Just when you think you’ve heard it all…
Skippy’s Cookie Jill on one of the sleaziest fundraising scams of which I’ve ever heard. Truly unbelievable.
Honestly! (she sniffed with disgust)
RIP Saul Bellow
Ugh. Saul Bellow has died—and of the many recent deaths of famous men, this one feels to me like our greatest loss.
A brilliant author, he was raised in and closely associated with Chicago, where he was active in the local academia, attending both Northwestern University and the University of Chicago, for which he served as a member of its Committee on Social Thought in later life. His degrees were in sociology and anthropology, just like mine—which is, unfortunately, where our similarities end, although having studied the same fields in the same city, and having, like him, used the endeavor to inform an interest in writing social commentary, I felt a certain kinship with him, as dreamy hacks are wont to do.
He was 89 and lived a rich life, so we can’t be too sad for him. He wouldn’t have been sad for himself, I imagine.
Asked about his thoughts on what happens after death, Bellow offered two scenarios: oblivion or immortality.
"My intuition is immortality," said Bellow, who was ambivalent about whether he believed in God. "No argument can be made for it, but it's just as likely as oblivion."
RIP Prince Rainier
Prince Rainier III of Monaco has died. He was Europe’s longest-reigning monarch, and he lived to be 81. Good innings.
DeLay’s Going Down
The GOP has officially turned on Tom DeLay. When Dark Lord Cheney signaled his disapproval last week, we were witnessing a fine moment in dog whistle politics; I don’t think that’s appropriate coming from the satanic cyborg’s lips seemed, to be sure, an ominous sign, but little did we know it would send the rightwing media machine into overdrive to take down one of their own.
Drudge is faithfully reporting each devastating new story about the embattled DeLay, which are now coming faster and faster, as fresh charges of ethics violations come tumbling one after another, each given a prominence previous (though equally damning) revelations had not.
Screen grab from the Drudge Report.
Last night, Raw Story leaked the Washington Post’s front page story: DeLay Russian trip paid for by firm lobbying Russian gov't, which can now be read in its entirety here, complete with a flow chart dissecting his trip. (!) And the NY Times reports today that DeLay’s wife and daughter have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by his political action and campaign committees.
It looks as though DeLay’s days are numbered.
This is our collective job as I see it:
1. Celebrate.
2. Refuse to allow the GOP to singularly pin DeLay as the face of their radical agenda. They’ve gone too far, and they know it. They need someone to take a fall, and DeLay, the coverage of whose blatant malfeasance was getting ever more difficult to contain, was the best option. If they are successful in sticking him with the sole responsibility for the insidious wingnuttery that has gripped our Congress, they will be able to distance themselves from their agenda as its designated posterboy crumbles and return to promoting the same extremism behind the scenes, as they were before they crossed the line. What we cannot do is allow them to effectively use DeLay to draw a line between them and their abhorrent objectives. He was an operative—a damn successful one, but still just an operative nonetheless. They will want to use him as a scapegoat; it’s up to us to make sure everything they’ve done stays attached to them, and all sense of the need for accountability doesn’t leave with DeLay.
3. Make sure that a DeLay departure does not usurp media attention if Frist goes for the nuclear option. There would undoubtedly be a media frenzy surrounding a DeLay fall from grace; it would be the perfect time for Frist and his minions to surreptitiously pass, as Mr. Shakes calls it, the “this country is now a dictatorship” legislation, rendering filibusters obsolete.
Nothing happens in a vacuum with this administration. DeLay suddenly having lost his protection, finding himself naked, cold, and alone on the front page of the Washington Post, was not inevitable, not in this media climate. This is an orchestrated takedown, and you can bet your boots it’s a red herring for something. We’ve just got to make sure we keep our eyes peeled for exactly what that something is.
(Thanks to Oddjob for providing links.)
Good Stuff
Couple of random funny things to share…
#1: Ralph from Newsfare sent me the following email in response to my post about Title IX (reposted here with his permission):
Dear Shakespeare's Sister:
Several months ago, we tried to contact you by email. Our message was always returned, eg.,
No response from shakespearessis@ter.com
Since you did not respond to those emails, your athletic programs have been cancelled.
Would you and the other girls like to try having a bake sale to get them back? We can probably give you some card tables to put out the brownies and cookies. They are left over from the football team's awards luncheon.
Love,
Your College Administration
#2: Right after arriving home from work, my dear friend in London phoned, and, honestly, every time we speak, we both end up in absolute fits of giggles, which often begins with shooting Woody Allen lines back and forth like dueling machine guns, but tonight began with a discussion of reality shows, which both of us abhor (except for my inexplicable devotion to The Contender, my recommendation of which sparked the topic), during which he said:
“I’ll never understand the people who watch nothing but Big Brother and Survivor and all that. I get that there’s a sociological element to it—something compelling about studying human behavior—but you’ve got 2,000 years of western culture and civilization to choose from, and you decide to watch five baboons sitting on a couch scratching their armpits?! What a bunch of shite!”
Question of the Day (Fun)
After revealing my deep and abiding love for Morrissey, I’d love to hear about your favorites. Who’s the greatest performer ever (in your unhumble opinion)...and why?
When you're dancing and laughing and finally living,
Hear my voice in your head and think of me kindly.
Question of the Day (Practical)
My rank on the Ecosystem, which compiles rankings based on links, but only among other members, has tumbled almost 200 places in the last few days, even though I have more trackbacks than usual. I’ve noticed, however, that many of the people who link to me most often are not members of the Ecosystem. So here’s my question—does the Ecosystem matter?
(That’s not a philosophical question; I’m really curious to know whether people pay a lot of attention to it. I use it mostly to see who’s linked to me so I can thank them, but I don’t put it to much other practical use, perhaps to my detriment.)
Check It at the Door, Please
I’m officially sick of reading about religion in the political news.
This was the straw that broke this camel’s back: New Pope Could Influence Political Life in America. That’s the headline of a column by Adam Nagourney in yesterday’s NY Times, discussing Catholics’ role in American politics, which of course follows dozens? hundreds? of stories—especially when one adds in television coverage—examining the increasing role of religion in American politics and the alleged mandate given the president by religious conservatives. (And now I see the President will be attending the Pope’s funeral, even though he has yet to attend a single funeral of a fallen American soldier.) Although I’m all too aware of the church’s history of interference in political issues, the question is why, in a country that grants and protects freedom of religion, yet makes a provision for the separation of church and state, does the Christian church—in all its forms and denominations—continue to try to stick its big nose into the political sphere, and why do we, as a country, continue to engage the escalating noise coming from the religious? Religion simply shouldn’t play any role in the public discourse.
Despite its dodgy history of political activism, religion is meant only to inform the morality and ethics of its adherents, who can then bring their principles with them into the public (governmental) sphere—while leaving their religion behind. Easier said than done, Shakespeare’s Sister, someone, surely, will tell me, but I’m not entirely convinced that’s true.
You see, one of the things that irks me about the religious is that god-fearing people tend to decide what they believe, then shop around for a religion that suits. It’s rarely, in my experience, that someone tries to discern an objective truth about religious laws and beliefs and then adjusts their behavior accordingly. Rather, behaviors and beliefs are formed, either within or outwith a religious context, and then a denomination is chosen based on its ability to approximate the chooser’s existing beliefs. And even then, passages of the holy text of choice which conflict with personal values are generally ignored, with preference given to teachings that reinforce preexisting opinions. Hence, religion’s all-too-common role as a justification for ingrained beliefs.
I know this isn’t categorically true of all religious people, and I don’t mean to suggest that it is, but it’s true of enough people (and examples of those who can do just as I'm suggesting are plentiful enough) that I find specious the claim that a religious person cannot enter the public sphere and leave one’s religion behind.
The problem, obviously, is that we’ve permitted religion to become untrumpable. No amount of rational or scientific evidence is allowed to supersede faith, and simply by virtue of being “religious” is one assumed, even within the public sphere, to be a good person, even if they are resolutely unethical. There is no regard for a personal moral code derived from earthly sources; an atheist will never be president, in spite of the fact that someone who seeks to be a good person purely out of respect for other people, without promise of eternal reward, is arguably more altruistic.
Though it is not my personal choice, I won’t identify defining one’s sense of right and wrong using religion as intrinsically faulty; I do, however, strongly believe that the belief system one brings into the public sphere, even if molded and informed by religion, should be able to stand on its own without invoking its source. If you have no other justification for your political position than “God says so,” it doesn’t belong in the public sphere. Not in this country.
Just a Minute...
John's got a great post about the MinuteMan Project over at Big Brass Blog. Check it out.
Unpatriotic Act
What a convenient time for this to come up, amidst the continued uninterrupted coverage of Popeapalooza and nonstop attacks on the judiciary by Congress:
The Bush administration's two top law enforcement officials on Tuesday urged Congress to renew every provision of the anti-terror Patriot Act. FBI Director Robert Mueller also asked lawmakers to expand the bureau's ability to obtain records without first asking a judge.Senators Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, plan to reintroduce legislation which would adjust some of the more outrageous provisions of the Patriot Act. (Once again, I wonder if it’s possible to make the amazing Dick Durbin a household name by 2008.)
[…]
"Experience has taught the FBI that there are no neat dividing lines that distinguish criminal, terrorist and foreign intelligence activity," Mueller said in his prepared testimony.
He also asked Congress to expand the FBI's administrative subpoena powers, which allow the bureau to obtain records without approval or a judge or grand jury.
The Patriot Act is the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers. Most of the law is permanent, but 15 provisions will expire in December unless renewed by Congress.
Among the controversial provisions is a section permitting secret warrants for "books, records, papers, documents and other items" from businesses, hospitals and other organizations.Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that these provisions are integral parts of fighting terrorism and must remain available to authorities. I suppose he finds civil liberties kinda quaint.
That section is known as the "library provision" by its critics. While it does not specifically mention bookstores or libraries, critics say the government could use it to subpoena library and bookstore records and snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.
[…]
Craig and Durbin want Congress to curb both expiring and nonexpiring parts of the Patriot Act, including the expiring "library" provision and "sneak and peek" or delayed notification warrants. Those warrants — which will not expire in December — allow federal officials to search suspects' homes without telling them until later.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason that necessitates granting these powers to the FBI without the involvement of a judge or grand jury. Suffice it to say, this is just another attack on the judiciary…and, insomuch as it is yet another elimination of an important layer in our system of checks and balances, an attack on the American democracy.
Stinks
I was invited (I have no idea how I got on the list!) to listen in on a conference call arranged by the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, regarding their plans for thwarting the threatened “nuclear option.” I was asked to give my real name, which I did, and my home phone number, which I did, and the name of my employer, which I would not, so I was brutally rebuffed. They wouldn’t accept me as an independent interest, even though I clearly got the invite as a blogger, and for no reason having to do with my paying gig. They apparently had no list of invitees to consult to confirm my reason for being there, and the name of blog wasn’t considered sufficient. I suppose I could have made something up, but, well, you know how I feel about liars.
It was truly sucky as I got to hear the first 10 minutes or so, and then they came back on the line to tell me to get lost, since not being affiliated with a particular company wasn’t good enough or something. The same crap credentials managed to get Jeff Gannon into the White House, but couldn’t get me on a conference call.
So I was hoping to have an awesome report for you this afternoon on this exceedingly interesting topic, but instead it’s just a bitch about how the opposition still doesn’t know how to organize things to get as many people involved as possible.
Mr. Popularity
Atrios notes:
According to Gallup, Bush's approval rating is the lowest of any president in March of their 2nd term - 45%.Good question.
A big part of the general deference the press gives this administration is based on this false notion that he's a popular president.
[…]
How low does Bush's approval have to go before WE STOP SAYING THAT.
Of course, the supposition that the press defers to popular presidents doesn’t quite explain their treatment of Clinton, who was extremely popular yet was shown little but contempt by the press in his second term. There was, clearly, something worth covering, but I would argue there’s plenty more and then some worth covering about Bush and his Congressional minions.
The conventional wisdom about the press laying off Bush because he’s popular may be just as flawed as the underlying notion that Bush is popular. Bush & Co. are ruthless media manipulators and vengeful toward members of the press who write anything unfavorable about them. The press is cowed by the fear of retribution, end of story.
Well, maybe not totally the end of the story. It also has to do with media ownership, and the fact that being kind to Bush is far more likely to result in relaxed rules governing the aforementioned than being kind to Clinton ever would have.
And it might also have the teensiest, tiniest bit to do with the fact that the media is probably none to eager to face their own complicity in concealing the truth about this administration from the American people for the past four+ years.
Best Wishes, Peter Jennings
Link:
Peter Jennings, the chief ABC News anchorman for more than 20 years, has been diagnosed with lung cancer and will begin outpatient treatment next week, the network said Tuesday.
Attack on the Judiciary
Well, at least Conyers has some sense.
Tonight, my staff showed me a quote from Senator John Cornyn (found on Americablog) that speaks for itself: "And finally, I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share."
This apparent effort to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the "judicial activists" the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.
If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders. To be sure, I have disagreed with many, many court rulings. (For example, Bush v. Gore may well be the single greatest example of judicial activism we have seen in our lifetime.) But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.
My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.
Girls Are Icky
In women’s war against the attempted shove backwards into the days of yore being legislatively coordinated by George Bush and pals, the newest frontier of the battle is Title IX—the landmark 1972 law prohibiting gender discrimination in any education program or school activity that receives federal funds, which led to fuller participation by girls in the classroom and on the playing field. From yesterday’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
One step forward, one step backward. Push and push back. It is ever thus in the struggle for human rights, in which progress, if any, is usually measured in millimeters.On a side note, this certainly seems to be a class issue as well; not every student has a personal computer which makes e-mail readily accessible at all times. In other words, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to receive and respond to the e-mail in time.
[…]
[T]he Bush administration, without one public hearing, stealthily hacked away at Title IX with new guidelines that say colleges can comply by merely sending out e-mail surveys asking female students if they are interested in playing sports.
If there is little or no response, a school is free not to provide those sports opportunities. This change now trumps the three-way compliance test previously in force.
Under that test, compliance could be achieved by showing the percentage of female athletes was proportionate to female enrollment, the school had a pattern of expanding opportunities for women, or proving that the sports interests of women had been "fully and effectively" accommodated.
E-mail replies, or rather the lack of them, are going to determine whether women are granted access to a team in any given sport! A low response can be interpreted as no interest, and therefore no need, to provide equipment and access to gyms for women.
[…]
It is a pathetic excuse to evade the purpose of the law. The Department of Education has created a new loophole through which schools may return to the bad old days of denying women and girls an equal opportunity to participate in team sports. Decisions about who gets to play what sports are now in the hands of telemarketing techniques.
In what I feel can safely be classified as “not shocking,” Democrats and Republicans have vastly divergent reactions to Title IX.
Former Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., the author of Title IX, was outraged. "Sports is all about advancing the ball, but the Department of Education has thrown women's athletics to the back court," he said.It is well documented (plug any combination of girls, sports, and self esteem into your search engine of choice) that girls, on average, suffer greater losses of self esteem during adolescence than boys, but girls who are involved in sports have less trouble struggling with self esteem issues than girls who don’t. (The same is true of boys who are involved in sports.) This makes it imperative to make sports available and accessible to girls—as opposed to attempts to undermine girls’ participation so as to reserve greater funding for boys.
[…]
Generally, Title IX has worked -- other schools have largely addressed most unfairness issues. Millions of girls not only get the desired exercise but win valuable scholarships too. But conservatives such as House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a former wrestling coach, complained that to make room for women's programs some schools have killed minor male sports.
Two years ago, the Bush administration created a special commission to review the law and its social implications, stacked with Title IX opponents. But the administration underestimated the popularity of Title IX not just with girls but their daddies and mommies and the panel buckled under public pressure to protect the law.
The group could not come up with a consensus, although one recommendation was the one the administration has now sneakily adopted -- that compliance could be met simply by surveying students to determine their interests.
It's no coincidence the administration waited until after the election to pull the plug on women's sports.
I understand Hastert’s frustration that there are schools who may need to cut a boys’ sport with less interest (say, lacrosse) to make room for a girls’ sport with greater interest (say, basketball), but his ire is misplaced. Neither the boys’ lacrosse team nor the girls’ basketball team should have to suffer. If he’s concerned about school funding, he would do well to look to his party’s continued tax cuts for the wealthy and pork barrel spending during wartime, ballooning state deficits, and his president’s unfunded education mandate, which puts an increased financial burden on schools. Women’s interests have been sacrificed enough in deference to men’s success. If the boys’ lacrosse team is getting left behind, it isn’t up to the girls’ basketball team to save them.
The Beast’s 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2004
Oh my god.
This is so fucking hilarious, I nearly pissed myself laughing. I have no idea whether this has already circulated around the internet three thousand times, but just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t seen it (like I hadn’t), you must go.
I can’t decide which is my favorite, but this has to be up there (it’s the “Punishment” that really got me):
40. Laura BushGood lord. I’m weeping.
Crimes: Oh the first lady, what an inspiration she must be to android researchers everywhere. Smile, nod, smile, (look interested) nod, put on $50,000 dress, suck off the president and there you have a typical day for the first lady. Corporate yes-wives like her will hasten the coming of mandated burkas for American women. Actually looks related to George, which might explain their mongoloid children.
Smoking Gun: She married George Bush.
Punishment: Chugging a gallon of stem cells on Fear Factor.
(Hat tip to Mr. Furious' hubby, Mr. Curious.)
Random Bitchin'
Nothing is inspiring me to write this evening, so I’ll share with you a conversation I had with a local police officer, part of whose job is to go undercover to a gay pick-up area near the lake and bust men, usually married ones, who are living on the down low.
“There’s a special place in hell for you, where you’ll be buggered for all eternity by the men you collared.”
“Probably.”
“You know, what difference does it make? These guys aren’t hurting anyone. And if people weren’t so homophobic, they probably wouldn’t be doing that.”
“I know, but it’s against the law.”
“Do you ever get turned on while you’re doing it?”
“Shut the fuck up.”
“Isn’t there any other crime you could be stopping? Maybe they need to fire your asses and fix the potholes.”
This is the kind of shit that drives me fucking bonkers. Far be it from me to defend infidelity; it’s not good for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which is the potential of a careless cheat to bring home a disease to an unwitting spouse—and in the days of deadly STDs, that’s no small matter. But the cops aren’t out tracking cheating husbands who are running around with other women, or cheating wives who are running around with other men (or other women, for that matter); even when cuckolding couples are caught in public, they’re usually sent home with a stern warning, not taken to jail and thoroughly humiliated by having their names printed in the paper. In fact, I’d wager one or two of the cops involved in such sting operations have dabbled in the adulterous arts, but that, of course, is different.
I’m totally annoyed that my tax dollars are being put to work to harass and embarrass gay men. Does it matter to my life or this community one way or another if a couple of dudes get it on in the woods, miles away from anything? Not a bit.
I would, however, be eminently pleased if the giant pothole in front of my house was fixed.
Dominionism, Part 2
Well, I’d almost forgotten about this, but there’s a fantastic report on the rise of Dominionism in the US here, originally brought to my attention awhile ago by Mr. Furious, to give credit where credit is due. This report was written by Katherine Yurica, an investigative reporter with expertise in the politicization of the religious right, who was also commissioned by the House Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Ways and Means Committee to complete a study as part of their investigation into whether television and radio ministries were violating their tax-exempt status by virtue of their political activities.
Basically, she’s no dummy. And no hyperbolic conspiracy theorist.
“The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State” is a long article, but well worth your time to read—and, clearly, far more comprehensive than I would have been able to put together in short order. I’m interested to hear the thoughts/reactions of anyone who takes the time to check it out.
Congressional Dominionists: The Wingnuttery Escalates
Emboldened, I suppose, by the president’s alleged mandate, the public’s willingness to be increasingly tolerant of extremism as long as its roots are religious, and the media’s new love affair with all things God, some of the wingnuttiest members of the Senate have decided to attempt to turn us into a Christian Reconstructionist theocracy once and for all and have introduced the Constitutional Restoration Act.
Though it is described as a “bill to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism,” reading its actual summary proves enlightening as to its true intent: this legislation seeks to make it possible for Congress to remove any judge who refuses to acknowledge that the basis for all law, liberty, and government is God.
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.(An identical bill has been introduced in the House.)
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution. (Emphasis mine; hat tip Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast.)
Okay, the time has come to pull out the tinfoil hats for those who still bother with those things and have a big discussion of the rise of Dominionsism (or Christian Reconstructionsim) in America. But first, I have to finish up my work day, go home, have a Stewart’s Orange Cream soda, and then I will endeavor to bring us all up to speed on how this is not the beginning of a new trend, but the culmination of a long struggle by these nutjobs. Having been particularly interested in this subject for awhile now, let’s just say this doesn’t really surprise me at all—which is not to say that I am still not scared and infuriated by it. (I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing, but it's notable that it's being attempted nonetheless.)
So, more later, as time allows, and I’ll give you this to chew on for the interim…regular Shakers will no doubt have noticed that I tend to harp on a lot about social Darwinism. Well, here’s why: social Darwinism is a political extension of Dominionism, which itself seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite using their interpretation of biblical law as the one true source of law, liberty, and government.
Sound familiar? If not, try rereading paragraph three.
Gunning for Trouble
In a NY Times article which examines the absurdity of our nation’s gun laws, we find out that, in a realization of our worst fears, terrorists are taking advantage of some of the shocking gaps that remain in the legislation, which inarguably has swung too far toward protecting the most expansive interpretation of the second amendment and away from national security concerns:
If a background check shows that you are an undocumented immigrant, federal law bars you from buying a gun. If the same check shows that you have ties to Al Qaeda, you are free to buy an AK-47. That is the absurd state of the nation's gun laws, and a recent government report revealed that terrorist suspects are taking advantage of it…In the interest of full disclosure, I frankly believe the second amendment was written at a time when gun ownership was a necessity in a way it is not today; I don’t believe that owning a gun is warranted, unless for the purposes of hunting, a hobby I personally find distasteful, but would not seek to deny others’ rights to pursue. In any case, I take no political issue with the second amendment in and of itself (its interpretation and application are where my problems lie), and no stand against the existence of a group like the NRA, which seeks to ensure Americans are guaranteed the right extended by said amendment.
The Government Accountability Office examined F.B.I. and state background checks for gun sales during a five-month period last year. It found 44 checks in which the prospective buyer turned up on a government terrorist watch list. A few of these prospective buyers were denied guns for other disqualifying factors, like a felony conviction or illegal immigration status. But 35 of the 44 people on the watch lists were able to buy guns.
[…]
Keeping terror suspects from buying guns seems like an issue the entire nation can rally around. But the National Rifle Association is, as usual, fighting even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases. After the G.A.O. report came out, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, took to the airwaves to reiterate his group's commitment to ensuring that every citizen has access to guns, and to cast doubt on the reliability of terrorist watch lists.
Unfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - is too often the driving force on gun policy in Congress, particularly since last November's election. Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack.
I do, however, have a big, fat problem with the NRA's tactics and with the gun laws in this country, for the reasons outlined in the above-cited article, and, as I’ve mentioned in a comments thread here before, my biggest issue with America’s gun laws is this: I could own a gun.
I have no business owning a gun—I would have no idea how to properly use it, load it, clean it, or store it. I have no earthly reason to need a gun, either—I live in a low crime area, I have a secure home (touch wood), I’m not a hunter, I’m not in a job that creates enemies and necessitates extraordinary self-protection, etc. No knowledge of guns, no reason for a gun, and likely one of the poor dopes who, if face to face with an intruder, would end up having my own gun used against me. Yet, I could have a gun in my possession in a matter of days. That’s some faulty legislation.
Now, I know that gun aficionados will tell me that most gun owners are responsible people who do know how to properly use, load, clean, and store their weapons, and that they have a legitimate reason for owning them, whether it’s home security or sport. And I’m sure that’s true. I’m sure that most gun owners are responsible; sheerly by virtue of the number of guns we have in this country, it must be. But why should potential gun owners not be compelled to show such competency before being issued a weapon? Patent lunacy. Bad policy.
Soon after Mr. Shakes moved to the US, he walked down to a local superstore, which he found endlessly fascinating—“You can buy groceries and giant tractor tires in the same place?!” Being from Britain, he was particularly intrigued by the racks of guns for sale, right next to sporting goods, which was right next to toys. When he returned home that day, he said to me, amazed, “I’ve just found out the price of murder in America: $302. Two dollars for a hunting license. Three hundred dollars for a rifle.”
$302 and very little else standing between a person with murder on his mind and the means to do it.
Even, apparently, if he's on a terrorist watch list.
