;)
Tuesday
Apr162013
The Commentariat -- April 17, 2013
All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. -- Barack Obama ...
... President Obama just lashed out at the Senate & the gun lobby. I'll get up video when it becomes available. Update: C-SPAN has the video here. The President begins speaking about 5 min. in. ...
... John Bresnahan of Politico: "A visibly angry President Barack Obama blasted the Senate's rejection of a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks on gun sales, a vote that essentially ends any hope for major gun control legislation for the time being."
NEW. Alexander Bolton of the Hill: "The Senate delivered a devastating blow to President Obama's agenda to regulate guns Wednesday by defeating a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks. It failed by a vote of 54 to 46, with 5 Democrats voting against it. Only 4 Republicans supported it. Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) voted against it. Reid supported the measure but voted against it to preserve his ability to bring the measure up again. GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) voted yes."
NEW. C-SPAN2 is carrying the Senate "debate" (& upcoming) vote. Right now (@3:42 pm ET) Ted Cruz is saying something, so naturally I have the sound off. Update: I tuned in about an hour later, & Cruz was speaking again. Total camera hog.
NEW. Amy Davidson of the New Yorker writes an eloquent piece on "The Saudi Marathon Man."
Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg News: "We weigh the senseless carnage in Boston (death toll thus far: 3) against the senseless carnage of domestic gun violence (annual death toll: 30,000) and wonder why American society mobilizes with such impressive force against the smaller threat [link fixed] while shrugging at the larger one. (Gun violence produces the same number of victims as the Sept. 11 attacks almost every month, year in and year out.)"
... CW: what Wilkinson doesn't discuss -- and it is an important factor -- is the difference in our sense of personal control. Generally speaking, we think we are smart enough to stay away from gun-wielding loons, but we feel everyone is vulnerable to random terrorist attacks. It's the same reason people who suffer from fear of flying feel safe driving a car even though "There are more than 30,000 motor-vehicle deaths each year, a mortality rate eight times greater than that in planes." ...
... Heather Hurlburt, director of the National Security Network, in USA Today: "... the bombs killed fewer people than guns, automobiles or saturated fats in America today. Terrorists in Iraq killed 10 times as many people today as the Boston murderer(s) managed to do.... Not turning on each other, or our institutions, or our own freedoms, whatever the truth behind these terrible attacks proves to be ... can we keep it up?" ...
... Brian Beutler of TPM on the networks making a big story out of whether or not the President said "terrorism." CW: let me add that at the forefront of the enthusiasm for presidential rhetoric was NBC News' ever-brilliant UpChuck Todd.
David Nakamura of the Washington Post: "A bipartisan group of lawmakers formally filed an 844-page immigration bill on the Senate floor early Wednesday morning, setting the stage for months of public debate over the proposal." ...
... Nakamura & Aaron Davis of the Post: "Leading Capitol Hill opponents of a Senate proposal to overhaul the nation’s immigration system are coalescing around a strategy to kill the bill by delaying the legislative process as long as possible, providing time to offer 'poison pill' amendments aimed at breaking apart the fragile bipartisan group that developed the plan, according to lawmakers and legislative aides." ...
... Jeff Mason of Reuters: "President Barack Obama put his weight behind legislation unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday to reform the U.S. immigration system and urged lawmakers to advance it quickly. 'This bill is clearly a compromise, and no one will get everything they wanted, including me. But it is largely consistent with the principles that I have repeatedly laid out for comprehensive reform,' Obama said in a statement after being briefed by two of the senators involved in crafting the bill, Democrat Chuck Schumer and Republican John McCain."
... This Zucks. Peter Wallsten, et al., of the Washington Post: FaceBook lobbied itself into a carveout on the immigration bill, a provision which will allow it & other big tech companies to hire cheap foreign labor in lieu of U.S. workers.
Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post: "Supporters of a bipartisan background check plan were struggling Tuesday to find enough support as Senate leaders neared a deal to allow votes on other proposed changes to gun legislation.... The Senate will begin voting Wednesday on nine proposed changes to federal gun legislation, including efforts to expand background checks, ban assault weapons and increase funding for mental health programs." ...
... David Firestone of the New York Times: "Like many lawmakers who are opposing the Manchin-Toomey amendment for background checks, [Sen. Jeff] Flake [R-Arizona] needed an excuse to say no, so he simply invented one.... Many lawmakers of both parties would rather hide behind these flimsy excuses than offend the gun lobby and the credulous voters who follow it, putting passage of Manchin-Toomey in serious doubt." CW: they're not just lapdogs of the NRA; they are lying for the NRA & they know it.
I honestly just didn't believe GOP Senators would turn their back on 90% of Americans. I was naive. -- Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
... Steve Benen: "Republicans don't just intend to defeat the measure; they intend to filibuster it. I stress the distinction because today isn't a vote on the Toomey/Manchin amendment; it's a vote on whether to have a vote." Benen also exposes Sen. Dean Heller's (R-Nev.) ridiculous "objections" to the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
... ** The Internet Gun Bazaar. Michael Luo, et al., of the New York Times: "With no requirements for background checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.... The examination of Armslist raised questions about whether many sellers are essentially functioning as unlicensed firearms dealers, in contravention of federal law."
Believe it or not, the second-biggest politics-related story on the Intertoobz Tuesday was about a couple of Harvard professors who fucked up big-time, which might upset the Very Serious People who relied on the professors' fucked-up data. But it won't upset the VSPs because their only interested in "facts" that justify or support their previously-held beliefs. The easiest-to-understand exposition comes from Matt Yglesias of Slate.
... The most thorough is by Mike Konczal. ...
... Paul Krugman cuts to the chase: "... this is embarrassing and worse for [the professors]. But the really guilty parties here are all the people who seized on a [previously] disputed research result, knowing nothing about the research, because it said what they wanted to hear." Krugman has a follow-up post here; the full response from Profs. Reinhart & Rogoff is here. ...
... Dean Baker: "If facts mattered in economic policy debates, this should be the cause for a major reassessment of the deficit reduction policies being pursued in the United States and elsewhere. It should also cause reporters to be a bit slower to accept such sweeping claims at face value."
Krugman recommends Barry Ritholtz's "12 Laws of Goldbuggery." Here No. 7 (in part): "Gold is the ultimate currency.... Get yourself some gold coins and a Glock and you will be just fine when the whole world goes to shit."
Maureen Dowd writes a book report on Mark Mazzetti's book, The Way of the Knife, which examines the CIA's killer drone program: "President Obama, who continued nearly every covert program handed down by W., clearly feels tough when he talks about targeted killings, and considers drones an attractive option. As Mazzetti says, 'fundamental questions about who can be killed, where they can be killed, and when they can be killed' still have not been answered or publicly discussed."
Somini Sengupta of the New York Times: "The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto a House bill that would allow private companies to share information about computer security threats with government agencies, signaling once again how difficult it is to balance civil liberties and security interests in the digital era."
Local News
AP: "Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed into law a measure that outlaws abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that at that point a fetus can feel pain. The law signed Tuesday is the latest among a raft of measures passed in North Dakota this session that are meant to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until viability, usually at 22 to 24 weeks." ...
... Tara Culp-Ressler of Think Progress: North Dakota State Rep. Bette Grande, a primary backer of the bill, claims that the law "will effectively convince women that they don't want to have an abortion after all." ...
... Kat Stoeffel of New York: "As for all the women who don’t change their minds, the ongoing trial of Philadelphia abortion provider Kermit Gosnell is a good reminder of what happens when women can't access abortions, either because they can't afford them or laws restrict them: They get them illegally and in life-threatening conditions."
Congressional Race
Let's See How the Bickersons' Divorce Is Going. Bruce Smith of the AP: "Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's ex-wife has accused him of trespassing at her home in violation of their divorce settlement, and a judge set a hearing two days after the Republican will stand for election in his effort to mount a political comeback by winning a vacant congressional seat.... The complaint says Jenny Sanford confronted the former governor leaving her Sullivans Island home on Feb. 3 by a rear door, using his cell phone for a flashlight." According to Jenny Sanford's attorney, Mark Sanford repeatedly trespassed, despite his ex-wife's asking him to desist. CW: I'm guessing that sneaking into his former wife's house in the middle of the night is just one of the things that God told Mark would be A-okay. ...
... UPDATE. Cameron Joseph of the Hill: "National Republicans are abandoning former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) in the wake of his latest personal controversy, saying they won't help his House campaign in light of recent allegations from his ex-wife that he'd trespassed in her home." ...
... UPDATE. The Super Bowl Made Him Do It. Alex Isenstadt of Politico: "Former South Carolina governor and congressional candidate Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday that he entered his ex-wife's home in early February -- an apparent violation of the terms of their divorce settlement -- but said he did it so his son wouldn't have to watch the Super Bowl alone."
News Ledes
AP: "The wife of a former North Texas judge was charged with capital murder after confessing to her involvement in the three shooting deaths of the local district attorney, his wife and an assistant prosecutor, authorities said Wednesday. Kim Williams was arrested early Wednesday, a day after she told investigators that she and her husband, Eric Williams, were involved in the shootings of the Kaufman County district attorney, his wife and one of his prosecutors, according to documents in the case."
The Hill: "Authorities said Wednesday they had intercepted a letter to the White House that tested positive for ricin poison. The Secret Service acknowledged the letter addressed to President Obama contained a suspicious substance, and the FBI later said tests showed it was ricin, the same deadly toxin sent in a letter addressed to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). The Wicker letter was made public on Tuesday.... Fox News reported that like the letter to Wicker, the letter to Obama was sent from Memphis, Tenn. Fox News said the letters to Obama and Wicker contained similar language and are signed identically." ...
... New York Times UPDATE: "Federal agents arrested a man on Wednesday who is suspected of sending letters believed contaminated by the poison ricin to President Obama and a Republican senator, according to two officials with knowledge of the case. The suspect was identified as Paul Kevin Curtis of Corinth, Miss."
Boston Globe: "An official briefed on the Boston Marathon bombing investigation said today that authorities have an image of a suspect carrying, and perhaps dropping, a black bag at the second bombing scene on Boylston Street, outside of the Forum restaurant." ...
... Washington Post: "Graduate student Lingzi Lu, who came to the United States from China to study mathematics and statistics, was identified Wednesday as the third person killed in the Boston Marathon bombings."
... NEW. The New York Times The Lede has updates; the latest, at 3:07 pm ET, is that the Boston Federal Courthouse has been evacuated.
** NEW. New York Times: "Investigators have found video footage of a man who they believe may have planted the deadly bombs at the Boston Marathon, a person briefed on the matter said Wednesday, saying that they had pinpointed the image on video that was captured shortly before the blast." ...
... Fox News Atlanta has crime-scene photos of fragments of the suspected bomb device -- pressure cookers -- in the Boston Marathon bombings, & a related story. ...
... The Boston Globe's lede story on developments in the investigation & public reaction to the bombings is here. ...
... AP: "Law enforcement agencies pleaded Tuesday for the public to come forward with photos, videos or any information that might help them solve the twin bombings that killed three people and wounded more than 170...."
Reuters: " Two rockets fired from Egypt's Sinai peninsula struck Israel's Red Sea resort of Eilat on Wednesday, causing no casualties or damage, the Israeli military said, in an attack claimed by Islamist militants.... Israel deployed an Iron Dome anti-rocket battery in Eilat some two weeks ago.... But on Wednesday, the system did not intercept the incoming missiles 'for operational reasons', the spokeswoman said, without elaborating. The attack was carried out a day after Israel celebrated its 65th anniversary."
AP: " Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady, was laid to rest Wednesday with a level of pomp and protest reflecting her status as a commanding, polarizing political figure. Queen Elizabeth II, prime ministers and dignitaries from 170 countries were among the mourners at St. Paul's Cathedral, where Bishop of London Richard Chartres spoke of the strong feelings the former prime minister still evokes 23 years after leaving office." The Guardian is liveblogging the funeral.
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (18)
I guess the death toll of just three human beings is rather meaningless against 30,000 domestic gun deaths each year, unless you know one of those three people. I do. Krystle Campbell was a friend, a happy, smart, hard-working woman who had plans, hopes and dreams. We met through her restaurant work, and I loved her stories about selling oysters off of a boat in summer to other sailors. We have been crying most of the day about the loss of this wonderful person. Her life mattered to those who loved her.
I read the Yglesias article first, but when reading Konczal (which I found as CW stated, MUCH CLEARER) and compared the statements re: the Excel spreadsheet error. It appears Yglesias states that the 'not -0.1 percent error turn to 0.2 percent growth' — vs. "actually" 2.2 percent per Konczal. Or, am I am misinterpreting their math, which appears to indicate a considerable difference between them! Is it .2 percent growth vs. 2.2 percent growth or what?
Mike Konczal wrote: "So what do Herndon-Ash-Pollin conclude? They find "the average real GDP growth rate for countries carrying a public debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent is actually 2.2 percent, not -0.1 percent as [Reinhart-Rogoff claim]." [UPDATE: To clarify, they find 2.2 percent if they include all the years, weigh by number of years, and avoid the Excel error.]"
Matt Yglesias wrote: "Read Mike Konczal for the whole rundown, but I'll just focus on the spreadsheet part. At one point they set cell L51 equal to AVERAGE(L30:L44) when the correct procedure was AVERAGE(L30:L49). By typing wrong, they accidentally left Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Austria, and Australia out of the average. When you fix the Excel error, a -0.1 percent growth rate turns into 0.2 percent growth.*"
P.S. I Googled her and 'luv' the Ann Miller dancing-queen-star-of-the-silver-screen look of economist Carmen Reinhart. Ole!
@MAG. Good catch. Both Yglesias & Konczal are right. Brad Plumer of the Washington Post explains:
"Herndon, Ash, and Pollin conclude that 'the average real GDP growth rate for countries carrying a public debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent is actually 2.2 percent, not -0.1 percent as as published in Reinhart and Rogoff.' It’s worth emphasizing, however, that the Excel coding error itself is only responsible for a small portion of this difference in results — about 0.3 percentage points. So the spreadsheet mistake, by itself, does not appear to be fatal."
That is, the arithmetic mistake accounts for only a small portion of the asserted error. What Herndon, et al., mainly object to the way R&R cherrypicked countries & weighted different historical episodes. When Herndon, et al., eliminated what they considered to be arbitrary (and convenient) exceptions, they found that R&R's thesis evaporated; i.e., countries with a debt level > 90%/GDP experienced, on average, 2.2% growth.
The main objection to the R&R study before Herndon, et al., replicated it was that the Harvard profs got cause & effect backwards. That objection still stands.
Marie
“But the damage is already done,” says Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism. “Obama is too deeply invested in making deficit cutting and putting Social Security and Medicare on a path to destruction to reverse course. The one benefit of this decisive debunking of the Reinhardt and Rogoff paper is it will be impossible for him to defend his actions as merely following the advice of experts. The experts have been shown to be wildly wrong, and any decision to follow their faulty analysis now rests squarely on Obama and his fellow travelers.”
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/linchpin-pro-austerity-paper-rife-with-errors-recomputed-results-show-no-growth-hit-from-high-government-debt.html
I am forced to concede the substantive irrelevance of what appears to be the purposeful manipulation of methodology in the Reinhart and Rogoff study. Ryan (please visualize the dumbbell pose) clearly doesn't understand arithmetic let alone scientific methodology. The rest of those sportin' Republican issued drool buckets and diapers will focus on 2 words: Harvard professors. Republicans don't seek out, require or believe facts. The truth comes directly from God with a check from the money masters.
There's something about opposition to universal background checks that does deeper than direct fealty to the NRA.
Just got a nice, empty-headed letter from a local state representative explaining why she did not support the universal background check bill proffered in our state legislature. In a detailed five paragraph note, she addressed the public safety issues she claimed to be her highest priority without ever saying why she opposed the checks. Considered as an answer to an essay question, her explanation would not receive a high grade.
Irritated, I responded thus:
"And thank you, Representative, for your letter.
I would hope, however, that upon reflection you will notice that nowhere in your letter do you state why you oppose background checks for all firearm purchases, and that since support or opposition to any serious legislation should be based on reason, the lack thereof in your letter is a major omission.
I am pleased that public safety is one of your concerns, as it is mine, but I would be far more likely to take your protestations of concern for safety seriously if you could suggest why universal background checks would make you and me less, rather than more, safe.
I look forward to your response."
We'll see. The representative is not stupid, so the only way I can account for the blinders she wears on the gun issue is her deep sense that background checks conducted by a government are somehow more threatening to the public safety than the armed murderers who blow away the population of one of our nation's small cities each year.
I just don't get it. Unasked, she's protecting me from a government far less likely to kill me than the drunk down the street at the local pub who (whoopee!) decides to target shoot after midnight.
And she thinks she's making sense. There's a fear factor here I don't understand.
Performing a background check seems the most obvious first step for purchasing a deadly weapon.
So obvious that it would be stupidity on stilts (thank you Miss Brooks!) to think otherwise.
Background checks of various kinds are performed all the time, for employment, for getting a loan, buying a car or a house, and stringent testing is required in order to get a driver’s license.
Why such intransigence? A large part is, as Ken suggests, fear. Irrational fear drummed up by the usual bogeymen purveyors on the right, but fear nonetheless. Fear is the most essential element, the primary ingredient of right-wing ideology.
They even use it on themselves. Fear of government (pushed, incredibly, by those who have spent most of their lives in government), fear of liberals (a constant to be envied by Max Planck), fear of taxes on the wealthy, fear of science, fear of women, fear of non-whites, fear of educated people, fear of those who think for themselves, fear of facts, fear of fear; fear, fear, fear.
Certainly there is more behind their hatred of background checks but not everyone aligned against such a basic step for easing the tidal wave of gun violence truly believes that a black helicopter piloted by a black president will be landing in their backyard to take away their toys.
Many, like Marco Rubio, simply use false logic to maintain their standing as a dues paying, member in good standing wingnut. They know better but are happy to use the kind of irrational fears that cause white supremacist wingers to hide out in forests with stockpiles of weapons and ammunition. Rubio’s argument (which mirrors that of many NRA supporters) is that laws currently in place need to be enforced. Background checks simply help that cause. It’s like telling air traffic controllers that the law says they have to ensure the safety of air travel but they can’t use GPS or radar to do it because that would infringe on the privacy of those on board the planes.
And speaking of fear, Mitch McConnell (another member of the brotherhood of cynical wingnuts) went on the record yesterday to remind us all not to forget to be afraid. Be very afraid. Bombers are hiding under your bed. They’re in the dryer making explosives out of lint and those socks you thought were lost. They’re in the trunk of your car turning your spare tire into an IED. And don’t forget it.
So helpful, that Mitch. Manipulative, conniving prick. But he's just taking a page from the wingnut playbook:
Amongst our weaponry is fear...
But he’s only making sure that the anti-terror surveillance industry created by the Bush and Cheney Wars of Choice have plenty of work. Brian Williams on NBC, the night of the marathon, regaled viewers, without the teensiest hint of irony (or perspective), with tall tales of how much safer we are now that we have thousands of “professionals” whose job it is to save us from terror, or, failing that, figure out how the bombs were built.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the violence unleashed by Bush and Cheney on foreign lands, which are still dealing with bombings on a daily basis, has created this brand new, cool industry for making money and spying on Americans? AND keeping everyone fearful. And the upside, at least for wingnuts, is that despite their caterwauling about protecting LIBERTY, they are the first to demand intrusive checks, wiretaps and other assorted types of surveillance.
Oh, unless you want to buy a gun. In that case, you can simply purchase one from the bomber hiding in the trunk of your car. And don’t worry. He’s got plenty of ammo. You’ll never run out.
As Kate Madison recently suggested, it’s easier in America to buy a gun than it is to vote.
The headline for the story on Thatcher's funeral should be: "Iron Lady Laid to Rust."
Serial tresspassing fits neatly into Sanford's other ill advised behaviors and his obvious narcissism - "God has spoken directly to me. He is definitive. My pathetic lying and dismissal of my public responsibilities for lustful purposes is A OK with him." Have to wonder what written material he was after during his tresspassing.
So much to comment about and so little time.... "Many, like Marco Rubio, simply use false logic to maintain their standing as a dues paying, member in good standing wingnut."
There's a bunch of "wing-nuts" in the fly-over states that don't know anyone ever killed or injured with a firearm. There's a bunch of "wing-nuts" in the fly-over states that don't trust the Cheney/Bush/Obama military-industrial information nexus of power to responsibly use personal information.
There's a reason why everyone from Porter Goss to Diane Feinstein to Cheney to Susan Rice never have to work hard again in their lives: they have had access to person and propriety information due to their national security credentials. And they cashed in, big time.
I may be a wing nut but I have a certain understanding of history and political forces. And didn't Goss, Feinstein, Cheney and Rice all support war before peace? As a general rule my support for war profiteers isn't high.
-------
Hi Ken: Yes, I do have a fear factor about the government knowing much about me. Whether it is "Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword" or the Nazis rounding up all the firearms in Norway, I don't trust elements of the government to look after my freedom to be left alone.
One fear factor is that no matter how hard I try, I don't think Anthony Weiner, Rahm Emmanual or Dick Cheney would pause one second to worry about my interests if they contradicted their own perceived interests.
I think its long past due to have a national discussion and movement toward keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, but the simple consolidation of privileged personal information into a few powerful hands might be an idea worth considering too.
Hmm. Among the measures offered to limit gun violence are 1) Limited magazine capacities, 2) A ban on assault weapons, 3) Stronger punishments for violators (and disparate other measures, 4) Background checks for all transactions. Here we are, deep in the age of surveillance, so which one stands a chance of being accepted by politicians and the non-gun owning public?
And what will some politicians and police departments do with the information gained from this enhanced surveillance mechanism?
Two of the measures would work (ban on assault weapons and limited capacity magazines), two support the status quo. Why do I suspect that fear is the major motivator here? My fear is of corrupt police and politicians weighing their chances of reelection.
@citizen625: what you are saying, in a nutshell, is this: "I would trade the lives of innocent women, men & children for some tiny reduction in my level of personal anxiety." That is about as cold-hearted & self-absorbed as one can get.
Right now if the government -- at any level -- suspects you of a crime, it can find out an incredible amount of information on what you've been up to: where you spend your money (bank & credit card records, surveillance cameras), where you've been (cellphone records, ditto cameras), who you know (a host of sources, including the nosy neighbor), what you read (IP addresses, book & magazine purchases), what some of your physical limitations are (what doctors you pay, drivers' license, e.g.) etc. If a law enforcement agency wanted to create a profile on most of us, it would get pretty accurate pictures. Any person who purchases a gun or ammo for legitimate purposes should have no reason be afraid of one more bit of information the government is able to access.
My advice: get over yourself. Your fears, real or imagined, are not a good enough reason, IMHO, for one person to die because a criminal or deranged person bought a gun & ammo on the Internet, at a gun show -- or from Grandpa. Winkes is right.
Marie
Citizen,
I'm not sure what your point was regarding the bit about Rubio you quoted from my comment.
My point was that Rubio, like many calculating cynics, has no problem peddling fear of "The Government" in order to maintain the status quo regarding the ability of anyone, sane or not, to purchase weapons and ammunition.
Perhaps you were unhappy with my use of the term "wingnut", I don't know. But I don't think connecting the facts that some people in fly-over states have never known anyone who has been shot with what you describe as fear of the "Cheney/Bush/Obama military-industrial information nexus of power" makes for much of an argument. I'm not sure I get the contention here. Are you saying that because these people have never been shot or known anyone who has been shot that background checks for the purchase of firearms are unnecessary or frivolous? And furthermore, the fear these people harbor about what the government may know about them constitutes an additional reason not to initiate such checks?
I've never been shot either but that doesn't mean I think performing background checks on people purchasing deadly weapons is an egregious and unnecessary violation of their rights. Someone wants to buy a deadly weapon. There should be some kind of control on the sale of such a thing.
The uncontrolled purchase of firearms may not affect me directly (although I can make that argument) but it has affected quite a few people tremendously (the fact that unstable people have bought and used weapons to kill people).
Marie beat me to it, but she's quite right that the amount of information already out there about each of us is astounding. And it's not only available to the government. There are plenty of sites that will, for a fee, find out if you've ever been arrested and what the outcome was, if you've ever declared bankruptcy, been late paying bills, where you've lived, where you went to school, what your addresses were and phone numbers, and plenty more besides. And that's just a cursory search available to any schmoe who forks over the $20. It's the world we live in and ain't changing anytime soon.
What galls me is the people who want to use the fear of what "the government" will do with this information to keep us less safe. Not only that, they go on the attack against those who actually have lost loved ones. They make themselves the victims.
Those Newtown parents really piss me off and they can go to hell!
This is reprehensible. And this IS something we can change and when people like Rubio declare that this won't guarantee that we'll catch the criminals, my answer is, that's not the point. If we can stop some criminals or unstable people from walking into a sporting goods store and coming out with a weapon, then great. I'm all for it. His argument is illogical and, frankly, insulting.
I get that people are concerned about their privacy but concern for life and death takes precedence.
Charlie Pierce's essay "We are the Commonwealth..." is a must read.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/we-are-the-commonwealth-of-massachsuetts-041713
So again majority doesn't rule. Thank-you Senator Reid for selflessly castrating the majority party for the benefit of the minority who are mentally deficient and morally bankrupt. They control the Senate by disregarding the wishes of the majority of constituents, simply to line their pockets and indulge the grandiosity of ignorance.
Well, those concerned about their privacy, like Citizen, need worry no longer.
The US Senate apparently agrees with him that it's far better to assuage fears real, imagined, suggested, or hallucinated by the usual posse of right-wing (I guess I shouldn't say "wingnut") mountebanks and the louche and highly suggestible than it is to prevent actual FUCKING DEATHS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN, and their mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, friends, aunts, uncles, cousins, classmates, teachers, and innocent fucking passersby because, HOLY FUCKING SHIT, that would mean asshole and insane murderers couldn't purchase WEAPONS OF GOD DAMN FUCKING COCK SUCKING MASS MURDER, now, would it? That would mean a pimple on the ass of their FUCKING LIBERRRRTYYYYY!
So, I hope your fears about government "intrusion" into your private life, as incredibly fucking minimal and risible as that might be, are put to rest so that madmen, criminals, pig-fuckers, and other assorted killers can murder innocents.
Are we happy now?
I certainly goddam hope so.
I want to hear what you have to say about this! And the next time innocent Americans are destroyed by scum-sucking madmen who were allowed to purchase weapons of mass murder I want to you to tell me that it was OKAY because your sense of privacy is more FUCKING IMPORTANT!
God damn it! I HATE these fucking people!
Looks like we're headed for six years of The People v. NRA in senate races. Obviously the slaughter is not going to end, ergo the issue won't go away. And so the loyal opposition is going to hang a corpse around the neck of every asshole who voted nay, I betcha.
Akhilleus, baby--
Cool your jets, please. You're beginning to sound like porn film version of Rush or Glenn, and you're not helping the cause.
We want effective laws and the order that laws ask of us. More violence is not the answer. Have you forgotten how MLK raised our civilization a notch?