Yeah, Shooter.

How in the world can you compare keeping a database of convicted felons or child molesters with keeping a database of people who may have been treated for depression.

What's next? A database consisting of a listing of dimwitted RW trolls just so you'll be able to see your name?

Xanax is a favorite among cocaine users, as a way to fall asleep after a long binge. I don't know if this alone categorizes it as an 'abused' drug, but even the possibility of a xanax database-tag in a federal cross-search (most likely DEA) is something that, to me, feels like undue search and seizure, and also a violation of patient/doctor privilege.

Just have vending machines that pump out pills and MRI's.

"This phonemenon is what contnually astounds me. Wasn't Newt Gingrich having fits about "jack-booted thugs" from the feds? How did these guys do a 180 on this and NO ONE in the MSM (let alone FOX Noise) ever calls them on it?"

The operative phrase here is "Gingrich having fits". Democrats don't have 'fits', generally, because they are reasonable, rational people with some sense of decorum. Unfortunately they are too decorous. It is obvious that extremity is what sells on TV, and as such Republicans have a natural advantage here. Now, if some Democrat were to muscle his way onto the airwaves to rant about this or that gross violation of American principles and law (take your pick), maybe the media would actually cover it. The fact that Democrats see public outrage as 'beneath' them is exactly why the media fails to notice most of what they say. The key point here is that it is not the substance and merit of what you say, but how loudly you say it. If some Democrats would step up as in the party, other than Murtha, they might get some coverage. The beauty of it is that Democratic indignation would be righteous indignation, able to withstand MSM criticisms that the Republicans are not made to face.

And that's another thing- Murtha and the MSM's response to Democratic outrage- that Democrats need to work on. They are the kids who get made fun of by the bully and just sit there and take it, or run off to cry in a corner. If Democrats would swallow their lofty pride and get just a little dirty down in the ditches, they might win some news cycles.

</>grr </>!!

Ktwdawg, your characterization of Democrats is essentially the criticism most often voiced by the pseudo meat-eaters of the Republican right, i.e. that Democrats are snooty cowards. It's also wrong, and to a Democrat, more than a little offensive. The triangulating Democrats are a pain in the ass to most of the rank and file these days, but they aren't cowards, and neither are we.

As for being snooty, I suspect we only seem so to those who identify with the mouthbreathers of the right; you know, the ones who think that using words of more than one syllable makes you French, and that God created the earth in six days 4,000 years ago. If knowing what you're talking about makes you snooty and disdainful, prepare yourself for a lot more snooty and disdainful pronouncements.

As you correctly point out, this is a war, not a popularity contest.

Breathe. Ok, to start, I didn't say it was a war, and I think my post actually points more towards 'Popularity Contest'. That was my point- we can easily observe that our MSM atmosphere is closer to the schoolyard than the debate club. It is a popularity contest when you're talking about our media. I am a snooty east-coast liberal, and a nerd at heart. The fact that I know it and own it allows me to humble myself in debate. I also know when and how to stand up for myself and when I don't need to. I learned early on that no matter what is in your heart, it is usually best to carry yourself with pride, to 'act tough' in hostile surroundings, and to be tough when there was no other option. It probably comes from moving around alot. I learned to 'do as the natives do', and that standing up for yourself and your principles, often requires you to first compromise and assimilate. That to change a thing, it is often best to change it from within. Do what it takes to be included, to have your voice recognized, and then you can champion your ideas. Otherwise, you're just tilting at windmills.

I was indeed using the language of the 'mouth-breathers' to describe Democrats, and you know why? Because that is how they are described, viewed, and treated in public debate. It doesn't matter if they are or they aren't, it only matters how they are perceived to be. I remember my theater director telling me that when you're onstage, everything has to be exaggerated. 'Spread those arms wide' and 'yes you do too have to wear makeup- so your face doesn't look like a big blur from the back row!' So when I say that Democrats need to swallow their pride, I don't mean to imply that it is a false pride, just that it is an obstacle to being seen, and heard. There is what should be, and there is what is.

The only rhetorical boogeyman scarier than Hitler! So scary, in fact, that their mere invocation suffices to win any argument whatsoever, however far removed from child molestation it may be.

The problem with the increasingly restrictive rules on those arrested, indicted, or convicted of child abuse is this:

90%+ of cases (IIRC) are from people known to the family--family members, friends of family, etc. The penalties are becoming so draconian that in such cases, it is a strong disincentive for families or individuals to report the abuse, and/or seek treatment for the abusers/victims. This greatly increases the risk that the abusers/victims will be unable to overcome the problems that lead to the abuse, thus increasing the chance of recurrence. In addition, it is much more likely that psychiatric treatment will be successful in treating people in the situations above.

I am not advocating no punishment for child abusers. However, I am advocating reasonable means of treating the 90+% of cases where help can prevent recidivism without forcing them into a lifelong punishment that would prevent victims from seeking help. Right now we are punishing 90+ out of hundred people (well, double that with the victims) to lockdown the small number which are of greater risk to the community.

There is what should be, and there is what is. -- Ktwdawg

Absolutely. And how do we get from there to here, eh? By being resolutely what we are, and kiss my ass if you don't like it, more or less. If we don't contend against the false image of us purveyed by others, if we don't attampt to re-define their view of what we are, we must accept what comes as a result.

I grew up with guns; at one time I was an expert marksman with a rifle, a pretty fair wingshooter with a small-bore shotgun as well as a 12-gauge, and owned a respectable arsenal of my own. Should I then take to wearing a shooting jacket everywhere, and spend a lot of time with gun nuts debating the relative merits of Glocks and Berettas, just so I can slip in a word about the evils of the NRA?

Maybe so, but I ain't gonna, and neither is anyone else with any sense.