-
Well, this tape is getting more attention than Zapruder's.
I'll refrain from mind reading and just toss out a couple of observations: some to reinforce what I've read above.
1. On first viewing, I too thought Novak was a tipsy, more than his ususal (as Tommy described Spider in Goodfellas) "mumbling, stuttering f*". I just watched it again, and I don't think he's actually under the influence, but he's obviously uncomfortable about something (that either just happened or that he knows is about to).
2. His "That's bullshit, I hate that" comment suggests that what Carville said or suggested (about Novak proving his cred with the right wing) is becoming somewhat of a refrain for him.
3. When is the last time someone stormed off the set live on CNN? I too was surprised, both on initial and second viewing, at the lack of reaction from either Carville or the host. This former CNN institution utters a profanity and storms off the set on live TV, and the host and Carville have the composure to go on discussing something as banal as Katherine Harris' make-up and her chances in an election 15 months from now? Unless CNN really has convinced himself that that type of banality is real news, their lack of reaction is unexpected.
Posted at August 5, 2005 7:23 AM in response to Novak
-
This is one instance that I really have to disagree with you Josh. Just the wording of your post reflects how much the pro-gun lobby has dictated the terms of the debate.
Yes, guns are legal products legally produced and distributed by many law-abiding companies.
Recognizing someone right to sue for damages caused by those legal products, however, does not require any change in the law. Such matters are and have traditionally been governed by each state's tort law. Redress for personal injury has traditionally been left to the states. As such, state tort law reflects the will of the people much more closely than the legislation of a bought-and-paid-for legislature in Washington, D.C.
When the radical infringement on the states' right to administer tort law is considered reasonable, and the opposition to such a move considered radical, the debate is long-since lost.Posted at August 1, 2005 12:53 PM in response to Right on Guns
