Free Republic

Skills such as these would be most welcome at the editorial offices of The Rambler about now, say I!

Personally, I’m about ready to resurrect Torquemada and give him a campus tour, but maybe I’m a bit irritable.

I expect that’s a plastic-explosive-lined veil she’s wearing, right?

LOL! I'm a student at this (sorry) excuse for a school; saw the article in the paper, and posted it here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2502825/posts . Glad to know that I'm not the only person who noticed it, though.

Perhaps a thread merge...? Not entirely certain about the etiquette of these things, as I don't post all that often.

As a side note, writing to Mr. Fain, while satisfying (my letter will be dropped off today), is unlikely to persuade him of the error of his ways. I suggest writing to the following as well (even a CC on an email to Mr. Fain would at least bring the situation to their attention):

Dr. Harold Jeffcoat, President, Texas Wesleyan University: hjeffcoat@txwes.edu

Dr. Steven Daniells, Dean of the School of Arts and Letters: sdaniells@txwes.edu

Dr. Kay Colley, Student Media Director (Dr. Colley interviews and hires the student editors): kcolley@txwes.edu

Kelli Lamers, Faculty Advisor to The Rambler: klamers@txwes.edu

I expect that there are a number of FReepers who agree with this article. I suspect--and I think my suspicion has been born out--that a sizeable number don't. Indeed, a fair number of non-Catholics have posted something along the lines of "I'm not Catholic, but this is obnoxious."

I posted it in the hopes of getting a bit of backup. A single voice yammering in the wilderness that is this campus is generally ignored. If, however, the President (who seems, while I don't know him at all, to be a reasonably decent person) hears from twenty or twenty-five people about the rank idiocy of this article, he may well pay attention, as he has a track record of listening to people. I was, quite frankly, shocked that by yesterday afternoon, three people had posted comments on the article's site about the poor research and generally nasty tone of the article; I suspect that's an unprecedentedly high number for this very laid-back school. I've no delusions that this campus is suddenly going to develop ties with Rome. I'd be delighted to settle for a certain amount of civility in the school-sponsored newspaper as regards my faith.

My dear Salvation, you just made my night after a very long and rather tiresome day. I ROTFL'd.

THANK YOU! :)

That would be “over TO the editorial and administrative offices”...egads, they’re finally rubbing off on me.

I don’t suppose there’s any chance of resurrecting Sister Mary Patrick and sending her over the the editorial and administrative offices? That I would pay to see. :D

b-chan: you don’t know me, as I post very rarely here—I lurk far more than I post—but BlackElk suggested that I ping you when he and I spoke earlier today about this column in The Rambler. I hope you don’t mind.

I am a student at Texas Wesleyan University. This is the student-run (but school-sponsored and faculty-supervised) school newspaper to which I'm linking. I picked up a copy of The Rambler today while getting my morning coffee and nearly spewed coffee across the shop when I came to this headline. The author, while this column is listed on the "Opinion" page, is a newspaper staff member (the Opinion Editor, to be precise) of The Rambler.

I don't post on here very often at all anymore, but I admit that once I stopped grinding my teeth my first thought was that this is a situation in which I could use a good FReep.

So, FReepers, your assistance would be most welcome. Do you find this article irritating? Ill-informed? (The letter referenced a few paragraphs into the article was written by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, not then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.) An example of ludicrous journalistic (if this article can be dignified as such) bias? Even, perhaps, bigoted? Let your opinions be heard!

Chuck Fain (Author of the article, Opinion Editor of The Rambler): cmfain@txwes.edu

Dr. Harold Jeffcoat, President, Texas Wesleyan University: hjeffcoat@txwes.edu

Dr. Steven Daniells, Dean of the School of Arts and Letters: sdaniells@txwes.edu

Dr. Kay Colley, Student Media Director (Dr. Colley interviews and hires the student editors): kcolley@txwes.edu

Kelli Lamers, Faculty Advisor to The Rambler: klamers@txwes.edu

Prefer to let your disgust be "heard" via pen? 1201 Wesleyan Street, Fort Worth, TX 76105

Perhaps you communicate best via telephone? In that case, dial 817-531-4444 and ask to speak to whichever administrator you'd prefer. The Rambler's number--answered Monday and Wednesday 10-5 and Friday 10-3--is 817-531-7552.

Your assistance is most gratefully received. Should anything occur publicly about this (a statement in The Rambler, perhaps?) I will, of course, put up a link to it here on an update post.

Thank you all for your assistance.

BRAVO!

I attend college at a community college in Texas. The campus cops are naught but a joke: there are only a few on duty at any time, they spend most of their time issuing citations when they are here, their response time in in the 10+ minute range, and they won't even walk women through a poorly-lit parking lot at night.

Haven't gotten my permit yet (still saving for it), but when I do, I would certainly carry on campus if this law went through.

I can tell you now that a .357 would make me feel considerably safer than the mace I currently care (and according to campus rules, could get into serious trouble for carrying).

So perhaps we should not wear crosses, because to do so might bring up the rather testy subject of the Crusades?

The swastika has many horrors associated with it, and I'd never wear it. I'd argue that individual businesses or schools may choose to ban it, as they could choose to ban Black Panther/KKK/insert group with Really Bad History here emblems. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion (provided that neither cause harm to another party) are fairly important principles.

And no, the First Amendment isn't applicable in this situation. Would that it were.

Oh, I'm no supporter of the "stoning women to death" policy, I assure you. Yet I would point out that within the whole of the Muslim religion there are varying opinions/takes on women's rights. The fact that these girls are going to school sort of indicates that their parents are not quite so radical as certain others who belong to the same religion.

"It's not the scarf--it's everything else that comes with it?" Could not the same be said about a cross necklace, or a kid who carries a Testament to school? Couldn't it be argued that that cross could symbolize a) a religion that actually is about peace, love, and kindness, b) a Man who died so that we might live, or c) fundamentalist Christian thought that places women in a position not very dissimilar to their Muslim sisters insofar as rights and education?

(No, I'm not saying that all fundamentalist Christians don't allow their daughters to enter higher education. I'm saying that there are certain groups who do, just as there are portions of the Muslim population who hate us all. It isn't right to judge all Christians as those fundamentalists, and the same is true of Muslims.)

Really? With that sort of logic, one might assume that

Today it’s wanting to not attend school/work on Good Friday.
Tomorrow it’s insisting that no one else work (no matter how necessary the work) on Good Friday.
The next day it’s the Inquisition (and nobody expects that!).
Then all non-Catholics will be burned at the stake.

If these were Hassidic Jews, would you object to their daughters wearing long sleeves or covering their hair?
If these were Pentecostal girls, would you object to these girls wearing long skirts (at times other than sports activities, that is)?
If these were Mennonite girls, would you object to their wearing kerchiefs over their hair?

Hair scarves are different from burkas. Wear a burka, and no one can tell who’s in there/what’s in there, and they just aren’t safe to run about in. Wearing a scarf or cross ring (the latter not during sports, perhaps) or Star of David necklace will not be a security risk, and nor will it impose Sharia law upon the rest of us. I’d be ticked off if they expected everyone else to conform to their standards. They aren’t.

I see no reason to keep the girls from wearing these scarves. Burkas could be considered a security risk in schools (if you can't see someone's face, you can't tell who they are), and long skirts being required during sports activities could lead to injury. Hair being covered--and rather neatly at that--I do not see as a risk to Western Civilization As We Know It. Would we throw an equal fit if, for example, a Mennonite or conservative Pentacostal (I seem to recall that there are denominations of such that ask women to cover their hair--if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) girl wanted to keep her hair covered out of modesty?

Furthermore, I imagine that a fair number of folks here would spontaneously combust if their kids were told not to wear crosses or crucifixes to school (not allowed in France either, I would presume), or if their daughters were required to wear low-rise jeans with midriff-baring shirts.

Ping for your reference...

Indeed. I had my house broken into about a year ago. My room mate called and told me that the house had been broken into. I hauled it to get back to the house from work, and was there in 30 minutes or so. She had discovered the break-in when she got home from work, walked into the house, and noticed the broken back door/general mess. She also heard someone in the back bedroom, and, not being armed, got the heck out of the house and called 911 before calling me.

When I got back to the house at 6 or so, the cops weren't there, despite her telling the dispatcher that she'd heard voices in the house and that there were obvious signs of a break-in.

When 8 PM rolled around, we were still standing outside. Hey, we're unarmed. We're not going in there, thankyouverymuch. I am sufficiently ticked that I call 911 again. Dispatcher informs me that someone screwed up, and the original call was never actually dispatched. (WTH?) She'll send someone over right away.

At 8:30, two squad cars drive by. They don't stop. Lovely.

At 9:30, I've passed "ticked" and am well into "PO'd." I call 911 AGAIN. "Oh, we'll get someone out there soon. The average response time to your area is about an hour tonight."

I live in Fort Worth. IN THE CITY. Furthermore, it's been four hours.

At 10:00, a cop finally shows. He means well, but, frankly, I didn't know they let teenagers on the police force. He doesn't look old enough to shave. And I am not impressed by the fact that he keeps discussing how "cool" fingerprint powder is. Needless to say, the perps are long gone by the time he comes. Heck, they had time to order a pizza and a limo!

And people wonder why I've no faith in the local police.

Admittedly, being American, I am not very familiar with Australian higher education.

Is it entirely unreasonable to assume that if this school merits being called a "university," it is large enough that one could attend the class one would attend in lieu of prayer at a different time? I attend a small community college, and even here all but a very few unpopular classes have many sections. Don't want to take a class at noon? Take it at any one of the other five times.

As for making a female-only area, what's the next step? Forcing the women to stay in that area and not socialize outside of it? (Answer: yes.)

Besides, any woman worth her salt can keep impertinent men away without a "female-only" section. :P

And...your point is? :P

I do want to know how the author of this article passed English 101. It's been a while since I've seen an article with that many run-on sentences and punctuation errors. Egads.

In regards to the gangs: arm any decent and non-felon citizen with a .357, proper training, and a CHL. Voila! Problem solved.

In some states, you can't challenge the tickets you get from a camera. In my state, I believe the fine is $200 if caught running the red light, and you can't challenge it.

The state has also been known to time the yellow and green lights shorter in order to catch more "offenders." There is an intersection near my house at which they recently installed these cameras. The green light is so short now at this intersection that even if you are stopped and waiting for it to turn green and then GUN the engine the second the light changes (not safe, as people will still try to run lights and this means you run the risk of being t-boned in the intersection), you are still unable to get out of the intersection before the light changes back to yellow/red. It is absolutely insane. Fortunately, I discovered this during the "grace period" while we were supposed to get used to the cameras. I now go about five minutes out of my way on my drive to work to avoid this intersection.

But hey, the state doesn't care. Just 'cause the number of accidents at this intersection have doubled in the two months since the camera was installed is no reason to give up such great revenue! /sarc

Which is precisely why they never walk into, say, a precinct house or the local FBI office and start their let's-blow-everyone-away act.

(speaking as someone who plans on getting a .357 upon turning 21)

Really? I'm a college student, and turn 21 in August. I have every intention of getting a CCL and a handgun for my birthday present to myself. It's illegal to carry on campus in my state, but be assured that I will be pestering my legislators to allow me to do so.

Note what happened last year at Appalachian Law School. Some crazed student tried to do a Virginia Tech; he killed the dean, a professor, and a student before two other students with concealed-carry licenses went to their cars, got their handguns, surrounded the guy and told him to drop the gun or get blown away. By the time the cops FINALLY arrived, they had disarmed the bad guy and had him on the ground. Personally, I'd rather have that happen then have the bad guy blow a few dozen of us away before committing suicide.

What is our recourse, if we have no means to defend ourselves? Run, and hope the cops show up soon? Me? As a person who concealed-carries, I'd be at the range practicing once a week. I'd know how to use my gun, be familiar with it--and never draw unless the person at the other end was going to die. At 21, I'm older than many college students, and frankly, more responsible and mature. I wouldn't advocate every 18-year-old carrying. I suggest that a 21-one-year-old who spends significant time at the range and goes to school armed may well be exactly the person you want sitting next to your daughter in class if, God forbid, someone decided to walk in there and start blowing people away. At my campus, we have some singularly useless cops who take 3-10 minutes to respond to a situation, who refuse to walk unaccompanied women to their cars at night despite the lack of security lighting, and who are not required to log any kind of range time with the guns they carry. I think that given my intention of putting in some serious range time, I'd be a better shot!

Did I mention that 911 calls made on campus phones route to the campus police (the word rent-a-cop comes to mind), and that they are responsible for notifying the local police force? I also suspect that mine is not the only campus in which the security situation is this way.

If you make it illegal to carry a weapon, only the crazy b*stards will be armed when the aforementioned crazy b*stards decide to start shooting innocent people. We aren't advocating that every 18-year-old carry. We are advocating that mature 21-year-olds who know how to use a weapon and are licensed to carry that weapon are allowed to carry on campus.

Note that these shooters do not walk into a police precinct house or the local FBI office and start shooting. They aren't stupid. Instead, they go to the schools that are declared "gun free zones" (lambs to the slaughter, anyone?) because they KNOW that no one will stop them. Yes, there is a deterrent factor. I'd think that something published in the student paper to the effect of "1 in 10 students is armed" might put a damper on some people who intend to go on a rampage.

A shoot-out in a lecture hall is preferable to students running all over the lecture hall and being picked off one by one as they wait 10? 15? minutes for the cops to arrive. If someone had been armed and knew how to use their gun at NIU last week, that shooter might not have been able to kill the six that he did.

Would you prefer your daughter to go to school where only the psychos (oh, and the useless rent-a-cops) have guns? We live in an unfortunate day when it it not reasonable to expect that school shootings won't happen if we just make the school a "gun free zone." Killers don't give a darn about losing their financial aid for carrying on campus. They really don't.

The same way that Chapaquiddick Ted is Catholic: IN NAME ONLY!

Apparently the police have yet to find the dog, so they are unable to charge this punk with animal cruelty. Nor does the poor owner know what happened to Edna.

What sort of monsters are we raising?

What a bunch of idiots. Ending the situation "as quickly as possible" by submitting to such demands places the drivers in worse danger than if they were carrying.

I have a friend whose son worked his way through school as a pizza deliveryman (not for Dominos; I believe for another large chain). One night he was mugged by a group of young punks. He handed over the pizzas and the cash, after which they shot and killed him. His last words, incidentally, (to his killers after they shot him and as they were leaving him for dead) were something along the lines of "Jesus loves you."

But of course, if he just handed over the money and pizza this wouldn't have happened, right? Oh, wait a minute. he DID.

I'd imagine that any lawyer worth his salt (or his wallet) would jump pretty fast to get a phlebotomist down there if he smelled a potential lawsuit. :D

I'd also throw out there that it would be in the interests of the police department to have that blood drawn and tested, because it's pretty hard to fake a blood test. If it turns up positive for alcohol, then they can deal with the "gargled with Listerine" defense (I'm not saying that that couldn't happen, you understand--I'm just DAing here), but if it is negative, it would demonstrate that they were willing to believe you (but needed evidence to that effect due to liability issues) when you said that you might be blowing four times the legal limit on the breathalyzer but still hadn't had a drink in a week.

Constitutionally, I can see where this would be messy in the extreme. You would be incriminating yourself by taking the breathalyzer or by giving blood that indicated that you had been drinking, but what is the alternative? I'm not trying to advise ignoring the constitution here--I honestly want to know if there is a viable alternative. If so, I'm all ears! :)

Absolutely. In the case of the pilot, he'll have a copilot (if he flew commercially) for that very reason. But my point was that a drunk deliberately gets behind the wheel in a condition that renders him unfit for safe driving, while a pilot or driver in the situation you describe would not have been at fault unless he ignored the symptoms I described prior to taking off or starting the truck.

Yes, but one would presume that most pilots, bus/taxi drivers or truck drivers would not get behind the joystick or wheel while suffering obvious heart attack symptoms such as crushing chest pain, pain radiating down the left side/arm with nausea/vomiting and weakness, nor would one assume that the pilot or driver would deliberately bring on a condition that would render him so patently unfit for flying or driving.

Drunk driving, on the other hand, can and does kill a lot of people. I remember several years ago when a drunk behind a wheel killed an entire family on their way to their daughter's graduation in my then hometown.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a legal scholar insofar as the Fifth Amendment goes. However, I would hazard a guess that in the majority of cases the cop stopping you is not so corrupt that he'd deliberately rig a breathalyzer test. If you agree to the breathalyzer and it is rigged, you can call a lawyer and have that lawyer have you give a blood sample. You can then have that blood sample independently analyzed and, when the sample comes back indicating that you haven't had a drink since the Truman administration, you can sue the police department for every nickel of their budget. In fact, I'd strongly recommend that you do so.

Oh, I'm shocked. Simply shocked.

And I'm CERTAIN that this felon will show up for that court date. After all, he did for all the others, right? (slaps forehead) /s

How many more people will he shoot before he is recaptured, and will this judge be held accountable as an accomplice? Oh, wait, I know the answer.

Would you describe drinking/driving laws the same way? Perhaps I'm crazy, but I really don't want other drivers (or, when I'm out running, drivers in general) to be that distracted. In some states, it is against the law to eat a bowl of cereal when driving. I don't know that I'd go so far as to ban eating while driving, but as an ER volunteer the worst case of negligent driving I ever saw was a woman on her way to a date. She was eating a bowl of cereal, applying mascara, putting on her pantyhose, and talking on her cell phone while driving down a busy six-lane street. This woman lost control of the car and hit four other cars before finally stopping.

As a matter of fact, laws exist in order to tell us how to live. Laws against murder, theft, assault and doing 80 MPH in a school zone are all designed to tell us how to live. Note the Ten Commandments, if you're Jewish or Christian, and at least note the social gist of them if you're not.

Laws are designed to set reasonable limits that protect us and others. Most of us know better than to do something that requires that our eyes be off the road most of the time while we are driving (texting). There are some inconsiderate morons who need to be penalized because they don't realize that. This law would not penalize those of us who are mature enough that we actually belong behind the wheel of a car.

My voice teacher has mentioned how easy it is to catch a respiratory bug on airplanes, but I don't think she quite had this in mind!

If this woman was aware of the gravity of her illness, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. How bloody unconcerned can you get?

(Snort) Here in FTW they've recently installed cameras in several intersections. Running the red light on camera means something like a $200 ticket, and that ticket is not negotiable.

At the same time that they put up the cameras, they shortened the yellow lights by several seconds. At one intersection near my house at which there is a camera, the green light was also shortened. It is so short that if you are the first car in line at the red light and punch it the second the light goes green, the light is yellow or red by the time you get across the street. It's insane. I'm all in favor of enforcing red light laws, but this makes it virtually impossible not to run that light. I've taken to avoiding that intersection entirely, even though doing so adds a good ten minutes to any drive. It just isn't worth it.

As for the topic at hand, it's about d*mn time. This texting while driving is incredibly dangerous. I don't care how important it is for you to talk to your "BFF" or "BF" or whatever. Frankly, the insurance rates of drivers caught doing this should skyrocket, because chances are that sooner or later there will be some kind of accident related to that particularly idiotic habit.

Hard though it is for me to say this, Iran's insane government just may have a point.

Of course, I suppose that Wagner and Rossini are next (the women aren't wearing tents, talk-and sing!-in the presence of men to whom they are not related, etc), but I'll enjoy this while I can.

I work in a large chain bookstore. What the review says is true: this series is well written. This genre (fantasy, specifically dark fantasy) is incredibly popular right now, not only among children, but among teenagers as well. Note that idiotic Twilight, Eclipse, New Moon " series (teenagers and vampires who turn one another into vampires because to be immortal and unstoppable is something EVERYONE should do, right?) and its popularity: everyone is reading it (teenagers and many adults). It, however, is very poorly written, with little plot beyond angst, biting, and yet more angst. Fifty years from now, no one will really remember it.

This His Dark Materials series is different. It is really evil. It is sufficiently well-written that it will stick around for a while. I don't say that lightly; I say that as both a fairly traditional Catholic and a HUGE Harry Potter fan (yes, I have been known to go to the first HP movie shown in the area at midnight, yes I get the book the day it comes out, etc). I saw great parallels in HP to Christianity and generally good morals: sacrificing oneself for one's friends, love and goodness and RIGHT being important, etc.

This book is precisely as the author described it. Frankly, a lot of kids nowadays won't read Lewis' Narnia series because it is "too long," has "too many hard words," or "just doesn't make sense." By kids, I'm not talking about 9 or 10 year olds (I read the series at that age). I'm talking about TEENAGERS. Kids are brought up on the literary equivalent of cotton candy (quick pleasant taste then gone) instead of meat and potatoes (thank you, NEA!) and then we wonder why this stuff takes hold as it does. For another example, see that moronic Secret book.

Go to a different movie (made by a different studio) on the opening night of this disgrace. Go to your local bookstore and buy the full Narnia set and L'Engle's Time series over Christmas. Frankly, most businesses don't give a rat's posterior about morals, and spreading lies about religion (even better if it's the Catholic Church, and hey, if you can feed kids bad information on various other Christian churches who agree with the Church on 90% of doctrine AS WELL AS the Catholic Church, so much the better!) is cool at the moment. Those same businesses DO care about their bottom line. If they see the Narnia series or the L'Engle series selling as well or better than this nonsense, they'll give more shelf space to the good stuff. Finally, encourage your kids to grow up to write GOOD children's literature. By good, I mean comparable to Lewis in its beauty and simplicity and meaning and, frankly, level of writing. Most of what is published now for children is either meaningless and sugary drivel or (to a much smaller degree) meaningful but poorly written material.

Am I cynical about such things? H*ll yes.

Hmmm. I must admit to being torn on this issue.

I am not in favor of illegal immigration. My views regarding my tax dollars being spent on ER visits by those who don't at least contribute to their care (goodness knows that ER visits are outrageously pricey, but still...) are less than positive, to put it mildly.

That being said, the fact that I don't like the actions of certain people (coming here and not supporting themselves) doesn't mean that innocent children should be victimized. If my tax dollars must go towards medical bills, I'd rather have them go to ensure that babies get good medical care at birth and after. I've said here before that if I were a Mexican national and a mother who lived somewhere with little chance for basic healthcare or education for my kids, and if I'd tried to come here legally and been denied, I'd consider it my duty as a parent to try to get my kids up here.

Killer Tiller ping

And what in the h*ll was so funny about this? What self-centered idiots. Ringing a doorbell and running away is a practical joke. Slipping a whoopee cushion under someone is a practical joke. Calling someone and telling her that her child is in critical condition due to a car crash is NOT. What if the parents who went to the hospital that night ended up in a wreck themselves because fear and grief distracted them from the road? What were those punks THINKING?

There is something really wrong with society when some kids think that this is funny.

The only possible good that I can see coming from this is that the "near tragedy" may bring some of the targeted families closer together.

Interesting. My room mate and I (both of us female) earn a lot of our spending money (I’m a college student and she’s a single mom) doing jobs like those they describe. We both have other jobs, but as far as supplemental money (I refer to such jobs as “book money,” which explains why my bookcases are full to overflowing) goes, we could do a lot worse. Most kids aren’t willing to get off the playstations and help others move furniture, fix fences or gutters or whatever in order to make some money, and most adults consider it “demeaning” to make money this way, so we fill that gap. Think of it as “have pickup, will build/tear down/move.” The way we figure it, it’s legal, it’s morally okay, and it puts money into our pockets—and that’s nothing to be ashamed of. ‘Nuff said!

Thought you’d appreciate this...

Star CMC:

Am I correct that the song playing in your post is from the soundtrack to We Were Soldiers ? Great movie, great song, very appropriate. Thanks! :)

As for that Phelps thing...there is something truly wrong with a country that tolerates such nonsense at the funerals of heroes. Free speech is one thing. Desecration is another.

Of course I realize that the charges will never hold up in court. All the same--good for those officers for getting her the heck away (under whatever reason) from the funeral.

Heh. If they keep this up, our job could eventually be made a lot easier... :P

On a more serious note, who the h*ll shoots a nurse in an ambulance? God be with her and her family.

A Father Weslin ping...

My very first IB4TZ! (sniff)

I love a happy moment...

I believe you are thinking of St. Gianna Molla, who was a physician and surgeon as well as a mother.

Texas, however, is far more liberal (by liberal in this context I mean “permissive”) in regards to concealed carry than most states. And I reiterate: I’d rather face a panel of jurors and tell them that I carried that gun to work due to (obviously) serious death threats than be in a coffin and in a position to explain nothing to anyone.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Which is precisely the reason I live in Texas and would not work at a job that did not either a) provide sufficient security that I would not feel threatened by such a psycho or b) allow me to carry.

I'd rather face prosecution for carrying and defending myself from a deadly risk (and I'd say that this guy qualified as a deadly risk) than be in a casket while people play the UW blame game over the reasons I ended up there.

Evidently, Fred Thompson is someone who actually thinks that (gasp) a delusion of talent in various fields combined with peculiar drug-related activities does not a hero make. What a strange and novel idea. Consider this a “this guy gets my vote if he actually makes it past the RINOs” ping.

Personally, if I had a psycho after me, I’d increase my “short and long term personal safety” with a loaded .357 within reach at all times.