Larry Gude
Strung Out
...Washpost today;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902548.html
I love EJ because he consistently asks questions like this; "Why do we always seem to take 1 plus 1 and come up with 3?" ...and then, before the column is over, he does it himself. Which always makes me want to say "OK, EJ, I give. Why do you always take 1 plus 1 and come up with 3?". He did it twice today.
Today he says;
1.
I'll bite, why?
+1.
=
3
Obviously, EJ is not very familiar with the incredible amount of gun laws, both reasonable and not so much, in this country. You'd think working in DC would at least provide a clue or two?
Next:
Whether you agree or not with these things being done, there is a straight forward logic involved; Shoe bomb? NO SHOES ALLOWED. Shampoo bomb? NO SHAMPOO ALLOWED.
Pretty simple, right?
So having once again established 1, my man EJ gets another 1;
Yeah! Let's be practical!
And the answer is;
...3.
An effed up young man kills 33 people including himself. Many people have come forward, including law enforcement, at least one judge, health care officials along with numerous teachers and other fellow citizens to say this guy was a worry, a serious one. He's a known stalker. He's done all manner of other freaky, scary stuff from his writing to taking pictures of girls under his desk, to being a profound anti social. Many have said that when the heard of the shooting and head 'Asian' they immediately thought of him.
So, that's the problem or, 1.
+1 would be let's do something that will address the problem.
A good answer would be;
Ban shoes? No
Ban Shampoo? Nope.
Ban people under 25? So we can change it to 26 later?
Ban Asians? No.
Ban students? You mean the millions who aren't crazy?
Ban male students? Maybe...
Ban people with known and multiple mental and social issues from keeping and baring arms?
Ban guns that had nothing to do with this, the dread 'assault' weapon?
Make crazy students get permission from their school before they can have a gun?
And the answer is;
EJ?
Anyone?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902548.html
I love EJ because he consistently asks questions like this; "Why do we always seem to take 1 plus 1 and come up with 3?" ...and then, before the column is over, he does it himself. Which always makes me want to say "OK, EJ, I give. Why do you always take 1 plus 1 and come up with 3?". He did it twice today.
Today he says;
1.
I'll bite, why?
+1.
=
3
Obviously, EJ is not very familiar with the incredible amount of gun laws, both reasonable and not so much, in this country. You'd think working in DC would at least provide a clue or two?
Next:
Whether you agree or not with these things being done, there is a straight forward logic involved; Shoe bomb? NO SHOES ALLOWED. Shampoo bomb? NO SHAMPOO ALLOWED.
Pretty simple, right?
So having once again established 1, my man EJ gets another 1;
Yeah! Let's be practical!
And the answer is;
...3.
An effed up young man kills 33 people including himself. Many people have come forward, including law enforcement, at least one judge, health care officials along with numerous teachers and other fellow citizens to say this guy was a worry, a serious one. He's a known stalker. He's done all manner of other freaky, scary stuff from his writing to taking pictures of girls under his desk, to being a profound anti social. Many have said that when the heard of the shooting and head 'Asian' they immediately thought of him.
So, that's the problem or, 1.
+1 would be let's do something that will address the problem.
A good answer would be;
Ban shoes? No
Ban Shampoo? Nope.
Ban people under 25? So we can change it to 26 later?
Ban Asians? No.
Ban students? You mean the millions who aren't crazy?
Ban male students? Maybe...
Ban people with known and multiple mental and social issues from keeping and baring arms?
Ban guns that had nothing to do with this, the dread 'assault' weapon?
Make crazy students get permission from their school before they can have a gun?
And the answer is;
EJ?
Anyone?
: into him.