Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic comes to recognize the benefits of an armed citizenry, though he still think that there is a “gun-show loophole.” But some of the emotionalism and non-thinking on the part of his interview subjects is breathtaking:

Mauser expresses disbelief that the number of gun deaths fails to shock. He blames the American attachment to guns on ignorance, and on immaturity. “We’re a pretty new nation,” he told me. “We’re still at the stage of rebellious teenager, and we don’t like it when the government tells us what to do. People don’t trust government to do what’s right. They are very attracted to the idea of a nation of individuals, so they don’t think about what’s good for the collective.”

Mauser said that if the United States were as mature as the countries of Europe, where strict gun control is the norm, the federal government would have a much easier time curtailing the average citizen’s access to weapons. “The people themselves would understand that having guns around puts them in more danger.”

I’m sorry your son was killed, but if you want to live in Europe, move to Europe, and be a collectivist. My ancestors came to this country to get away from all that.

Gallup demonstrates the continuing decline into meaninglessness of political labels:

My suspicion here, conveniently enough, is that this is primarily a problem with our political language. It certainly doesn’t help that the two main descriptors — “conservative” and “liberal” — no longer accurately describe the broad political positions of the two parties (“radical classical liberal” and “statist” would do better, I think), or that the president spent the campaign season cynically messing with terms (consider that the architect of Obamacare repeatedly accused Republicans of wanting “get between you and your doctor”). Orwell noted that “it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic cause.”

And, as he notes, consequences.

…goes full bigot.

I ranted about this a couple days ago. As he points out, of course, they have a real diversity problem over there.

She’s the perfect person to represent 2012:

She’s got it all: The “Generation Cupcake” inadequacy (“So what if she didn’t earn the award — give it to her, anyway!); the “Occupod” sense of entitlement (“Somebody should be buying my condoms, and it ain’t gonna be me!”); and, of course, the liberal detachment from reality (“There’s a war on women! We’re being oppressed! Just ask Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice and Oprah!”).

Then there’s the economic angle. One could argue that the icon of the failing Obama economy is the college grad with a worthless degree under his arm and a bed in his mom’s basement.

Time magazine gives us Sandra Fluke, with a bachelor’s degree in (no joke) Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, no marketable skills, and still on the academic track, living on the largess of others.

I’m not trying to be mean to Sandra Fluke. Unlike Rush Limbaugh I make no comment on her personal life or sexual proclivities.

But I also didn’t — and would never — put this unaccomplished 30-something on the “Person of the Year” list for publicly whining about paying her own bills.

And if I were Ms. Fluke, I’d be embarrassed by Time’s selection. I’d be pointing out the people who’ve actually made some impact— maybe Fidelity’s Abigail Johnson, or Malala Yousufzai, the 14-year-old girl shot by the Taliban for insisting on attending school.

Ah, but I’m not Sandra Fluke, who used her “Person of the Year” moment to complain, in a tweet, about the “few women” nominated.

And you know how much I’d pay for an hour with her? I’d pay to not have to spend an hour with her.

Only the media morons are baffled by the notion. Must be something in the water in J-school.

It sort of reminds me of this headline at the Gray Lady a few years ago.