ShareThis Page

After the smoke clears I

| Monday, April 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

What is it about the Boston bombing that has brought the brakes down hard on the hysterical anti-gun jerk-reaction to the Connecticut shootings? Could it be the realization that the mules now running our government haven't a clue about anything in the real world outside of vote mining?

It almost gives me hope that the electorate will see through the veil, a savage world lurking beyond the blithe and ubiquitous mall, and come up with a massive electoral rejection. Though I doubt it.

That our head politician hasn't thrown his opinion as trump upon the pile, in my estimate, at least, is evidence that it was perpetrated by some agency whose identification has no political utility in further duping the dupes.

My guess is that the real culprits will be revealed only when the ruling pols decide that the truth is unstoppable. And that that decision is now in vigorous process.

Funny how the only thing vigorous about this whole administration is the extent to which it will go to lie. Or how far it will go if it thinks it's safe to threaten those who question those lies. Or how it will try anything that is totally untested but fashionable with, say, our country's defense, or the basic family unit, or running the economy with communist China as co-signer.

Come to think of it, it's not really that funny at all. But I meet too many people every day who think it is, or emote that it is inconsequential. And therein lies the root of my doubt.

I hope that ultimately I am wrong.

Ray Mosse


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.