neo, Fullmoon:

OK. Thanx for the recommendation.

I’ve started. Not guaranteeing I’ll finish.

Worth the time to watch.

from the article:
“…she wasn’t told any details of the attack or the extent of her son’s injuries.

Pawlenty was told she wasn’t contacted sooner by the BOP because they “didn’t want to give her false information and had to get the situation under control.” “….

a comment from Flying Farang at the article:
““didn’t want to give her false information and had to get the situation under control.”
Yet they felt the need to inform Ellison and media. I guess providing them with false information is standard procedure.”

I am so, so disappointed in the legal profession. The trial judge, MN Court of Appeals and SCOTUS were all intimidated by the mob.

I read the Court of Appeals decision. Pure sophistry.

There is goodness in the hearts (minds? — naaah) of utterly naive, pollyanna-ish people who know nothing of human frailty and who know nothing of human history.

I’ve heard it said to me more than just once that it (communism) looks/sounds good on paper, in theory, but . . .

**NO!!** It doesn’t even look/sound good on paper or in theory. What it is, is pie-in-the-sky musing — at best.

“Well,” might be the comeback, “their intentions are good.”

**NO!!** I once was naive enough to give credit for the intentions (where the road to hell is paved, and all that), but I refuse to do even that. Hell [speaking of which], they never credit *my* good intentions as a conservative-ish libertarian (libertarian-ish conservative?) who greatly prefers voluntary goodness to coercion-by-force.

I’ve got more to rant about, but okay, I’ll quit while I’m behind . . .

No amount of ‘openness’ is sufficient where goodness cannot be found, where it is utterly absent. To pretend that it must contain at least the minimal amount of ‘goodness’ is to engage in willful blindness, which at base is a denial of reality. Communism is a perversion of the Christian concept of ‘communion’. What separates the two is that communion is voluntary, while communism is based in coercion.

In my limited experience, I find that “anyone who might retain an open mind on the subject” is generally not open to consideration of ideas in the political realm. They’re just not interested in such things; they’re considerably more interested in the NFL standings or in entertainment awards.

Those who are interested in discussing ideas in the political realm generally are not open to consideration of the other side of major political ideas of the day.

(And that, for the greater part, will include me and many of our readers here: I am not open to the goodness of communism, for example. I’m open to discussing it, yes, but not with someone who will regard me with hateful disdain. But I digress . . . )