I keep hearing that one shouldn't, so soon afterwards, speak of the implications of the Virginia Tech tragedy for certain political positions. But shouldn't we be outraged by this horrific event? And if there's an elephant in the room, why should we ignore it? Now, I have no problem with hunting, and don't want to ban guns entirely. But there is plenty to agree with in Elayne Boosler's furious rant over at The Huffington Post. You don't have to buy it all - I don't - to feel that there is something right about this kind of outrage. Why isn't the mainstream media, instead of repeating the same grisly facts over and over, exploring the implications of
The number of children under the age of 17 shot by guns in America every year is greater than the gun-related deaths of children in all the industrialized nations of the world COMBINED.
and
3,300 Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last four years. 120,000 Americans have been shot to death in America in the last four years. Where is the outrage? If we can elect a new congress based on its commitment to end the war overseas, we can elect a congress committed to end the war here at home. End both wars.
Boosler ties her piece up by anticipating the associated hypocrisy we might see when the President responds to today's Supreme Court decision that refuses women a medical procedure even in the case that it may be life-saving.
"Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America. This affirms the progress my administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life".
Thanks for the outrage Ms. Boosler - you're not alone.
