Kopel coverage of the DNC:
This week I will be part of a team of 150 journalists covering the Democratic National Convention for the Rocky Mountain News. The News' coverage will be 24/7, with very frequent web updates. You can find a link to my material from the Opinion page for DNC commentary. Topics already in the pipeline are: Al Jazeera's terrible coverage of Joe Biden; the connections between late 19th century politics (including "rum, Romanism, and rebellion") and the present; Joe Biden and the RAVE Act; and the press missing the story about some of the controversial speakers at Sunday's interfaith prayer meeting.
That said, following his second link, the RMN seems to have enlisted a wide range of contributors, including some of my favorites, including, since I am an attorney, Caplis and Silverman (both are litigators, and have a drive home radio show. Caplis is the conservative, and Silverman the liberal).
My understanding (and I have no doubt I will be corrected by many if I am wrong) is that the two newspapers have separate editorial staffs--which includes separate reporters.
The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News have a joint operting agreement, which in turn created a jointly owned compant that actually handles circulation, printing, and advertising for both newspapers.
I have no idea which of these topics are intended satirically, if any.
Always on a mission, but the mission has morphed pretty radically over time. Once upon a decade when Kopel was temporarily resident in Ann Arbor during law school, he was arguably the biggest Gary Hart partisan in the upper Midwest (even had a minor Hart campaign staff title, if memory serves). My how times have changed...
Dave also really liked Springsteen in those days, but given the announced musical entertainment line-up for the stadium extravaganza where Obama will accept the nomination, I am willing to bet his musical tastes have also changed since 1984. Not sure who represents "Libertarian rock &roll" nowadays, but I'm pretty sure The Boss isn't it...
From what I understand, the City &County of Denver has a home rule gun law that makes possession of a concealed handgun (loaded or otherwise) in a public place illegal unless one has a concealed carry permit. From the article, this guy had his unloaded handguns packed into cases which he was carrying. Whether or not that made the handguns "concealed" and thus subject to the law will determine whether he broke the law.
Outrageous. This is what happens to Home Rule cities - fiefdoms of despotism. How the hell was the guy supposed to transport his handgun?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.