on indefinite hold -- that is, until they are defeated in 2012. Likewise, mental health is an appropriate aspect of national health care, and paranoid schizophrenics usually lack the means with which to take care of themselves.

Question: which do we value more? Elite indulgence or the value of human life?

Half the homeless people in America are mentally ill and a good portion of them are schizophrenic. Dealing with this issue would solve more than one problem in this country.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Sarah Palin......Give this women enough rope....I'm still mystified as to how anyone can support her.

Seriously. But I'm all in favor of her continuing to put her foot in her mouth. It gets us closer to keeping her out of office.

Other than a factual update to the 2010 thread I've refrained from commenting on the Giffords shooting as I've waited for more facts to come in. I now see and hear a line of spin that I feel needs to be addressed. And I happened to come across this article .:

Originally Posted by MyDD

Was Jared Loughner's Act Political?

by theyoungturks,

Was Jared Loughner's act in shooting Rep. Giffords political? Apparently this is what's being debated with a straight face now. Is this a joke? He shot a politician in the head. He called it an "assassination." What part of that was unclear?

He didn't shoot Gabrielle Giffords randomly and it turned out she just happened to be a politician. He sought her out, targeted her and then tried to kill her based on the fact that she was a politician. He thought the government was the problem and it was unresponsive to his psychotic demands on grammar and currency.

So, is Loughner a psycho? Obviously. And that's not just because he shot all of those innocent people, but also because it is abundantly clear from his writings and videos that he has significant mental issues.

But why does the act have to be either psychotic or political? It's obviously both. It was a psychotic act driven by his political beliefs. What's so hard to understand about that?

Then, the next question is whether both sides are equally at fault. Again, I'm confused by this question. What the hell did the Democrats or liberals do here? Nothing, except get shot. How can the media possibly attach false equivalency to this? Are the Democrats equally culpable for getting shot as the conservatives are for shooting them?

Loughner shot a Democrat. Gee, I wonder which side he was on? He hated the government and thought they were out to get us. Gee, I wonder which side he was on?

I thought conservatives said liberals love big government. But now some have the audacity to claim Loughner was a liberal. But if one thing is obvious from Loughner's political writings, it was that he hated the government. So, which one is it -- do liberals love or hate the government?

Come on, this is all a smoke screen to make sure people don't see what's going on here. In the last two years, there have been dozens of attacks and shootings aimed at government officials and political organizations. Every single one of them was directed at liberals, Democrats or the government. Now we're to believe that's the world's largest coincidence?

The conservative hate-mongers don't create psychos. We get that there will always be disturbed individuals out there. But the right-wing directs these lunatics to a source. They channel their fear, anger and paranoia -- and they point them toward the Democrats. They use them as hate seeking missiles.

They load them up them up with violent imagery, whether it's talk of cross-hairs or second amendment remedies or the tree of liberty being refreshed with blood. Then when they get a violent reaction they pretend to be surprised and outraged that anyone would suggest they were the least bit culpable. The reality is that it is a simple formula -- violence in, violence out. Violent imagery in, violent results out.

If pretending this isn't political or that somehow it is both-sided doesn't work (which they shouldn't worry about because so far it has worked perfectly in white-washing their culpability in the media), then they say it's political exploitation to point out what they have done.

How the hell are we supposed to point out the problem if we can't mention the issue for fear of being charged with political exploitation? Would it be exploiting the tragedy of the BP oil spill to point out that maybe we should be a little careful about oil drilling? Or are we not supposed to make the most obvious points so that we don't offend the other political side's delicate sensibilities?

You know who exploited a tragedy for political gain? George W. Bush and the entire Republican Party. They used 9/11 as a gimmick to get re-elected. Then they exploited it to attack a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11. It is nearly impossible to exploit a tragedy anymore than they did with 9/11. And maybe that's why they level the charge against us now, because they know that's the first thing they'd do.

But pointing out that conservative commentators and politicians have been inciting their followers isn't done to get anyone elected. I don't even know whose election this would theoretically effect. This isn't done to press some policy agenda (again, outside of gun control, I can't even think of what agenda we are supposed to theoretically be pushing for). This is to point out an obvious fact that is getting people killed -- if you incite violence, you get violence.

To pretend that isn't happening all across the country everyday on talk radio, etc. is to be willfully blind to reality -- and to allow it to happen again. And trust me, next time they'll also say no one could have seen it coming and that whatever we do we mustn't talk about it. Preventing another tragedy like this would be such terrible exploitation. Better to be quiet and let them do it again.

*****

Clarifications:

I didn’t think these clarifications were necessary, but apparently they are for some. So, here it goes.

1. I am not saying all conservatives are responsible. I got an e-mail from a conservative saying I am blaming him for breathing. I am not blaming him at all (unless he had a national platform and talked about “targeting” liberals, Democrats, etc.), let alone for breathing.

2. I don’t believe the proper remedy is limiting anyone’s freedom of speech. I never suggested that. In fact, I am sure if anyone passed such a law, not only would it be unconstitutional, but it would be almost exclusively used against the left.

2a. Of course, I don’t mind Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin attacking Democrats. That’s their job. I am asking them to use some caution in how they frame their attacks and not to use violent imagery that eggs people on.

On the show, I was very specific on what kinds of language I was referring to (I also have a link in the story above to examples). Here is the video where I list some of the examples of conservatives using violent imagery.

3. I don’t think that Jared Loughner necessarily listened to an episode of the Glenn Beck show and then went and did this (although others, like Byron Williams did specifically do just that). I am saying that these conservative leaders are purposely creating an environment in which this type of violence festers.

4. Lastly, I am not saying that these conservative leaders celebrated this news or wanted this specific outcome. I assume they are still human. But they knew, or should have known, that they were creating the environment that led to this kind of violence — and they didn’t give a damn.

What did you think was going to happen when you kept telling people to grab their guns, the government was endangering their family and way of life and that they should defend themselves? This was going to happen. Don’t pretend otherwise.

I agree totally.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Other than a factual update to the 2010 thread I've refrained from commenting on the Giffords shooting as I've waited for more facts to come in. I now see and hear a line of spin that I feel needs to be addressed. And I happened to come across this article .:

I agree totally.

And lets not forget Sarah Palin's famous line that she likes to use all the time..."Don't retreat. Reload." Come on, folks. In what other way, could she possibly make it more clear to the nut case out there...Go get your gun.

The only nit I have with MyDD's statement is that there were a few Republicans that did receive threats and have their offices vandalized after the passage of the Health Care bill. But there were far more Democrats that were targeted. 90% of the anger in this country was directed at Democrats during that time.

Futhermore, for those who say this political environment we have in this country is nothing new, I seriously question that. I know we have not always agreed in the past, but I don't ever remember it being this heated. Here is my question. Has it always been common place to have several congressional people or other political figures receive threats or have their offices routinely vandalized because of they passed legislation people didn't like? Maybe it has been, but I'm not aware of this being commonplace in my memory.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I know people normally see this as a liberal/conservative issue. But I know plenty of liberal democrats who hunt and own guns. I don't think it's as black and white as most people believe. And I agree, the Democrats would probably be best off if they just drop the issue. They are really only cutting off their nose to spite their face. What's the point in losing all those potential voters and people over this one issue? Oh they may pick up a few people, like Eric, who strongly oppose it, but there are far more people they will lose because of it.

Although I can't say for certain, because I didn't live here back then, but I have heard from other people who are life long residents that Texas use to be a mostly Democratic state. I'd be willing to bet if that is the case, the gun issue was probably one of the main reasons why it turned red.

Out of my respect for Amy I am going to make one more try here.

Although I am not interested in hunting myself, I have no objection to it. Indeed, I live in an area that is suffering from a real plague of deer, with serious health consequences (lyme disease) for some of my neighbors, but our island is much too small and populated to allow hunting on it. (There was talk about a bow-and-arrow hunt in our state park but it didn't happen.) This has happened all over the Northeast, where reforestation has vastly increased the deer population and, as noted above, there are no natural predators left. (Athough we also have a plague of coyotes.)

What amazes me is how even people like Amy pick up the line that anyone who wants to control, say, semi-automatic weapons wants to to stop hunting as well. That's the NRA line, and it's, frankly, ridiculous. There is an obvious middle ground here, and it's the right, not the left, that is ruling it out.

Originally Posted by Tone70

Well said...

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Tone70

Not to my knowledge. He doesn't seem to care about much beyond money and adoration. F****er also owns much of my local paper. They do a PR puff piece on him once a week in the "Warren Watch" section.*vomits*

To his credit, he did once point out on national television that he pays a lower percentage of his income on taxes than his secretary does -- as a function of most of his income falling under "capital gains" as opposed to standard income. He underscored the irony since he is a billionaire.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Sarah Palin......Give this women enough rope....I'm still mystified as to how anyone can support her.

I'm mystified by the fact that you would see that statement as somehow damaging to her. It was excellent. Presidential even.

This whole thing is an attempt by the left to silence their opponents. It's not going to work.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm mystified by the fact that you would see that statement as somehow damaging to her. It was excellent. Presidential even.

This whole thing is an attempt by the left to silence their opponents. It's not going to work.

"Blood libel" she says. More code words from Palin, this time to those who don't like them Jews -- without being overt about it. That will resonate well with a certain crowd, and speaks volumes about her worldview. All they are good for is rebuilding the temple so that Jesus can come back faster, I suppose. Outside of that, money-grubbing, commie-inclined Christ killers one just has to put up with. Irony of ironies is that four of the folks seminally responsible for today's right-wing troglodytism, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Leo Strauss, and Max Shactman, were all Jews. The latter a Trotskyite as well.

Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If you read her entire speech, it's actually pretty good.
That a news story distorts the content, making it all about two words, is to be expected.

I've said it before ... come on people, stop playing into their hands. Read things for yourself and make up your own mind.

I have heard and read enough about Sarah Palin that I have already made up my mind about her. I also know her back story, which I don't think a whole lot of people understand.

I'd say it's rather safe to say, that there is whole of lot people with close ties to Alaska like I have, (I lived there. My husband was raised there. My in-laws still live there) know exactly what this woman is all about. And by the way, I'm not just being partisan here. My in-laws and my husband who are very strong Republicans don't care for her either. There is a whole lot more to Sarah Palin than just meets the eye. And no, she really isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

"Blood libel" she says. More code words from Palin, this time to those who don't like them Jews -- without being overt about it.

Once again, you show why the left is losing, and going to lose. They cannot survive without slanderous accusations. It is an accurate analogy. The accusation from the left is that their political opponents have blood on their hands. That they are directly responsible for these murders because of their speech.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

"Blood libel" she says. More code words from Palin, this time to those who don't like them Jews -- without being overt about it.

Actually Z, I don't think this is an insidious message from Momma Grizzly.

I think this makes clear the woman is actually mentally retarded.

Says a lot about those who come to her defense (and I don't think they're being kind), let alone actually support the notion of her being presidential material.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Other than a factual update to the 2010 thread I've refrained from commenting on the Giffords shooting as I've waited for more facts to come in. I now see and hear a line of spin that I feel needs to be addressed. And I happened to come across this article .:

I agree totally.

Excellent commentary. Good find; good post.

Originally Posted by Tone70

Not to my knowledge. He doesn't seem to care about much beyond money and adoration. F****er also owns much of my local paper. They do a PR puff piece on him once a week in the "Warren Watch" section.*vomits*

This points out one of the most insidious attacks on our democracy, that gets little to no notice. The Telecommunication "Reform" Act of 1996, ironically presided over by Clinton. Previous to this "reform" there were clear cut rules on how much media in a particular market could be owned by one entity. Afterward, there was basically none. As a result, almost all of what Americans see on TV and hear on the radio is presided over by about 8 corporations. This makes it only too easy for misinformation to be propagated to the public, to the point where a sizable percentage of Americans actually believe that Saddam Hussein has something to do with 9/11.

And it also set the stage whereby there is virtually no honest reporting in the US anymore. All of it comes with a slant, or an agenda, based on the source and ownership of the media involved. Somewhere between Iraq War I and the OJ Simpson trial we discovered that news can be a for profit enterprise, and the assault on truth over entertainment was on. Decisions are made based on profit, shareholder return and political agenda, rather than the calling to properly inform the electorate.

To quote an article I read somewhere but can't put my finger on (read: too lazy to google at the moment), the fourth estate has become the fifth column. Tim Russert may have been the last honest newsman in America.

Edward R Murrow tried to warn us back in 1958, when there were only 3 TV networks. He foresaw, I think, something of what we are experiencing today. I urge anyone to google his speech to the Radio and TV News dinner, I think it was dramatized too in the movie "Goodnight and Goodluck". The entire text is thought provoking, this is a snipet.

"One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Why don't you try proving it?

Alright.

http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/ro...-2011_7-42-pm/

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/26400594/detail.html

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...der-941741.php

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-ee4cae03a889

http://www2.wsav.com/news/2011/jan/0...er-ar-1304059/

http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=13805305

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2...oting-grocery/

I believe someone was suggesting buying a "large dog" as a means of self-defense. He may find this next article interesting:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...ack-938639.php

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/...8141292170722/

http://www.gainesville.com/article/2...intruder&tc=ar

http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-dog-at...,2197363.story

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/...136601&catid=2

https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publis...TOKEN=88781680

http://thearmedcitizen.com/wp/archives/156

http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...es-at-gunpoint

I found this one rather amusing:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_716466.html

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-...,1146824.story

http://www.krgv.com/news/local/story...MIlHf6_3A.cspx

http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13764983

http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/D...s.html?ref=409

http://www.newsfirst5.com/news/jewel...d-store-owner/

Non-practicing Marine saves woman from a dog attack:

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26334696/detail.html

http://www.39online.com/news/local/k...,3661377.story

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/112658694.html

http://www.click2houston.com/news/26309835/detail.html

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/112559434.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,1968167.story

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ro...f-1147980.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...d-robbers.html

Those are just some recent articles I was able to pull from a single website. I could post thousands more if I had that kind of time. There have also been several studies and surveys done to provide self defense statistics for firearms including a fairly well known survey from 1994 done by Florida State University. As a professor you should be able to obtain these if you were interested. Average estimates seem to be around 2 million uses of a firearm in self-defense per year in the United States.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It's still there if you know where to look. ¢2

Press and hold the alt key, then type (in sequence) 0162 from the keypad on the right side of your keyboard (not the top keys), then release alt. It should input all the ¢¢¢¢ you want.

All special characters (in Windows) can be found under Programs/Accessories/System Tools/Character Map. Selecting the character should show you the special keystroke to use at the bottom of the window.

I tried what you said. It works, but its a bit of a pain. Better, though than going into the Wingdings font, however.

Just my two ¢.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Excellent commentary. Good find; good post.

I could see how you may like or dislike the content of the article if you believe that Political Ideology is only Us or Them, and that to be against Us, equates to supporting Them.

Are all Political ideologies so cut-and-dried? The author even tried to throw-in the Conservative/Liberal Paradigm.

There were two lines that I liked, though:

"How the hell are we supposed to point out the problem if we can't mention the issue for fear of being charged with political exploitation?"

"Or are we not supposed to make the most obvious points so that we don't offend the other political side's delicate sensibilities?"

They are both very valid IMO.

Can you put yourself in the POV of the other Side?
Can you put yourself in the POV outside of both Sides?

PoC67

PS:"How the hell are we supposed to point out the problem if we can't mention the issue for fear of being labeled a ________?"

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Tell you what. Go down to a local gun range that rents fully automatic weapons. Shoot a full magazine at a target on full-auto, then another on semi-auto. Look at the results and then come back and ask me the question again.

On full-auto, you always shoot in three or four round bursts. We all know that. We also know that this is highly effective. That's why troops are trained to fire that way.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Once again, you show why the left is losing, and going to lose. They cannot survive without slanderous accusations. It is an accurate analogy. The accusation from the left is that their political opponents have blood on their hands. That they are directly responsible for these murders because of their speech.

Well I agree to a certain extent in that your post, and the sentiment it echoes, is a fine example of why the Right is doing so well these days: The Big Lie. It was perfected by Mr. Rove. Turn things completely around- up is down, down is up, and then hit and accuse hard. The Left has nothing on this. Goebbels would be impressed (Godwin be damned).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Actually Z, I don't think this is an insidious message from Momma Grizzly.

I think this makes clear the woman is actually mentally retarded.

She may be uneducated, but she is far from mentally retarded. On the contrary, she is one of the shrewder out there. What could get her in trouble is her overarching ambition and/or an exposé of her true thoughts and motivations.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's exactly my point. You judge whatever she says based on your already-formed opinion of her. There is no need to like the woman, but if people try and distort what she says, it only serves to further inflame the situation, and make her supporters cling to her even more strongly.

Rani, I'll agree with you here. Yes, part of her speech/response was quite good. I guess I'll just blame my cynicism on having worked in the sector... give any good speech writer a few days and he/she can come up with just the right way to state something. Uplifting, powerful. Just what we need from our leaders in trying times. But that doesn't mean I'll ever agree with Sarah Palin's policies.

I'm beginning to sense that, as much as the media would have us spend our time discussing gun control, left/right hate speech, vicious political campaigning, prior attacks on politicians, etc. ad nauseum, that the majority of Americans are ignoring it. Not for the reasons one may think, though -- not that they prefer "Real Housewives" or NFL playoffs, but rather that they're tired of hearing the same, old $%#@ that tries to get us to continue to argue with one another.

I also realized I'm feeling the need to question my fiercely-moderate positioning. One very thoughtful blogger made the point that Americans have been lured into a sense of false moderation -- which the establishment is counting on for inaction on the part of citizens. His point is that the Tucson incident shouldn't embarass Independent Americans or shock them into diluting their challenges to the system. Or reconsider if stricter gun laws or laws restricting speech aren't needed. I'm not restating it nearly as well as he did, but hope I'm getting most of the point across.

I really do, after hearing the water cooler conversations, seeing the Facebook posts, hearing the radio call-ins, reading online blogs, etc. that we're getting ever closer to a realization -- of the majority, anyway -- that things are horribly wrong and something big must be done to right them. And people are walking away from the talking heads that want us to keep fighting each other, rather than the destruction of our country.