She said, "We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black. " In other words, she is saying that even if the story being pushed by MSNBC is accurate the answer is not gun control. From the way she said MSNBC was leaping to the conclusion, I'm guessing she doesn't think that is the full story.

She said, "We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black. " In other words, she is saying that even if the story being pushed by MSNBC is accurate the answer is not gun control. From the way she said MSNBC was leaping to the conclusion, I'm guessing she doesn't think that is the full story.

Arrest and trial are only part of the legal process. An equally valid part of the process is the determination by the DA of whether the evidence warrants an arrest. In this case, the DA determined that no crime had been committed. If there's evidence that the DA made a bad call, that should be considered and (if true) Zimmerman should be arrested and tried. If the DA made the right call though, it would be incredibly wrong to arrest Zimmerman "for his own good" just so we can have a trial. The state should only arrest people that they believe are guilty.

In college I was part of a panel of undergrads discussing political correctness and affirmative action. I was either the only conservative on the panel or the only one willing to speak up. In any case, after the discussion was over, one of the other panelists came over and told me that discussing the issue with me had been frustrating. I asked him why. He said, "You have all sorts of facts and figures and data to back up what you're saying, but, I just know you're wrong." He may have used the word 'know', but, he meant 'feel'. I had facts and figures and data, but he had a deep feeling that what I was saying was wrong regardless of the evidence.

I would have to know more about the study results before I worried about soulless, video-game playing monsters wandering the streets and bullying people. Are these video-game exposed children saying that violence is the answer when you don't want to do homework? When someone cuts in line? When you don't like someone? Or, are these kids saying that violence is sometimes the answer when all other options have been exhausted? They don't need a video game to learn that. They can learn that from a WWII history lesson.

I realize books are a thing of the past, but, I wonder if any of these gentlemen have ever seen a person walking down the street reading a book or newspaper? I have. I've also seen people searching through their purses/backpacks while crossing the street, paying attention to the food they were eating while crossing the street, deeply engaged in a conversation while crossing the street, etc. The two things all of the above have in common is that they can lead to people being distracted when crossing streets AND they will not be covered in a law banning electronic devices. Government can't protect everyone from everything bad in the world, so, perhaps it's time they started erring on the side of freedom.

I agree in theory that the government shouldn't regulate how a private business charges its customers; however, in this case, you don't have a purely free market. Most cable companies (and many phone companies) are given protected areas by the government. My friend (in the same town as me) has a better deal on her cable modem than I do, but, I cannot get service from that company because I live in another company's region. The real solution is for the government to stop providing de facto monopolies to these companies. However, in the absence of that, they do need to protect us from the monopolies they've created. That said, any tiered pricing should be based only on bandwidth usage and not on which programs you use. If I use a...

I must disagree with you when you say that "cooler heads prevailed" and the media moved on. The day before Ms. Palin released her video, Chris Mathews (on national t.v.) asked why she had gone missing on this issue - implying that she had disappeared because she knew she was guilty and had nothing to say. Other members of the media had similar "Where's Waldo" type commentaries wondering why Palin had not defended herself yet. She didn't 're-insert' herself' into the discussion because the media had never allowed her to not be a part of it. All she did was defend herself. While I think it will be a long shot for her to be president in 2012 given her net unfavorables (which exist, in no small part, because folks like you write...

I think another reason there are fewer minivans is that there are fewer large families. If you have one or two kids you don't exactly need that third row of seats.

Many of the games automatically assign a side in online play. Call of Duty is like that. Depending on the map being played you could be randomly assigned to be American or Russian or British or German or French.