Has There Been a Rapture of Anti-War Celebrities? If Not, Where The Hell Are They?

Over at Buzzfeed, John Ekdahl has a must-read article up about "14 Principled Anti-War Celebrities We Fear May Have Been Kidnapped." Where, he asks, are the Sheryl Crows, Bruce Springsteens, Sean Penns, George Clooneys, Janeane Garofalo, and Barbra Streisands of the world who were never shy about voicing super-patriotic dissent against Bushitler's war machine? Here's a snippet:

Our government is yet again marching us towards a war of choice in the Middle East and our non-partisan, peace-loving celebrities have gone missing since late 2008. We fear the worst....The only explanation for their continued silence must be a large, organized kidnapping. To whoever is responsible for their disappearance, please post pictures of them holding a recent newspaper so we know they’re okay.

Ekdahl helpfully gathers up the celebs' last-known pre-2009 utterances on the pressing matter of war (George Clooney: “You can’t beat your enemy anymore through wars; instead you create an entire generation of people revenge-seeking”; Martin Sheen: "I am equally against the death penalty or war — anywhere people are sacrificed for some end justifying a means”; )

Read the whole thing.

At least one of the folks on Ekdahl's list has publicly commented on the lack of star-studded anti-war rhetoric directed at the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize honoree, Barack Obama. Back before Obama took office, Ed Asner, best-remembered for his portrayal of lovably gruff newsman Lou Grant, said, “I also think that there is a strong streak of racism, and whenever we engage in foreign adventures. Our whole history in regime change has been of people of different color."

Now, he tells The Hollywood Reporter, "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama."

"I voted for him, but I'm not proud. He hasn't thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself. Instead, he has proved himself to be a corporatist, and as long as he's a corporatist, he's not my president," Asner said. "A lot of people have lost hope -- with the betrayals, the NSA spying ... People aren't getting active because 'Who gives a shit?' is essentially the bottom line."

Read more.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    “I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.”
    — Sheryl Crow

    Yeah, it sure sucked for Stalin in the end. He died an old man.

    /sarc

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeah, but he had the pain of seeing several of his old friends die. Must have been traumatic.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I'm sure Uncle Joe was crying his eyes out when he signed each execution order.

    -jcr

  • RBS||

    Good lord that whole comment is a big pile of stupid.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I love the hypocrisy of celebrity millionaires complaining about other people's greed.

  • Killazontherun||

    But on the bright side, it only cost the forest one square of double ply toilet paper to write it on.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Karma - A religious concept for the morally retarded.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies

    This comment made me hate Sheryl Crow, and is thus self-defeating.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    How is she getting along with Lance these days?

  • fish_remote||

    They're having a ball....

  • buybuydandavis||

    Nice!

  • wwhorton||

    The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies

    Or, the best way to solve problems is to not have problems. Just like the best way to extinguish a house fire is not to have a house that's on fire.

    What a maroon.

  • Killazontherun||

    The Jainism where it originates, karma is not really about comic justice. Karma is the taint that accumulates on a soul that passes through the material world. The Wikipedia article on the religion is a good read. I would have taken them more seriously years ago if it weren't for them being the world's oldest tribe of motherfuckin' vegans. That grotesque stupidity aside, there is a lot to be learned from them. The system of logic they devised to support their creed has some interesting fuzzy logic conditionals. Daniel Dennett would be in Wonderland if he were exposed to it.

  • Killazontherun||

    The Jainism -- slipped up on a sentence rewrite.

  • fish_remote||

    Yeah....pretty sure the internet phrasing should be....teh Jainism.

  • Killazontherun||

    Thanks for the pro tip. For a guy named Killaz, I'm not that l33t and out of my element. My coding background was concentrated in graphical rendering, physical simulation, the demo scene, not hacking back in the day.

  • fish_remote||

    I bow to your lack of a sense of humor.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    So I have a question. If the original concept of karma is similar to sin, where did the association with justice come from and is it primarily a Western interpretation or is it broader than that? Because my understanding of Hinduism (which seems to be the broader known version of karma) puts forward that karma is a causality and a mystical answer to the question of "Why did a bad thing happen to that good person?" The answer is always "They did something to deserve it, past life or otherwise." Unless I'm misunderstanding it, of course.

  • Killazontherun||

    The Western part of that comes in very early in Indian history. It assimilates the concept of karma into the Hindi Indo-European mythos. That tradition is focused very highly on the concept of retribution. This was of little value in Jainism.

  • mtrueman||

    "The answer is always "They did something to deserve it, past life or otherwise."

    That's the answer you get from naive Buddhists. (I know very little of Hindus.) Those who are more sophisticated will tell you that all life is suffering.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm the reverse. I was fascinated by Hindu culture, literature and history after reading Zelazny's Lord of Light when I was twelve and went on to learn more but I know little of the Buddhist. Their interpretation does sound as the Jains intended.

  • hotsy totsy||

    No, that is not what "sophisticated" Buddhists will tell you. That's a very non-Buddhist, unsophisticated view of Buddhism.

    The main concept that distinguishes Buddhism from non-Buddhism is the concept of Supreme Being, as opposed to cause and effect. Thus Buddhism is known as the "inner way".

  • mtrueman||

    I never meant to imply that karma was "the main concept that distinguishes Buddhism from non-Buddhism."

    Of course you are correct that the key to Buddhism is the goal of supreme being, or absolute consciousness. I've said as much in my comments here.

    As to what sophisticated Buddhists will tell you, opinions vary.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Karma is based on the Sanskrit word for "action".

  • mtrueman||

    Karma is more a fairly conventional Christian notion than an Eastern one, at least in the way it's formulated here. There's nothing particularly retarded about it as long as you accept the eternal life of the soul.

    In the East, particularly among Buddhists, karma is causation. There is no good karma and bad karma, only karma, which is something to be avoided as it prevents us from achieving absolute consciousness. It's more amoral than retarded morality.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The causation argument is the one that I have a moral problem with. As an anecdotal argument, the suggestion that a six year old girl is somehow responsible for her own rape and murder through karmic causation is reprehensible.

  • mtrueman||

    As I mentioned earlier, blaming the victim is more something you'll find among the lay followers and naive. Those who've read the teachings will probably tell you that good actions are to be avoided along with the bad. They both interfere with our quest for absolute consciousness.

    Westerns, who believe in some variant of Manicheanism, that the universe is divided into the good and bad, will rightly be disturbed by the quietism of Eastern thought.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Good actions to be avoided as well as bad is not a Buddhist concept, it is from Jainism.

    Buddhism is almost the inverse. In Buddhism, any evil can BECOME good and any good can become evil. Justice comes about only when good confronts evil and transforms it. Otherwise it continues to be evil.

    If good tries to ignore evil, that evil grows and eventually starts to absorb the good. That's how good can become evil.

  • Cascadian Ephor Xenocles||

    I suppose if you view karma as a natural force rather than a consciously guided one then your last sentence makes as much sense as saying that it's reprehensible that gravity pulls toddlers from the windows of high-floor apartments to the sidewalk below.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Very good example.

  • ||

    This conversation reminds me of Indra and the ants.

    I always understood karma in the Hindu sense as a balancing of the scales. If you live a life of simplicity and humility you'll be raised up and if you live a life of hubris you'll be laid low (it's been a long while since I studied this stuff, Chinese philosophy is sharper in my mind). Although now that I put it that way it sounds like I'm talking about Jesus' Beatitudes.

  • ||

    Why, that's almost as intelligent as her enviromentalist blathering about how toilet paper is killing Gaia and should be washed out and reused.

  • Cascadian Ephor Xenocles||

    To be fair, Stalin killed all of his enemies.

  • Long Range Boredom||

    Well, unless you're one of the people who think Beria killed him.

  • Killazontherun||

    My Russian History professor's account (late Dale McKenzie, wrote several books) of Stalin dying and the reactions of his cronies was the most entertaining lecture of that season.

  • mtrueman||

    I think it's a stretch to call these 14 'principled' anti-war activists. Had they been principled, they would also oppose wars under a Democrat president. But where exactly they stand on the issue is not clear. The author doesn't seem to have taken the trouble to ask them.

    Out of curiosity are there any GOP celebrities, partisan or principled, who've spoken out against war?

  • Juice||

    I think it's a stretch to call these 14 'principled' anti-war activists

    thatsthejoke.jpg

  • ||

    The author doesn't seem to have taken the trouble to ask them.

    Nobody had to take the trouble ask them last time, because they were so vocal and media-saturated that you couldn't help finding their opinion even if you didn't want it. That was kind of the point.

    Out of curiosity are there any GOP celebrities, partisan or principled, who've spoken out against war?

    A better question might be, are there any GOP celebrities?

    Actually though, Clint Eastwood, though not a "where's the nearest protest rally" kind of guy, was against the Iraq war.

    You kind of missed the forest for the TEAM tree though (color me shocked).

  • mtrueman||

    "Nobody had to take the trouble ask them last time"

    This is this time though, and it seems as though asking these celebrities their views on war would be a good idea. Given their silence, we don't know whether they support the Syria thing or not. It's simply good journalistic practice.

    Still have no idea what you mean by TEAM. Why don't you put a little more effort into your posts here and you will be able to make yourself understood.

  • Skip||

    "I didn't protest Serbia because it wasn't cool to protest Clinton"

    Janeane Garofalo

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "A lot of people have lost hope -- with the betrayals, the NSA spying ... People aren't getting active because 'Who gives a shit?' is essentially the bottom line."

    "I drink your hope. I drink it up."

  • entropy||

    Imagine a machine, fueled by burning hope itself, designed to steal people's spare change.

  • Slammer||

    Ed Asner: Our whole history in regime change has been of people of different color.

    Yes, the whole world is full of ethnic and racial diversity. So fucking what?

  • Irish||

    Our whole history in regime change has been of people of different color.

    What about Hitler and Mussolini?

  • Juice||

    Let's not forget our friends in Yugoslavia.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Some Cubans believe that the reason Castro was able to become president and STAY president was because he was white, and Batista was black.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Well he's right.

    The Germans and Japanese are people of different colors.

  • mtrueman||

    "The Germans and Japanese are people of different colors."

    This is certainly true. The German skin is a healthy pink while the Japanese skin is a sickly yellow. It follows that tactics used against these peoples would have differed and it is true.

    Egged on by Churchill and Stalin, the Americans participated in bombing of German cities, Dresden being the most notable. But the American participation was far from indiscriminate bombing. It was the more dangerous but accurate daylight bombing, and the targets were industrial and transportation nodes which military necessity dictated.

    When the bombing of Japanese started, Americans dropped their precautions and the cities were targeted in indiscriminate night raids. Check out a list of the world's most heavily bombed nations: all Asian, all American. There is not a nation on Earth to compare to USA when it comes to killing Asians from the air.

    I've been struck by a recent innovation that seems taken from the playbook of al Qaeda. A drone strikes a target, a water-melon munching terrorist, let's say, and devastation ensues. Some local saps rush to the scene to remove the dead and tend to the wounded. A second drone strikes, timed to kill these responders.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Well, in fairness, the US didn't have British collaborators in the Pacific and so carpet bombed the cities themselves, instead of letting the British do so.

    And American bombing of Orientals doesn't even begin to compare to the hand to hand wet work that they've done to each other.

  • mtrueman||

    "the hand to hand wet work that they've done to each other"

    Of course the US civil war remains the bloodiest war the US was involved in. But it was before the invention of the airplane. I wonder if the opponents would have treated each other like the Germans or the Japanese.

  • ||

    Japan, unlike Germany, attacked us.

    This explains the discrepancy you find.

    Also it explains why the British were more gung ho about bombing Dresden then the US was.

    Also unlike Germany's holocaust the US was far more aware of Japan's butchery in the Philippines and China.

    Simply put we knew Japan's war machine was pure evil....a more brutal regime of fighting them would be expected.

  • mtrueman||

    "Simply put we knew Japan's war machine was pure evil."

    I think all Asian war machines are pure evil. America's is mostly pretty good.

  • Boisfeuras||

  • Boisfeuras||

    Air Force Magazine:

    Over Japan, the B-29s encountered the jet stream, fierce winds above 25,000 feet that added as much as 250 mph to an aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. The jet stream pushed the bombers over the target too fast for the Norden bombsight to compensate. Flying against the jet stream, the speed relative to the ground was so slow that the airplanes were sitting ducks.

    Daylight precision bombing faltered, especially on the missions from the Marianas. The weather permitted only four days a month of visual bombing. The long distances and high altitudes consumed so much fuel that the bomb loads were relatively small. There were frequent aborts and ditchings as Twentieth Air Force worked the kinks out of the new bomber under combat conditions.

    Arnold and the AAF were under tremendous pressure to produce strategic results and help bring the war in the Pacific to an end. Hansell stuck doggedly to daylight precision bombing, although repeated efforts against such targets as the Nakajima-Musashino aircraft plant near Tokyo were unsuccessful.
  • mtrueman||

    "To suggest German targets were treated more mercifully because of racism is laughable."

    Where am I making such a suggestion? The commenter VA Zaytsev pointed out that Germans and Japanese had different skin colours and I agreed with him. And you seem to be in agreement with me.

  • Boisfeuras||

    I guess you are just a troll then, because that is exactly what you said above:

    The German skin is a healthy pink while the Japanese skin is a sickly yellow. It follows that tactics used against these peoples would have differed and it is true ... When the bombing of Japanese started, Americans dropped their precautions and the cities were targeted in indiscriminate night raids. Check out a list of the world's most heavily bombed nations: all Asian, all American. There is not a nation on Earth to compare to USA when it comes to killing Asians from the air.
  • mtrueman||

    The tactics were different and Asians remain the most heavily bombed people in history. This is true whether or not I am really just a troll.

  • Invisible Finger||

    If you're going to stretch it to "asians" then you may as well just say "Earthlings".

  • Irish||

    I voted for him, but I'm not proud. He hasn't thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself. Instead, he has proved himself to be a corporatist, and as long as he's a corporatist, he's not my president

    Ed Asner voted for a Democrat and is shocked that he's a corporatist? Isn't that pretty much the Democrats' stated economic policy?

  • Nazdrakke||

    I had the same reaction. Like, what the fuck does he want? Full on socialism, I guess.

  • Dweebston||

    Republican reactionaries won't let Democrats get away with nationalizing industries, so really they're to blame for the latter's corporatism.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Not only that, but he realizes that it's a political loser because almost no one wants it. Hence: He hasn't thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself.

  • Killazontherun||

    Those are very religious metaphors he uses there. Obama as Fisher King, seriously Asner, do you have any clue where Obama is coming from? Those who live for self aggrandizement like Obama does, and he is the worst example of that in my lifetime, do not sacrifice themselves for anything. Their greater glory is only enhanced by the pyres built up by the piles of bodies of the sacrificed.

  • JW||

    I had the same reaction. Like, what the fuck does he want? Full on socialism, I guess.

    No, they want public-private partnerships, which are totally different.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Ed's not real bright. Got some big words in his head that he picked up from scripts, but not real bright.

  • Number 2||

    Ed's a genius compared to the other buffoons listed in the article.

  • Hoofddorp Haarlemmermeer||

    But at least Ed's realized something is wrong, unlike the other waterheads who'll say nothing that might offend the O.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    True. But his expectations were based on what was obviously a constructed and projected image of Obama that had no basis in past actions or the history of the Democratic Party in general.

  • Marshall Gill||

    So he is identical to a majority of voting Americans, then.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Not arguing with you about that.

  • Invisible Finger||

    But at least Ed's realized something is wrong

    Don't pretend that realization is recent. Ed realized something was wrong back in the 70's, it's the doing the same thing over and over again that Ed Asshole can't seem to stop.

  • Jon Lester||

    He was right about El Salvador, saying the people there should be allowed to freely elect whomever they would, up to and including the communists. I think he learned the lesson of Vietnam, where Ho Chi Minh was polling something like 80% before we even got seriously involved.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Exactly. Ed Asinine

  • ||

  • Mike M.||

    Maybe when Alec Baldwin's eagerly awaited new show starts on MSNBC he can reassure us as to their safety and possible whereabouts.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You're so naive - they recorded that show in 2008, just before Baldwin was raptured.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • Fatty Bolger||

    "I also think that there is a strong streak of racism, and whenever we engage in foreign adventures. Our whole history in regime change has been of people of different color."

    Yep, it's all racism. This explains why we've fought no wars in Europe.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Teutonophobia. That's the explanation

  • Sevo||

    "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama."

    That's OK. They can feel like ignoramuses instead.

  • Killazontherun||

    If you know too much, that knowledge might turn you into a Hater.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    No antiwar celebrities? I has Assad.

  • Slammer||

    ** enthusiastic clapping**

  • ||

    Stop before I bashir your brains in.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I think he's Syria's.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Iran so far away from here.

  • Being Waterboarded||

    Iraq'ed my brain trying to see the common thread in these comments, but to no avail.

  • ||

    And I ran. I ran so far away. I couldn't get away.

    Flock of Seagulls.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    He hasn't thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself.

    Poor Ed. Thought he found his messiah.

  • fish_remote||

    I was pretty sure Ed Asner was dead.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

  • ||

    I thought he got whacked in The Godfather.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Guess who

    Set aside the politics for a moment, and ask what the past five years would have looked like if the U.S. government had actually been able and willing to do what textbook macroeconomics says it should have done — namely, make a big enough push for job creation to offset the effects of the financial crunch and the housing bust, postponing fiscal austerity and tax increases until the private sector was ready to take up the slack. I’ve done a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what such a program would have entailed: It would have been about three times as big as the stimulus we actually got, and would have been much more focused on spending rather than tax cuts.

    Would such a policy have worked? All the evidence of the past five years says yes. The Obama stimulus, inadequate as it was, stopped the economy’s plunge in 2009. Europe’s experiment in anti-stimulus — the harsh spending cuts imposed on debtor nations — didn’t produce the promised surge in private-sector confidence. Instead, it produced severe economic contraction, just as textbook economics predicted. Government spending on job creation would, indeed, have created jobs.

    Government spending on job creation would, indeed, have created jobs.

    Unfortunately, government jobs =/= wealth creation. But don't worry, we'll just assume that particular can opener.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    KRUGABEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    postponing fiscal austerity and tax increases until the private sector was ready to take up the slack

    Yeah, because the government always scales itself back at some point and monied interests never have an incentive to fight a cutback in government spending. And the media never portrays the federally supported as poor innocents being led to a slaughter. And because the Fed always knows when to quit. And because corruption at government sponsored institutions doesn't exist. And because Krugabe isn't a total bullshit artist and knows of what he speaks.

  • fish_remote||

    Somebody needs to dig those holes!

    Break out the teaspoons boys...there are public improvements to be made.

  • Irish||

    Krugman is on record as stating that a country would become richer if they buried money and payed people to dig it up.

  • ||

    Was he just straight quoting Keynes there? Krugman honestly just blurs together for me despite (perhaps more like because of) all the stuff of his I've read.

  • Killazontherun||

    Wow. Keynes only met that as a hypothetical exaggeration. He at least understood that the relationship of money to wealth wasn't this simple.

  • Lady Bertrum||

  • fish_remote||

    One of my all time favorites!

  • Lady Bertrum||

    If you love America, you throw money in its hole.

  • Being Waterboarded||

    As many serious patriots have trouble locating the money hole, I have graciously placed a box on my back porch to serve as a surrogate.

    You're welcome, America!

  • Entropy Void||

    is that like the "money shot"?

  • Rrabbit||

    Some employees are so unproductive and are disturbing the workplace so much that if you fire them, that's like hiring two.

    I thus think that hiring Paul Krugnut to dig holes to fill other holes might well make the US richer.

  • Bobarian||

    Hiring Paulie to dig a hole and then bury himself in it would make me feel much richer.

  • MJGreen||

    I’ve done a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what such a program would have entailed: It would have been about three times as big as the stimulus we actually got, and would have been much more focused on spending rather than tax cuts.

    In other words, the growth we did have following the stimulus was 1/3 of what we needed, so the stimulus should've been 3 times bigger. Give me my Nobel!

  • ||

    Shit, all you need is some scratch work on the back of an envelope to successfully centrally plan an economic system involving billions of individuals? Quick, somebody tell the Soviets!

  • Irish||

    I like that he just assumes that his calculations would have undoubtedly been correct when the White House economists were so wrong with their predictions.

  • ||

    "I voted for him, but I'm not proud. He hasn't thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself."

    Sacrifice himself to what? The alter of anti-corporatism?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He hasn't thrown himself on the pyre, he's let us down one last time.

  • ||

    No, for those who had expectations of him, this won't be the last time. He'll do it again and again, with their response being crashing silence.

  • GILMORE||

    Ed Asner was channeling Duran Duran =

    "Night fall covers me, but you know the plans I'm making
    Still oversea, could it be the whole world opening wide
    A sacred why, a mystery gaping inside
    The weekend's why

    Until we dance into the fire, that fatal kiss is all we need
    Dance into the fire, to fatal sounds of broken dreams
    Dance into the fire, that fatal kiss is all we need
    Dance into the fire

    Choice for you, is the view to a kill
    Between the shades, assassination's standing still
    The first crystal tears, fall as snowflakes on your body
    First time in years, to drench you skin with lovers rosy stain
    A chance to find the phoenix for the flame
    A chance to die"

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Madonna's against it.

  • fish_remote||

    I was pretty sure Ed Asner Madonna was dead.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I don't know about throwing himself on the pyre, but I'd be pleased as punch to see him fall on his sword.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    OT: Martin Brundle interviews Bernie Ecclestone

  • JW||

    Nothing but vague one-sentence answers?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Martin Brundle interviews Bernie Ecclestone

    Does he say, "I am not a crook"?

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    MB: Finally we are reading about the issues in Germany and the court case that is going on there. What is the status with that?
    BE: "No idea. Quiet at the moment, peaceful."

    MB: Does it bother you? Is it a threat to F1? Is it a threat to you?
    BE: "It depends what the outcome of the case is."

    MB: Do you lose sleep over that or is it something you have under control?
    BE: "No. We have another one coming up maybe before the other case in England where someone is suing for a massive amount."

    MB: Is that water off a ducks back for you?
    BE: "I deal with things when I have to deal with them."
  • The Late P Brooks||

    Gentlemen, start your panics.

    Exploding targets consist of ammonium nitrate (an oxidizer) and aluminum powder (a fuel). But because neither component individually is explosive, they not regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

    Once the components are mixed, the results is an explosive material and subject to ATF regulations.

    However, under federal law, individuals can manufacture explosives for their own personal, non-business use. There is no federal limit on the amount of explosives an individual can make.

    Federal law, in short, does not prohibit exploding targets.

    OMFG WHY ISN'T THIS STUFF ILLEGAL?

    TERROR! MAYHEM! CHILLLLDRINZ!

  • ||

    Quick! This Syria shit isn't working! Change focus back to gun control!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Krugman is on record as stating that a country would become richer if they buried money and payed people to dig it up.

    Just as long as we don't do something horrible like dig coal out of the ground and sell it to people who will use it for fuel.

  • ||

    People will voluntarily exchange valuables for coal without a gun to their head. Too easy.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Weep, America!

    And that’s when we caught up with the Oath Keepers. They had encircled Senator John McKinney, the state Republican minority leader whose constituency includes Newtown. They were accusing him of selling out their freedoms when he supported a bipartisan bill to tighten up firearms regulation in Connecticut.

    “All of the amendments of the Constitution are sacred,” one Oath Keeper berated McKinney, “not just the first, but the second and third.” The Senator, who on multiple occasions allowed the Sandy Hook families to occupy his office — giving them a safe sanctuary during fraught legislative debates over gun safety, the release of horrifying photos of their loved ones and mental health bills — kept his cool.

    “We will just have to disagree,” said McKinney, who by now was flanked by Mark Barden. He is the father of Daniel, the little boy killed at Sandy Hook, whose picture you’ve probably seen dozens of times: Freckles, a wide gap between his teeth, maybe hugging his bus driver, or his big brother or sister, on day one of first grade a year ago. Barden had come to thank the senator for all he’d done to support Newtown.

  • The Late P Brooks||


    Trying to defuse the intensity of the exchange, McKinney, who had just marched alongside Dan Malloy, the Democratic governor whose job he hopes to snatch in 2014, asked the Oath Keepers to remember that they were in Newtown. The implication being they should show respect.

    “I thought this was America,” the woman retorted. With that, McKinney slipped away.

    Unfortunately, the author of this tearjerker does not recognize that woman as the heroine of the tale.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It’s hard to disagree that the Constitution needs defendants. That’s why we have the Supreme Court, after all.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

    Whew, good one!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Like the armed attention-seekers who descended on the local Starbucks a few weeks back, the Oath Keepers wanted to make their presence known.

    So, the people that want to protect our rights are attention seekers but those that want to take them away are what? I guess it's now noble to use your dead kid to push the same old liberal crap that you've been pushing your whole life.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Intentional?

    It’s hard to disagree that the Constitution needs defendants. That’s why we have the Supreme Court, after all.

    I have no doubt this whiny bozo would like nothing more than to see all those insensitive Oath Keeper louts on trial for daring to put the Constitution above his delicate emotional sensitivities.

  • ||

    From comments on OP:

    It’s very simple. The celebs’ important anti-war work has had to take back seat to defending equal marriage because the assholes in the US are working SO hard to oppress here at home.

    I sure hope that's sarcastic.

  • Irish||

    The celebs’ important anti-war work

    There is no way someone could seriously say this. I'm going with a joke.

  • GILMORE||

    no, no sarcasm = asner says as much himself, that the lack of vigor in opposing obama wars was due to "burnout effect" from fighting Bushitler so hard ...they are jaded and overworked. Basically, "because Bush"

    Also,.has anyone else concluded that Progressives say things like "corporatist" because they simply dont understand politics or economics on ANY level, and are constantly at a loss why their "Top Men" keep failing to create a utopian welfare state with magically sustainable finances.

  • FucktheNannyState||

    Where have all the anti-war protesters gone?

  • John Galt||

    Hypocelebricrites.

  • PH2050||

    Just a classic case of "It's different when we do it."

  • freeAgent||

    A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.

    If you disagree with Barack Obama's policies, it is because you are a racist. When a black guy starts a war instead of a white guy, it's totally different. We wouldn't want to feel racially insensitive by attempting to save hundreds or thousands of people from being killed by our military. It's much more important that we feel comfortable and sufficiently non-racist. Middle eastern lives are only worth what, 3/5 of an American's life anyway, right? Is that what we decided on?

  • Skip||

    Why should celebrities act any differently than Obama's Buttplug and Tony?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement