That title was meant to be offensive - it was a direct comment on American attitudes to the rest of the world. Shame that the 'World Police' bit only involves policing donut shops (oil countries) and not people in genuine trouble.
I might buy that argument a bit better if the people making it were actually making an effort to do that. But, like the ant-abortion fanatics who push for no abortions but also fight for cutting welfare, food stamps and other quality-of-life elements, these people just don't want to spend money on anything inconvenient like helping others but still want the kudos of claiming that they are.
And 'saving the planet' makes a lot of economic sense in itself - but not necessarily for the current generation.
Better the 'weight' of RomneyHeritagecare, which at least is 'designed' to help and save people, than the ridiculous weight of an illegal, mistaken war, hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, actual torture, and a global financial meltdown for good measure.
That's what I thought at first, but on a careful re-read, most of them became obvious. The only person not specifically called out was the (presumed) photographer, Ferguson. It didn't help that some of the quoted segments were pretty confusing: "Nothing in Neri's complaint supports a claim that any of the respondents disparaged Neri's art. Accordingly, Neri has not stated a claim for trade libel."
That being said, it wasn't an easy read, and it could have been better explained. To be fair to Tim though, he was quoting Rebecca Tushnet and it was her passages that were the densest.
In the US you have some sort of 'contributory felony' statutes - for instance, if someone dies as part of a felony, all those involved can be charged with murder. So once you accept that as a principle, you can accept that PEOPLE SHOULD ACCEPT RESPONSIBILTY for their psychotic hounding/raping/whatever and pay some kind of price.
Or is it only the poor and other victims who should 'pay' and 'take responsibility'?