Sunday, June 22, 2014

Newspeak: Political Correctness Language Created by the Totalitarian State

Some news items seem silly and innocuous at first blush.

This one will probably not be shouted from the rooftops - partly because it is merely and indicator of how successful the underlying tactic has been.

Brainwashing, political correctness, and newspeak that would make Joseph Goebbels giggle with glee and George Orwell turn over in his grave.

Check this out.  


One of the lessons that Andrew Lampart learned from being on his school’s debate team was to gather facts for both sides of an argument. So last month when his law class was instructed to prepare for a debate on gun control, Andrew went online using the school’s Internet service.

“I knew it was important to get facts for both sides of the case,” said the 18-year-old at Nonnewaug High School in Woodbury, Connecticut.

Andrew decided to set aside his debate preparation and started researching other conservative websites. He soon discovered that he had unfettered access to liberal websites, but conservative websites were blocked.

When Andrew tried to log onto the National Rifle Association’s website, he realized there was a problem – a big problem.
 “Their website was blocked.”
Andrew decided to try the Second Amendment Foundation’s website. That too, was blocked.

His curiosity got the best of him – so Andrew tried logging on to several pro-gun control websites. Imagine his surprise when he discovered the pro-gun control websites were not blocked.

“I became curious as to why one side was blocked and the other side was not,” he said.
Andrew decided to set aside his debate preparation and started researching other conservative websites. He soon discovered that he had unfettered access to liberal websites, but conservative websites were blocked.

For example, the Connecticut Republican Party website was blocked. The Connecticut Democratic Party website was not blocked. National Right to Life was blocked, but Planned Parenthood was not blocked. Connecticut Family, a pro-traditional marriage group, was blocked, but LGBT Nation was not blocked.

Andrew found that even Pope Francis was blocked from the school’s web service. But although he could not access the Vatican website, the school allowed him to access an Islamic website.

“This is really border line indoctrination, Schools are supposed to be fair and balanced towards all ways of thinking. It’s supposed to encourage students to formulate their own opinions. Students aren’t able to do that here at the school because they are only being fed one side of the issue.”

Andrew gathered his evidence and requested a meeting with the principal. The principal referred him to the superintendent, which he did. The superintendent promised to look into the matter and fix the problem.

“I gave him a week to fix the problem,” “But nothing had been done.”

So last Monday, Andrew took his mountain of evidence to the school board.

“They seemed surprised,”  “They told me they were going to look into the problem.”
Since the school board didn’t resolve the problem, I decided to take a crack at it.

Superintendent Jody Goeler sent me a rather lengthy letter explaining what happened.

He admitted there are “apparent inconsistencies” in the school district’s filtering system “particularly along conservative and liberal lines.”

“Many of the liberal sites accessible to the student fell into the ‘not rated’ category, which was unblocked while many of the conservative sites were in the ‘political/advocacy group’ category which is accessible to teachers but not to students,” he said in a written statement. “The district is trying to determine the reason for the inconsistency and if the bias is pervasive enough to justify switching to another content filtering provider.”

I find it hard to believe the superintendent needs more evidence to make that determination.
“The district does not block individual sites, only categories of websites,” he wrote. “The categories are supposed to be inclusive of all sites that fall into a common description.”

Without getting into the weeds here, the school district is blaming the blocking on Dell SonicWall, their content filtering service. They said they are waiting for Dell SonicWall to clarify its process for assigning websites to categories.

Dell SonicWall did not return my telephone call so I can’t tell you whether the district’s statement is the gospel truth or baloney. But something smells fishy.

Superintendent Goeler said they have “an interest in exposing students to a wide and varying number of viewpoints."

“The district does engage in unblocking sites to provide diverse points of view and balance in the instructional process,” he wrote.

Pardon me, sir, but that’s a load of unadulterated, Grade-A hooey.

The National Rifle Association, Red State, SarahPac.com, National Right to Life, Second Amendment Foundation, Paul Ryan for Congress, Town Hall, TeaParty.org, ProtectMarriage.com, and Christianity.com are just some of the websites the school blocked.

And they still remain blocked.

“The thing that bothers me the most is that public education is supposed to be neutral,” Andrew said. “It’s supposed to expose kids to both sides of an issue and allow them to formulate their own opinions.”

Andrew has discovered the issue I write about in my new book, “God Less America.” Public schools have become leftwing indoctrination centers.

“Students are only being given information from one side of the issue,” he said. “They are told this is the information we are giving you – make the most of it. They are not giving them both sides of the argument.”

Andrew Lampart has done his community and his nation a great public service by exposing the politically correct firewall that was erected at Nonnewaug High School.

And now we must do our part and demand a free exchange of ideas not just in Woodbury, Connecticut, but around the nation.

Mr. Superintendent, tear down this wall!
 Gleaned from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/19/jesus-republicans-and-nra-banned-on-school-website/





By the way.  Read Orwell's 1984.  If you've read it before, read it again.  It is good and it is available for free online HERE.

In 1969 I was a sophomore in High School.  Orwell's 1984 was assigned reading in Literature class.  Very soon after the course started, our teacher was ordered by the School Board to cease and desist using Orwell's classic as a teaching tool.

I finished the book on my own.

Looking back, I wonder . . .

Friday, June 20, 2014

School Shootings: The Trend is Down, not Up.


The number of children killed in school shootings has declined over the last couple of decades. The drop is even larger than the overall decline in the murder rate.

Last week, Michael Bloomberg’s various gun control organizations exacerbated the fears by claiming that there were 74 school shootings since the Newtown school shooting in December 2012.

Bloomberg’s numbers were dead wrong. They inflated the number by including attacks that were not on school grounds or were unrelated to the school, lone suicides well after school hours by adults, a justifiable defensive use of a gun and gang fights outside of school hours.

There have obviously been ups and downs from year to year since large school shootings are rare, but the five-year averages have shown a consistent drop in gun deaths. Even including the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, that is the trend.

Last week, CNN investigated Bloomberg’s claim and said that over the previous 18 months, there had been 15 incidents where guns were brought onto school grounds in attempts to harm people.

But that is still a large number. A better measure is to focus on the amount of harm – the number of people killed – rather than the number of attacks.

On that front, things have improved dramatically over the last couple of decades. During the 2013-14 school year, there were three non-gang, non-suicide killings at universities, and three more at K-12 schools.

The National School Safety Center, a good source of statistics, started collecting data on K-12 violence in the 1992-93 school year. During the first five years, from 1992-93 to 1996-97, there were 26.8 gun murders per year on K-12 and university school property. In contrast, during the last five school years, 2009-10 to 2013-14, the average was 12 – a 55 percent drop.


With 77 million Americans between the ages of 5 and 22, that implies a school murder rate of 0.008 per 100,000 people in the 2013-14 school year, well less than 1 percent of the overall murder rate.

But mass school shootings aren’t the only thing where reality differs from people’s perceptions. Overall, firearm homicide rates have plummeted as much as the firearm murders at school since 1992 (a 52 percent drop by 2012), but a recent Pew poll shows 45 percent of Americans believe that firearm homicide rates have gone up, only 10 percent realized that the rate had actually gone down.

The same misperception is happening on mass school shootings.

The media shapes our views on guns and crime in other ways. What the media deems “newsworthy” doesn’t always give Americans an accurate measure of what is happening. Take the case of defensive gun uses. When was the last time you watched the national news and saw a story about someone using their gun to save a life? Yet, the national news ignores stories of guns being used to save lives, but the best estimates from survey data indicate that defensive gun uses are about four to five times more common than crimes committed with guns.
 News media’s distorted view of newsworthiness gives Americans a misimpression of what is happening to crime rates and mass killings, and encourages mass killers, who thrive on this attention. Reading the Santa Barbara killer’s manifesto, it is clear that he was just one more person who craved attention and felt he could get it by killing as many people as possible.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/20/what-liberal-media-wont-tell-school-shooting-deaths-down-not-up-across-america/

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Wetbacks, Scabs, and Cesar Chavez. Obama: Si Se Puede

From what is happening down south, I imagine that the first question posed to many of the wetbacks may soon be: "Do you want fries with that?".



Now, don't get your chonies in a bunch about the "W" word.

Our Fearless Leader, Barack Obama, sees nothing wrong referring to illegal aliens as "wetbacks", (or even "scabs", for that matter).


Just a couple of months ago President Barack Obama declared:

“none of us can claim to know exactly what [labor organizer] Cesar [Chavez] would have said about this [2014 immigration] fight, or any other.”
Chavez is a hero to progressives, but he actually waged a campaign against the type of illegal immigration that is endemic of Obama's foolish policies and naive beliefs.

Obama’s attempt to whitewash Chavez’s stance came during a short speech that he gave in the White House to the producers, actors and supporting crew of a new movie about Chavez.

The movie, disingenuously paints the union leader as a “civil rights” supporter of Mexican immigrants.
“I do think he would want us to remember that the [immigration] debates we have are less about policy than they are about people,” Obama claimed at the preview.
 Chavez was born in Arizona, and viewed himself as an American. His greatest wins were in the 1970s, when he managed to triple farmworkers’ wages and boost mechanization by reducing the legal inflow of strikebreaking Mexican “Bracero” laborers.

Chavez called the illegals “wetbacks” and “scabs” because they bypassed his picket lines. “As long as we have a poor country bordering California, it is going to be very difficult to win strikes,” Chavez told a KQED TV interviewer in 1972.

Cesar Chavez died in 1993, and his wins were diluted in the 1980s and 1990s, when the unions began welcoming Democratic-leaning illegal aliens, and the federal government largely stopped enforcing laws against the employment of illegal aliens. Since then, farmworkers’ salaries have dropped below the level won by Chavez, along with the salaries of many other Americans who are forced to compete with low-wage illegal aliens.

When President Obama promoted comprehensive immigration reform before a screening of the new biopic “Cesar Chavez” at the White House he didn’t mention the views of the famous farm labor leader on illegal immigration and border security.
“Cesar Chavez once said when you have people together that believe in something very strongly, whether it’s religion or politics, or unions, things happen,” Obama said. “Today we’ve got labor leaders and CEOs and faith leaders and law enforcement and they’ve come together and said it’s time to fix this broken immigration system.”

Anyone that was even partialy alert in the 1970's will clearly remember that Cesar Chavez, the National Farm Workers Association co-founder, was strongly against illegal immigration.

The Obama administration supports a Senate-passed bill that would bestow legal status on some 11 million illegal immigrants and increase border security. The bill has dim prospects of passing the House.

On Nov. 5, 2009, then-Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) noted Chavez’s activism against illegal border crossings on the House floor.

“Cesar Chavez was probably a good, well, 20 years ahead of his time,” Bilbray said. “In fact, Cesar Chavez in 1969 led the first march on the Mexican border to protest illegal immigration. He was accompanied by Walter Mondale and Ralph Abernathy at that time to alert all to the problems that were equating with illegal immigration at that time.”

Mondale was a senator who went on to become vice president. Abernathy was a pastor and civil rights leader.

A decade after that march, Chavez testified in front of the U.S. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee about the problems of illegal immigration as an avenue for employers breaking strikes.

Chavez told the Senate panel:
“For so many years we have been involved in agricultural strikes; organizing almost 30 years as a worker, as an organizer, and as president of the union—and for all these almost 30 years it is apparent that when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike,” 
“And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking.”
 “I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the immigration service has removed strikebreakers.”

“We have observed all these years the Immigration Service has a policy as it has been related to us, that they will not take sides in any agricultural labor dispute.  They have not taken sides means permitting the growers to have unrestricted use of illegal aliens as strikebreakers, and if that isn’t taking sides, I don’t know what taking sides means.”

The Chavez testimony came after a farm worker strike ensued in January 1970 in California’s Imperial Valley, which borders Mexico. The United Farm Workers was seeking a 42 percent pay increase from growers over three years for the striking farm workers, and placed patrols on the border to prevent “unauthorized strikebreakers” from entering the country, according to the conservative nonprofit Center for Immigration Studies.

The UFW would later change its position in 2000 on illegal immigration at the urging of the AFL-CIO, which wanted to end employer sanctions.

During the White House press briefing , a reporter asked if the movie screening will bring attention to the issue of immigration reform.  Carney said:
“I think the place that Cesar Chavez has in our history, the outstanding place that he holds, is separate and apart from any policy,” .

Carney didn’t answer another reporter’s follow up question from about Chavez’s view on immigration reform.

The Center for Immigration Studies report quoted labor organizer Bert Corona, an ally of the UFW, saying:
“I did have an important difference with Cesar. This involved his, and the union’s position, on the need to apprehend and deport undocumented Mexican immigrants who were being used as scabs by the growers.”

 Obama declared March 31, 2014 to be Cesar Chavez Day.


In typical progressive fashion, Obama has even co-opted Cesar Chavez's motto of Si Se Puede.

A disgusting insult to Chavez.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Obama Won't Be Blamed for the Fall of Iraq

Nope - the general Public will not hold Obama's feet to the fire when the Shiite hits the fan in Iraq.





As Sunni terrorists make gains in Iraq, it's triggered a political debate in the United States not only about what to do, but also over who is to blame for the country's deterioration. Is it President George W. Bush for invading in the first place, or President Obama for mishandling the withdrawal? Whatever the merits of the case against Obama, conservatives should realize that no matter how bad things get, Americans are very unlikely to blame him for what's happening.

The public isn't focused, say, on the nuances of Obama’s negotiations on the status of forces agreement with Iraq. Most likely, they see the current violence in Iraq as totally expected, and are just glad American soldiers aren’t in the middle of it.

A CNN/ORC poll taken in December 2011, around the time of the U.S. withdrawal, found that Americans expected Iraq would get overrun by terrorists, but overwhelmingly supported withdrawal anyway.

Specifically, the pollsters offered a series of scenarios and asked if they were likely or unlikely to happen in the "the next few years." The results: 54 percent said it was unlikely Iraq would "continue to have a democratic government that will not be overthrown by terrorists"; 60 percent said it was unlikely Iraqi security forces would "be able to ensure safety and security in Iraq without assistance from the United States" and 63 percent said it was unlikely Iraq would "be able to prevent terrorists from using the country as a base of operations for planning attacks against the United States." Despite this pessimism, 78 percent of Americans in the same poll said they approved of the decision to withdraw.

So, I just don’t see Americans blaming Obama for what’s happening. Most people viewed the disintegration of Iraq as inevitable, and they didn’t want to pay the price in blood and treasure in perpetuity, waiting endlessly for the creation of an Iraqi government that could stand on its own.

The only way this becomes a political problem for Obama is if he intervenes and things don't improve or get dramatically worse. Which is likely another reason why he's reluctant to get involved.

From:  The Washington Examiner

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Bergdahl Deal Bad in Every Way - Not for the Taliban

From the Spokesman Review
By Mona Charen



Speaking to graduates at West Point (New York), President Barack Obama tooted on his toy horn, “al-Qaida’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated.” Even that slender boast – just on the border regions? – is now vitiated. The five Taliban terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will step nimbly into any vacant posts.


Khairullah Khairkhwa, one of the founders of the Taliban, served as governor of Herat province when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan. He is known for ethnic massacres, narcotics trafficking, close ties to Osama bin Laden, and supervising terrorist training camps within Herat.


Khairkhwa is a “moderate” compared with Mohammad Fazl, who is a “known war criminal,” according to the Institute for the Study of War. Mullah Omar’s “top soldier,” Fazl displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians, destroyed homes and businesses, and personally planned and carried out the executions of at least 175 civilians.


Noorullah Noori had close ties to bin Laden and served as a messenger between Mullah Omar and the al-Qaida chief. The Taliban carried out several massacres in areas under his supervision, and he is wanted by the United Nations for war crimes.


Abdul Haq Wasiq was the deputy chief of the Taliban secret police. They’re always such nice fellows.


Mohammad Nabi fought with an al-Qaida cell and served in lesser posts in the Taliban government (room for professional development). He may have been included on the list because he’s related to Bergdahl’s captors.


Perhaps these releases are just the down payment on Obama’s plan to free all of the detainees at Guantanamo. As he explained to the cadets, “And that’s why I will continue to push to close Gitmo – because American values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders.” But that’s not what the administration is claiming. They are touting the prisoner exchange as a proud example of the military ethic of “leave no man or woman behind,” as the president expressed it.


When this administration requires an official to tell lies in service of a better story, they offer Susan Rice. In this case, she deadpanned, “Sgt. Bergdahl wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”


That’s false. According to copious reporting on the matter, Bergdahl deserted. Before he left his unit in the middle of the night, the New York Post reports, he sent his parents an email detailing his views of the COIN operation: “I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid … I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools … The horror that is America is disgusting.” His father emailed back, “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE.”


Apparently, that’s what he did. And he has paid a terrible price, no doubt. The Taliban are less than gracious hosts – even to self-hating Americans.


Wishing no further suffering on Bergdahl or his family, isn’t it legitimate to make distinctions between soldiers who truly are “captured on the battlefield” and those who place their comrades in danger by deserting? At least six Americans were killed searching for Bergdahl. As a member of his battalion told the Daily Beast: “Bergdahl did not ‘lag behind on a patrol,’ as was cited in news reports at the time. There was no patrol that night. Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted.”


Even if Bergdahl had been a Medal of Honor winner, the exchange of five Taliban leaders for him would have been questionable. Such deals make kidnapping American soldiers more likely. The administration assures us that the Qatar government will enforce a travel ban on the five for a year. A year is nothing. And it’s extremely doubtful that the Wahhabi, jihadist-supporting government of Qatar will keep strict tabs on the group.


The greatest offense here may not be to our security but to our intelligence. The White House has attempted to present this trade as some sort of victory. The president held a Rose Garden ceremony to tout his accomplishment in bringing home an American fighting man. Rice claims that Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.”


Either they are lying and hoping few will learn the real story about Bergdahl, or they really believe that such a misguided fool was honorable. Which, I wonder, is worse?


Mona Charen is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.
©2014 The Spokesman-Review

Monday, June 2, 2014

Obama's Emissions - Death to America and Death to Democrats



Emissions spewing forth from Obama's Pen or his phone are much more deleterious than any puff of steam from a power plant.

Members of his own party are reeling in the wake of another attack on Economic recovery.  Not to mention the devastating effect it will have on Democrats running for election this fall.


Obama's first run at Cap and Trade was soundly rejected by Democrats and Republicans alike in 2009. However, he has a Pen and a Phone - never mind that he has no Constitutional Authority to legislate from the Oval Office.

Even the L.A. Times is wringing its hands at Obama's latest incarnation of Cap and Trade.

Here are a few of salient quotes from the L.A. Times article :

 "A Dagger in the Heart of the American Middle Class" 
“Already reeling from the painful effects of Obamacare, the American people are now being told they have to shoulder the burdens of the president’s latest 'solution' in the form of higher costs, fewer jobs, and a less reliable energy grid.” 
 The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that it will seek to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants 30% by 2030, one of the more ambitious efforts by any administration to tackle the effects of climate change.
 The Campaign of Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democrat candidate for Senator from Kentucky, is scrambling:
" . . . to demonstrate independence from the national Democratic Party. Her campaign says this week she'll launch "an aggressive, multi-platform push" to highlight her advocacy on behalf of the coal industry. "
"This administration has taken direct aim at Kentucky's coal industry, crippling the commonwealth's largest source of domestic energy and threatening thousands of jobs," Grimes spokeswoman Charly Norton said. "In the U.S. Senate, Alison will spare no effort to persuade Washington's policymakers that a coherent, rational national energy policy must have a meaningful, long-term place for coal."

Perhaps Obama believes that tree huggers will be more comfortable voting by candlelight.

Remember folks, when calculating the rate of inflation in the USA, the Obama Administration excludes energy costs.


Sunday, June 1, 2014

Isla Vista Massacre. A rare moment of clarity from the California Press. Blame Elliot Rodger




In the aftermath of a terrible tragedy, we always look for someone or something to blame. In the case of the Isla Vista massacre in which six college students were murdered and 13 others wounded, the blame game started almost immediately. Most of the criticism was misdirected.

This mass murder was not due to the lack of strict gun laws. It was not the fault of violent video games. It wasn’t that the killer had an uncaring or inattentive family. It didn’t happen because the killer’s therapist or school counselor failed to decipher a madman’s inner turmoil. And it wasn’t because law enforcement somehow failed.

There is only one reason so many people died — 22-year-old Elliot Rodger was a young man of privileged means who was possessed by a demented, murderous and conniving mind. Period. For three years he meticulously concocted his hideous plan and documented it in a lengthy manifesto. All the while, he appeared weird and standoffish, according to classmates, but never dangerous.

Evil is sometimes like that. It can hide in plain sight.

The father of one of the dead, Christopher Michaels-Martinez, tearfully declared that the carnage was the fault of “craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA.”

My heart goes out to that man, but, respectfully, that conclusion is nonsense. California politicians have passed some of the nation’s toughest, most restrictive gun and ammunition laws — despite intense lobbying from the National Rifle Association.

Besides, Rodger didn’t rely on just his three (legally obtained) guns as he carried out his sick strategy. He began the spasm of violence by rendering his two roommates and a visitor defenseless with hammer blows to the head. He is then believed to have slit their throats with a knife and a machete, just as he had outlined in his manifesto. Evidence bags bearing these three weapons were seen being carried from his apartment. Elliot then jumped in his late-model BMW and used it as a weapon, terrorizing pedestrians and bicyclists, injuring four.

To blame just one of the various weapons Rodger used — the guns — while ignoring the others overlooks the fact that it was his demented blood lust that drove the action and not any particular weapon. Were the guns an expeditious means to his awful endgame? Yes. But I’ll bet if Rodger had somehow been denied firearms he would have devised other fast-acting weapons to use such as explosives or poison.

There will always be those who must find fault after such a murderous spree, as if to say all horrible incidents can be avoided if we just pass enough laws. We all know that’s not true because those possessed of a mentally disturbed and criminal mind are obsessed. They let nothing stop them from their goal. Think Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski or Eric Rudolph, three delusional killers who used bombs to blast their way into infamy.

Many of the critical comments I’ve heard since the California killings have been directed at the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. They should have done more; they should have searched Rodger’s apartment; they should have watched his online videos, goes the criticism. Let’s use our common sense here.

Rodger had three contacts with the department over the years. He once called deputies complaining that his roommate had taken $22 worth of candles from his room. No charges were filed. Officers were once called in after a drunken Rodger provoked an incident in a bar. In an area where many of the 22,000 UC Santa Barbara students routinely drink too much and cause a scene, Rodger’s actions hardly made him a standout. And finally, about a month ago, his mother became concerned about disturbing videos her son had posted on the Internet and called for help.

A source inside the Sheriff’s Department tells me they get welfare calls from worried parents “all the time ... and from locations across the country,” and officers dutifully follow up on each call.

In Rodger’s case, deputies reported that when they located and spoke to him he was “courteous and polite.” He calmly answered all their questions and gave them no reason to think he was a danger to himself or others. The officers had no warrant to enter and search the property and, even if they had found Rodger’s stash of guns and ammunition, so what? He was an adult and he owned them legally. Can you imagine the outcry if sheriff’s deputies pushed their way into people’s homes on a whim?

As the Sheriff’s Department source told me, “We can’t violate someone’s rights because we have a feeling. It doesn’t work that way.” Nor can a deputy arrest someone for posting free speech online.

The fault for the Isla Vista massacre lies not with the weapons used but with the man involved. The arrogant and delusional Rodgers had been festering and plotting toward this point for years. His hatred for the human race apparently began in middle school. It was there, this 22-year-old virgin wrote in his manifesto, that a younger classmate refused to return his affections. It was there he began to despise all the rest of us for our happiness. While his parents have indicated their son had been in therapy for many years, it was obviously not enough to ease his tortured mind.

Too bad we can’t channel all the energy that goes into finger pointing and demanding more laws and channel it into a way to help the truly sick who walk among us. They are the roots of the problem.

Until we can figure out a way to identify, isolate and treat sick minds like Rodgers’, we will continue to suffer the gut-wrenching and deadly aftereffects of their maniacal breaks with reality.