Digging around I found two articles, this one on the 'global warming is a given' mess and this one on the idiocy that Kevin calls "Do it again, only more!".
On the first, the point is that you've got a bunch of people out there who can't handle the idea that anyone actually questions their holy belief in human-caused climate change, so it's no longer just "No responsible scientist disagrees", now it's Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ Got that? Disagreeing on 'climate change' is the same as denying the Holocaust happened.
And from there we get this from that renowned pot of crap called 60 minutes:
Earlier this year, when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: ‘If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?’ Here, climate change deniers are explicitly painted as the bad guys. He also argued that, ‘This isn’t about politics...this is about sound science’, and went so far as to claim that it would be problematic even to air the views of climate change sceptics: ‘There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible.’ Which demonstrates why I don't watch that pot of crap anymore.
So looking for a balancing point of view on this has become 'irresponsible'.
Now I come to the second article, Grasping at guns:
Since Ms. Akerman's commentary, this paper has run half a dozen letters (and received perhaps a dozen more) from professors, psychologists, health care workers and gun control advocates all calling for a gun ban, or at least wondering aloud why ordinary people should be permitted to own such destructive objects.
Banning guns is one of the most common solutions offered by urban professionals, bureaucrats and special interests in the face of each new high-profile shooting.
But consider this: A week after the Dawson shootings, Britain was transfixed by its own similar shooting. Two 17-year-olds were shot in a South London McDonald's for disrespecting their attacker during a conversation. The shooter used a semi-automatic handgun.
Yet, there were no calls for a ban on civilian ownership of handguns. Why? Because Britain had already banned civilian handguns nearly a decade ago.
Every time some piece of walking garbage commits some atrocious crime we get the same thing from the same people, the 'simple' or 'radical' idea of "Let us ban guns". Which hasn't worked anywhere in the world, but they keep wanting to do it again, only more.
Don't you just love this crap?