Well, it's September 11th again, and nine years after the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the unknown third target, the big news is the fight over a mosque to be built in Manhattan (sometimes called the "Ground Zero Death to America Mosque and Terrorism School" by people who don't have enough real problems to get worked up about in their own lives.) The latest zany turn in the fight over whether people have the right to buy a building and use it for lawful religious purposes is the national furor over whether a deranged mustache in Florida, acting through its human puppet-avatar, has the right to burn a pile of Qurans (or possibly Korans.)
I'm not writing about this because I think there's anyone who might read it today who will say "Really? I hadn't heard about that!" It's all anyone is talking about today. I'm just recording that fact here so that, in the next few years, I can check a hypothesis. I think once the Mad Mustache gives up on book-burning (at least book-burning that makes terrorists angry) and the Westboro Baptist Nutty-Butter Church of Crazy burns an even bigger pile of books while chanting and holding up signs (such as "God Hates Everybody" and "What Does It Take to Get Martyred in This Country, Anyway?) the whole thing will die down. I think the mosque will get built, and the world will turn, and it'll probably turn out to be just another "community center." And I think that once that happens, the whole furor will be more or less forgotten by most Americans. Maybe by me, too, with the damage 24-hour news and internets have done to my precious, irreplaceable attention span. I just want to have a record here so that on future 9/11 anniversaries I can look back and remember that in 2010, we gave up on the idea of commemorating the attack that killed thousands of innocent Americans in one day, made us question everything we had assumed we knew about our own lives, and launched two wars. In 2010, we decided 9/11 was a good day for trivial bullshit, and I can't even pretend to be above it all because my own blatherings are recorded in my own archive in the post prior to this one.
At the very least, no matter how far I got sucked into the triviality and foolishness, even if I bought the hype just a little, let the record reflect in my defense that I managed to remember the real reason today matters in time to be a little ashamed.
I don't think the Nobel Committee knows that President Bush was limited to two terms. I think they thought that Obama deposed Bush much the same way that Von Stauffenberg tried to depose Hitler--ending his reign of terror for the good of humanity. They don't need to see evidence that President Obama has actually done anything to benefit world peace on his own watch, because toppling the Bushitler dictatorship was achievement enough for one lifetime.
Why, it can't be! I'm SHOCKED, I tell you! No, wait, no I'm not. This was completely predictable and widely predicted. Sorry, I forgot for a minute there.
Before you get your panties in a knot, observe that those aren't my words. I'm quoting the person who used a few dollars worth of office supplies to expose Birthers as what they are: people who really, truly believe in the power of magical thinking.
If only someone had pushed Steve McNair out a high window or put rat poison in his beer, tragedy could have been avoided. But no . . . . he was murdered by a gun. A cultured one. And Mike Lupica is saddened.
I'm not sure where to start. David Codrea would say "Forget it, Jake, it's Chi-town," but I can't let it go. So let's start with the "Hired Truck Scandal." The link goes to Wikipedia's excellent summary, but the short-short version is that Chicago was supposed to be leasing privately-owned trucks for city jobs, thus saving all the expense of buying and maintaining their own fleet. What they did instead was to give huge amounts of money to trucking companies owned by the mafia and by friends and family of the Daleys (but I repeat myself.) They rented trucks by the hour which sat motionless for days on end. They also allowed the drivers of these trucks to drive off with huge amounts of the city's asphalt, which was then used in private projects. Your basic Chicago money-saving reform, in other words.
OK, that's the start. Then we have another scandal, in which Mayor Daley's nephew (Robert Vanecko) was for some reason given the job of investing $68 million in funds from the police, fire, and municipal pension funds. He poured the money down all manner of ratholes, making himself and his friends very rich in the process. Daley was shocked. Shocked, I say. Again, your basic day in Chicago, nothing to get too worked up about, I guess. Then Vanecko and his partners bought a 90% interest in a warehouse on Pulaski. The warehouse was near one of the city's asphalt suppliers, and since the city was now leasing a bunch of trucks long-term (remember, hiring the trucks by the hour for jobs didn't work out so well) they wanted to use the warehouse as a storage facility for their trucks. The city and Vanecko both say that he wasn't really involved in any negotiations, and the city says they moved in before Vanecko took ownership of the building. They said it, I believe it, good enough for me.
That brings us to this week's story in the Chicago Sun-Times. Now we meet Candy Basselen, the owner of Springfield Supply, a steel fabrication shop operating, coincidentally enough, in that same warehouse on Pulaski. Well, it used to operate. Basselen says the city put her out of business by refusing to let her renew her business license last September when she moved into the warehouse. Their excuse? The warehouse (the one she doesn't own, remember?) doesn't meet city code. Maybe, like Basselen, you're thinking that sounds like a problem for an owner, not a tenant, but that wouldn't be The Chicago Way. In Chicago, the way it works is, somebody had a problem with Basselen in that warehouse, so Basselen had to have a problem, too, and somebody kept looking until they found a good problem for her to have. So she was completely out of business from September of last year to April of this year, when the city finally relented--after it was too late for her to stay in business because she had brought in zero dollars for eight months. I can't wait to find out what the real reason for all this was. My guess is that Basselen's business was in the way of a deal that was going to make Vanecko or another crony very rich.
Oh, and what were the city code violations for which the tenant of the warehouse on Pulaski was denied a business license, while the city used the same facility? The property didn't have enough trees and shrubs, and it didn't have a wrought-iron fence. One owner of the property says the required changes are "less than $75,000 of work." And apparently everyone involved is dead serious and saying all this with a straight face.
Chicago business licensing; because employing people sucks, and Chicago hates you for it.
Second City Cop tries once again to point out that it's probably not a good idea for Cook County (that's Chicago for all of you in the Free Kingdoms) to be employing lawyers with deep Outfit connections as prosecutors. 'Cuz, see, if your prosecutor has a mafioso for an ex, and her kids' godfather is . . . you know . . . a Godfather kind of godfather . . . . certain complications are foreseeable.
I'll be honest: I was a little disappointed with the attendance at the Second Amendment Freedom Rally this year. Last year's crowd was larger, probably at least partly because the Heller decision and the presidential election energized a lot of casually pro-gun people. By comparison, this year's crowd was smaller . . . . but it was hard not to notice that the famous Father Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger of the Snuffy and JJ Show came out to protest us with a whopping three followers and no Jesse Jackson. I'm not kidding; this photo is not doctored in any way and there's no tricky use of angles. This is just the best Snuffy could do.
Incidentally, if you look closely, you can see a kid bravely holding up the wall in the background so that it won't fall, snuffing Snuffy and his three loyal disciples. Kane was interested in the SAFR event and all, but here he's staring at the police officers. He has just discovered that the Chicago PD uses four-wheel ATVs . . . with blue strobe lights . . . . and street tires. Naturally, he is impressed. That's Kenny Polhamus of KAP Guns grinning like a drunken tourist in some poor girl's spring break photo (that would make you the young lady, Snuffy.) What I really didn't get was the purpose behind showing up with four people holding incomprehensible signs. The NRA is a corporate gun dealer? Wha? Let's look at all the ways that's odd:
The NRA doesn't sponsor the SAFR, Snuffy. That would be the ISRA and IllinoisCarry with a lot of help from the Second Amendment Sisters, Pink Pistols, and others. CORE was a big help this year (yes, the Congress Of Racial Equality.) The NRA didn't even send a representative this year, although an NRA member set up a table with NRA literature.
The NRA actually does sometimes sell guns, usually commemorative items, but I wouldn't say it's a gun dealer in any normal sense of the word. Either way, you don't explain why it's a bad thing to be a gun dealer. Are you assuming that people will see the words "gun dealer" and think "Heavens to Murgatroyd, not in my neighborhood!"? I don't see that happening.
If you're going to be a gun dealer, is it better to be a private company than a corporation? Why?
(Thanks to Robb Allen for the Sad Panda icon and Chris Conmy for the photos from SAFR. Click the Panda to see Robb's blog; click the photos to see Chris's other photos.)
Look, I swear to you, I tried not to care about the Miss California deal. I did. A flap between a sparkly beauty queen and a sparkly internet drama queen is not something I want to admit I care about . . . . but today I caught some of Perez Hilton's comments on video, and it jogged some thoughts loose, so here we go.
First, I was struck by the way the whole thing was presented. If you haven't heard yet, the Miss USA pageant was held recently, and "Perez Hilton" (get it?!?) was one of the celebrity judges. I didn't watch it, and for a few days afterward, I heard over and over on sources from NPR to local radio to TV news and the internet that there had been a repeat of the " . . . and such as!" incident from a year or two ago. Nobody actually quoted what the woman said; I didn't even find out that she'd said something about gay marriage until a few days after. When I finally found out what she'd said, my first thought was that she was wrong, but . . . . where was the stupid? Where was the idiocy we were all supposed to mock? I just wasn't seeing what was so idiotic about a woman giving her opinion on the issue.
Later, when I saw Hilton's statements, I could only sigh and wish that he and I were on opposite sides of this issue. Unfortunately, we're not. I agree with him; if two adult people say they both want to commit to a marriage, everybody else should butt out. And I disagree with Miss California; her opinion is her opinion, but I think we all know gay marriage is coming, and it's not going to hurt anybody else's marriage when it does. If you're not buying that, you're entitled to your opinion, too, but keep me updated as Iowa's family structure falls apart in the coming years, because I may miss it.
Still and all, sharing Perez Hilton's side of anything is uncomfortable. Here he is blathering on at length and in detail about how Miss USA has to "represent everyone" and Miss California was "being divisive" with her answer. Really? Who asked the question, Pez-head? Was that you? Did you notice that you asked a simple, binary, yes-or-no question? She couldn't answer your question honestly without alienating someone. Your trouble is that you're defining "represent" as "agree with" and alleging that if she doesn't agree with you, she isn't representing you. That's a problem for two reasons, the first of which is that you think Miss USA is supposed to represent you. In what body or proceedings are you ever going to be represented by Miss USA? I'll tell you right now, Miss USA doesn't represent me. Ever. Actually, I probably shouldn't throw stones, since my federal representatives include Barry "Barack" Obama, Roland "Tombstone" Burris and Dick "Dick"Durbin. Maybe I should look into being represented by Miss USA and Miss America in future, actually, but that's neither here nor there.
I promised you two reasons, didn't I? Well, the second reason is that Hilton asked the question and thus set Miss California up to make a choice. The only choice he left her was between "representing" (in his parlance) either the people who want to prevent gay marriages or the people who want to allow gay marriages. That was it. Since he defines representation as slavish agreement, it's not possible for her to represent both sides--for one side to get what it demands, the other side has to lose what it wants. There really isn't a middle of the road. He could just say "Obviously, I disagree, and here's why gay marriage is important . . . " But that would require thinking his position through and considering whether it's really what he believes, and that's a lot like work. I shouldn't expect more than that from someone who snarks celebrities for a living, but apparently I did.
Paul Helmke says The Mexican CanardTM is now to be considered separate from the lie that 90% of Mexican crime guns come from the United States civilian market, which is now to be considered "a red herring."
Paul, we knew that lie was a red herring the first time you repeated it. The problem from your point of view is that we already know you and yours intended it to fool the rest of the country, not the other way around. The pro-gun side of things didn't introduce the idea of the 90% myth, you know--that was you. For you to call your own argument a red herring is kind of a big slip.
The Rev. Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger has written a letter to his legislators, which is to say, my legislators. He's outraged that House Bill 48 was defeated in the Illinois House of Representatives this week. I can understand his frustration, but it seems to me that he makes the error most common to the passionate advocate for any cause: he assumes that those who opposed him must actually share his worldview. Since they must agree with him (how could anyone possibly think differently than he does?) they must be corrupt, dishonest, afraid . . . . anything except voting in opposition to him because they think his way of doing things is wrong:
To: Illinois House Representatives
From: Rev. Michael L. Pfleger, Saint Sabina Church
Re: HB48
Date: March 26, 2009
To all the legislators who voted no to HB48, I ask the question, why?I watched and listened to your hollow arguments and your statements wondering whether HB48 would make things any better or not, or whether there was a better bill that could do more, but I could not help but think maybe, yes, maybe there is better legislation to be written. Maybe this won't do enough, but why weren't you willing to try to see, to give it a chance? If you do nothing, nothing will change. If you do something, you are putting yourself in position to make a difference. Especially since you have offered no other legislation. Are your hearts that insensitive or your allegiance to the National Rifle Association that strong that you could not say well we'll give it a try? Anything to help save one life - anything to try and stop one more gun from getting into the wrong hands.
Yes, I watched and listened to your arguments loud and clear, but I also hear the blood of my foster son who was killed by gun violence and the countless other sons and daughters killed by gun violence crying out from the grave. Perhaps, like Cain, in the book of Genesis, you ask, "Am I my brother's keeper?" The answer then and the answer now is, yes!
I wonder when another life is gunned down, if you will feel anything. I continue to pray for you and for the safety for your children and all our children.
You asked, Father Pfleger, so I'll answer. I didn't have a vote on the House floor, of course, but I can tell you why I lobbied against your bill, and I imagine some of the reasons are the same. Others are so obvious I don't think it takes a lot of insight to see them--IF you are capable of imagining that other people have experiences and think thoughts that have nothing to do with your own.
HB48 would be unconstitutional. Especially in a post-Heller world, this is an issue whether you would like to face it or not. I realize that there are a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books already, at the municipal, county, state and federal level, but that doesn't make it right, nor does it excuse adding another one.
HB48 would be an undue burden on gun owners. I know you believe that there is no undue burden on gun owners, because you believe that those burdens prevent murders, and you consider this a debate of convenience vs. life. Given that choice, most people would choose life . . . . but the choice is a false one. The idea that I should have to go to a retail store to loan someone a firearm, when I can sell him gasoline, matches, a car, rope, duct tape or a million other deadly implements and substances with no questions asked, is foolish.
HB48 would not reduce violence in Chicago. Generally I don't approve of utilitarian arguments used to defend principles, but I know you think in terms of utilitarian outcomes and I want to help. The fact is that an extra layer of background checks on people who follow gun laws will have no effect on people who don't--and the people shooting people in Chicago don't follow gun laws. If they did, they'd apply for FOID cards and be background-checked at that point. Anyone who can get a FOID card today would pass your proposed background check, and anyone who lives outside the law and buys or sells guns without a FOID card would never submit to your proposed background check, either. The madness of proposing a second background check as a way of catching people who don't submit to the first background check should speak for itself.
Finally, let me indulge in a bit of hypocrisy and speak to you as if you share my worldview for a moment. You see, your letter reinforces a widely held belief among pro-gun advocates that activists like yourself don't expect your latest law to have a real impact any more than we do; you intend, instead, for the law to pass and get you one incremental step closer to your real goal, either eliminating private gun ownership or restricting it as strictly as you can manage. Admitting that your bill isn't going to accomplish anything only makes this explanation seem more accurate.
Hi, Howard University students and/or staff! Nice to see you here. Did you really stop in, read this blog, and have nothing to say about the Rev. "Snuffy" Pfleger? Or Rep. Annazette Collins? Or the ludicrous ridiculosity (if that's not a word, it should be) of sending a gaggle of college kids halfway across the country to spend their spring break lobbying for a law they won't have to live under and likely don't understand? I notice you out-clicked to my profile picture, and I know what you're thinking, so I'm just going to end it right here: yes, that is Jayne Cobb's hat. My wife taught herself to knit so she could make it for me for Christmas a couple of years ago. She thought of it as a gag gift, but I wear it daily during the winter. Pretty cunning, ain't it?
Now, this next little friend from Washington, D.C. might not be on board with the Howard Alternative Spring Break agenda. I'm just guessing here, but this person came here from Turonistan and clicked out to Days of Our Trailers (Best Blog Name EVAR.) Entirely possible that this particular person may have been enjoying a chuckle at Snuffy's expense.
As you love me, dear friends . . . . as you love yourselves, your posterity, and your liberty, call these people and simply say "Please vote no on HB 48 and all other gun control in the House." It's coming up for a vote today or tomorrow, and it would eliminate private firearm sales in Illinois completely. Borrowing a shotgun from your dad to go hunting would require the same FFL transfer process as the federal government currently requires when you buy a handgun from a seller in another state--AND it would limit the FFL to a $10 fee for his services, which means he's not going to be offering that service for long.
If you're not from Illinois, don't feel bad. The Rev. "Snuffy" Pfleger, who last year threatened to "snuff out the legislators who are voting against our gun legislation" is going to be in Springfield today, and he's bringing along 70 college kids from New Jersey and Washington, D.C. to lobby for HB 48. If you're from New Jersey or Florida or Minnesota, you have every right to match their efforts, and I'd consider it a personal favor. If any office staff seem surprised that you're calling from out of state, you might mention the carpet-baggers from the east coast lobbying for the other side today.
"Snuffy" Pfleger (remember him?) is coming to Springfield tomorrow. It seems he's decided to have a lobbying day of his very own. I could have warned him that it's a lot of work, but maybe if the Joyce Foundation pays the freight, it's not so bad. He's telling people he'll have a group of 350 people boarding buses in Chicago tomorrow morning; we shall see. More interesting to me is the group that's getting as much or more media attention: a group of students from Howard and Princeton Universities who are spending their spring break "fighting gun violence in Chicago." I thought maybe they were going into the schools in Chicago and making peace between the gangs, but apparently they haven't had time for that. Then I thought maybe they were staking out street corners and preaching love and understanding to the Folks and the Peoples, but I was wrong again.
No, instead they're calling Illinois legislators and telling them to support HB 48, the bill that abolishes what remain of private transfers of handguns in Illinois. HB 48 requires that anyone who sells, gives, or loans a handgun to anyone else in Illinois go to an FFL, transfer the gun to the FFL, have him call in the NCIS background check and hold the gun for the required waiting period, then transfer it to the new owner. Even worse, the FFL is mandated to do all this work and waiting for $10, so he's getting screwed just as hard as the buyer and the seller. Egalitarianism at its finest, you might say. Since these kids aren't from Illinois, it's possible that they don't understand what they're lobbying to do. Basically, they're asking to add another layer of background checks less extensive than the first layer Illinois already uses. Since they don't seem to think the first layer does much good (or don't even realize it's there) I'm not sure what they expect the second layer to do. For those unfamiliar with the Illinois system, all Illinois residents need a FOID card to purchase, own, use or possess firearms or ammunition of any kind. In order to get your FOID card, you submit all your personal information, which is used to run an extensive background check--mental health, criminal records, NCIS, all the rest--a process which currently averages around 70 days despite the time limit of 30 days set in the statute. Once you jump through all those hoops, your FOID is issued, but your name then goes into the pile of names that are checked daily to see if any matches come up with the aforementioned databases. If you match one of the naughty databases, your FOID will be revoked. This has not stopped Illinois from outpacing every contiguous state in violent crime, murder, and crimes committed with guns by a wide margin, but the thinking seems to be that if we just run the background check one more time, all that can change.
Frankly, I'm puzzled at this strategy. It seems to me that these kids could have made phone calls from their respective universities without traveling to Chicago for a week. Don't they have phone service in New Jersey and Washington, D.C. nowadays? I would have thought that the best reason to travel here for a week would have been to do something in person, but it looks like the only thing they're going to do in person is ride a bus to Springfield and lobby for another layer of background checks. I shouldn't be puzzled. This is the oldest trick in the book. People want to feel they're doing something about an intractable problem, but the real solutions are hard and dangerous. Going after the people who are actually dangerous to kids in Chicago is too much to ask; those people are dangerous. Someone could get hurt. Going after some middle-aged mom in the suburbs and making it harder for her to own a weapon won't do anything to the gang soldier on the south side, but at least it's safe to pick on law-abiding citizens.
One last thought--it would be interesting to know whether these kids had any help with their travel expenses from, for example, the Joyce Foundation, wouldn't it? I'm just wondering why kids from New Jersey and Washington, D.C. felt the need to travel to Chicago to push gun control when their own areas are such havens for the idea . . . . if anyone was wondering whether Illinois would be a national battleground this year, I think the answer is clear now.
The latest column from the Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner discusses the perplexing case of Bearden v. Atlanta. Tim Bearden sued the city of Atlanta; he contends that a new Georgia law establishes that it is unlawful to prohibit CCW license holders from carrying concealed firearms on public transportation, including buses, trains, and in airports (at least the unsecured zones.) The City of Atlanta argues that the new law was not intended to apply to airports, and therefore its ban on carrying weapons in Atlanta's airport and its parking lots still stands. The court agreed with the city, upholding Atlanta's prohibition on the grounds that the bill Bearden cites was never intended to apply to airports.
"This is what the law means." "Nuh uh." "Well. . . . but . . . . I wrote the law." "Yeah, I know. Whattya want, a cookie?" "Well, no, but . . . I mean, I remember writing the law." "I remember doing your mom. Do I get a prize, too?" "That's really not . . . look I remember writing the law, and I remember choosing my words carefully so that it would apply to the airport." "I'm sure you honestly believe that, but on the other hand, no you didn't." "I'm pretty sure I did. Plus, we debated that bill on the floor, and the airport issue came up. I said it then, too." "You're confused. You look tired. You're getting . . . . sleeeepy." "What?" "Nothing. Are we done here?" "You're just going to keep saying weird things and stonewalling, aren't you?" "We could talk about your mom some more." "Yeah, we're done."
A few years ago, the annual "Lobbying Day" for the ISRA was a small affair. Then the ISRA decided that it was possible to grow it into a signature event, and they began putting a lot more effort into it and asking for more effort from others as well. The event did grow year by year, going from an event of a hundred people or so to 300, to 500, to 750, and so on. The year before last, they had over 1,000 people and were thrilled. Last year, it drew about 2,500 people. Through all that time, television, radio and print news ignored the event almost completely.Tom Shafer, Gadfly in Chief of the Sangamon County Rifle Association, contacted the news director at WICS TV 20 in Springfield to ask, in his own inimitable fashion, why the station had chosen not to cover such an event.
"I told her, look at that picture and tell me that ain't news!" Tom says. "A march of people for a cause, shuts down all the streets it passes, fills up the capitol outside and in, people marching for a civil right, and that ain't news? That's crazy!"
"You're right," he says he was told, "that's news, and we should have been there. I'll have somebody there for sure this year."
Well, the good news is that they did send someone to cover the event. The bad news is that they used very little of the video they took. The rest of the piece was filled in with stock footage of a local gun shop. The really bad news is that they used the voiceover to turn the piece into a chance to take a pot shot at those crazy, paranoid gun cranks:
Really? After years of coming to the capitol in ever-increasing numbers, lobbying lawmakers in a peaceful fashion, and developing a friendly relationship with the Secretary of State police officers who guard the place . . . . gun owners did the same thing again this year? Shocking. That's really news, all right.
Now, here's the real crux of the story: it doesn't really matter what they said. They can insert whatever snide, insulting commentary they want. The truth is that we didn't need them in order to grow the event. We didn't depend on their "news" coverage to go from a few hundred to 1000 to 2500 to 3500 citizen lobbyists traveling to the capitol on their own dimes, paying their own ways, not getting even the proverbial free lunch. We did it all without them, and they have nothing we really need to offer and nothing to withold. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what they say about us, because the important part is that they were forced to say anything at all. They can insult us, but they can't ignore us.
Hey, don't forget about IGOLD 2010. Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at the state capitol building in Springfield. Be there!
So, apparently the skyscraper-dwelling tree-huggers who live along Lake Michigan in Chicago have their frilly underthings in a twist because the Chicago Fire Department made a decision not to send its scuba team into Lake Michigan (through ice, no less) to save . . . a coyote.
They don't appear to be kidding, either. It seems they are actually angry that professional rescue/EMS workers made the decision not to risk human lives to save a game animal some of them probably shoot on the weekends. Hey, folks, I think turkeys and whitetails are beautiful, but if I saved one from drowning within a mile of the farm where I hunt, my good friend the landowner would think twice about letting me come back the next year. There's a reason he lets me hunt there for free, and it's at least partly based on controlling the numbers of animals he considers varmints.
This reminds me of a letter to the editor I saw in the Chicago Tribune years ago while I was visiting my in-laws (this was before they were my in-laws.) Wisconsin was considering creating a hunting season for mourning doves at the time. That proposal led a dingbat from Chicago to bleat loudly in consternation. She would never, ever, ever visit Wisconsin again. She would keep her money in Illinois; no state barbaric enough to allow rednecks to blast the bird of peace with shotguns would get another cent from her. They'd be sorry, that's what!
I actually did write a short letter to the editor of my own, pointing out that Illinois has had a legal dove season for as long as I can remember, and that the breasts of the poor little things were delicious rolled in pancake flour and pan-fried. At the end, just to be on the safe side, I pointed out that Chicago is located in Illinois. I don't know whether the Tribune published my rebuttal, but it put a smile on my face and that's all that counts in my little world.
The ironically-named "Freedom States Alliance" is trying a new tack--now they're accusing "the gun lobby" (that's you and me, folks, in case it wasn't clear) of working to "normalize abnormal behavior." They've got a handy quiz you can take to tell whether you're properly scandalized, appropriately frightened, or, presumably, another one of those abnormal weirdos.
Would you be willing to:
Sip hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you?
Attend a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt?
Stand in line at a bank to make a deposit as two men enter with baseball hats on and what appear to be guns in their pockets?
Board a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers carrying concealed weapons?
Well, let's think about that, shall we?
"Sip hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you?"
Absolutely not! I don't pay Starbucks prices.
"Attend a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt?"
Heck no! I don't go to church, either. (No disrespect to my Christian friends, but you don't go to your local mosque for the same reason I don't go to church.) I think I'm doing pretty well on this quiz.
"Stand in line at a bank to make a deposit as two men enter with baseball hats on and what appear to be guns in their pockets?"
Aha! A place I go. Let's see, I'm at the bank, and two guys have what appear to be guns in their pockets . . . how am I figuring that? Are their pockets bulging in the shape of guns?
"Board a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers carrying concealed weapons?"
OK, I admit it, I don't want to ride a crowded bus with a newborn. I get what they're after, here, of course. I'm supposed to be horrified at these scenarios, right? But there's something they left out: nobody is doing anything threatening or scary with these guns. There's no threat. I'm not frightened of some guy peacefully sipping his coffee, nor do I particularly care whether a couple of guys want to walk into a bank. I don't mind if five guys want to sit on a bus, either, and since the scenario doesn't say they're doing anything wrong . . . . or even giving an indication that they might do something wrong later . . . . I guess I'm missing the part where I decided that they're a threat. Actually, the one on the bus is particularly puzzling, since it specifies that their weapons are concealed. I'm supposed to be frightened of their guns without even knowing they're there? That's asking rather a lot.
Of course, that's not the question I'm supposed to be asking. What they're really hoping for here is the kind of reader who will pick up on their implied fear and adopt it as his own. They'd like the reader to realize, on some level, that the people in their examples are to be feared and hated because they possess those guns--the reader should make the logical leap that a person behaving normally with a weapon in his possession is no longer acting normally. You really have to wonder how they would feel about eating lunch at McDonald's next to a police officer with a Glock on his hip.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, these scenarios are already perfectly legal in many parts of the United States and are occurring with more frequency and bravado. Next time you take your child on an outing with you, think about how many people within earshot may be carrying a gun as you wait in line at the aquarium, sit in a theater watching a movie, or shop at the local grocery store.
Yes, think about. And while you're at it, check yourself for gunshot wounds. Then listen carefully for the screams of the wounded and dying. Look around and see if you can spot the bullet holes in the aquarium and the theater. No? None of those things are happening around you? But if the guns cause violence, and you're in a room with people with guns, then clearly there must gun violence going on . . . . unless someone is lying to you.
Well, I guess I haven't been paying attention. I'm hearing now that Roland Burris was "the only politician actively lobbying for the vacated seat even after Blagojevich was arrested." I suppose Blago is just giving him what he wants, huh? Still seems like it'll end up being a gift of rope as far as I can see. The Democrats in the Senate cannot seat this guy now no matter what happens, and they know it. They've already committed, in public, to keeping Burris out.
A friend of a friend was on the radio a little while ago. He's known Burris for a long time, apparently (I shouldn't be surprised; this guy seems to know everybody) and he was trying to explain what Burris might be thinking here . . . . but he was struggling. Burris was semi-retired from public politics for awhile, and he was what passes for highly respected in Illinois. I had no use for him, but then again he and I disagree on some basic political principles. For one thing, I think that if you're going to convince--or compel--people to give up their guns, you should give up your own first. Set an example and all that.
Here's a thought that's worth exactly what you're paying for it:
A co-worker asked me today why Rod Blagojevich (D-Father-In-Law) would have had his defense attorney stay in the Governor's Mansion in Springfield, IL. It's a fair question, because at first glance, it looks like a pointless and stupid thing to do. Blago has long been the butt of jokes all over the state because he refused to move to Springfield when he was elected Governor. Springfield is the capital of Illinois, and the Governor's Mansion is a beautiful house on some beautiful land, but Rod was determined that his family would live in Chicago, not some backwater provincial capital where he could walk a couple of blocks and be in a neighborhood where poor people live in small houses. People here the Springfield area, of course, have a special hatred for him, and a lot of people keep a sort of mental tab running on the bill taxpayers are footing for him to fly to Springfield and back on a private state-owned airplane every time he wants to put in an appearance at the capitol.
The latest outrage came when people found out that although Blago is still not staying in the Governor's Mansion, Ed Genson has been staying there while he's in Springfield for Blagojevich's impeachment hearings. Giving the defense lawyer free room and board in the people's mansion has not been a popular move. The guy has more money than anybody in Springfield who isn't under indictment, and the best hotels in Springfield would be cheap to him. Besides, even if Blago is too stupid to know what the reaction would be, surely Genson had to know that people would be upset at this. So why do it?
Well, it's always possible that they just did something stupid and blind. That's how Blago got into this mess, and from the taped conversations we've all heard now, it does seem likely that we've overestimated his ability to think through the consequences of his actions. But what if we assume that there's some logical plan? What logical reason comes to mind? Here's the only thing I've come up with: Rod Blagojevich is looking for ways to piss people off.
Why do that? Because he has just about zero leverage. He can't do anything with his power as Governor, because the Legislature will undo it. He can't appoint the new Senator because he won't be seated. He's got no allies left; the power brokers never liked him that much before, and now it's poison to be seen not spitting on him. He has one card, and only one card, left to play: he can hang on, refuse to leave, and grind Illinois government to a complete halt. He made it clear today that he's planning to do exactly that; "I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until my dying breath," he said; it was poetry worthy of Whitesnake. Why hang on? Because the only thing he has left to trade for anything of value is his resignation. The only thing of value he can promise in return for what he wants (presumably leniency of some kind) is to go away without doing further damage. And the more upset and wild-eyed the public gets, the more value that card has, because there could eventually be political consequences for the people the public expects to remove Blagojevich if they can't get it done. If the public hates Blagojevich more and more, and if he can hang on and not get removed by impeachment in a timely manner, he can then offer his enemies his resignation in return for favors he wants. Under this wild-eyed conspiracy theory, it's hard to tell which insults are deliberately cultivated for the purpose of building this tension and which are the result of a thug with more hair than brains thrashing around without thinking much. But some things might make more sense. For instance:
Why else put Genson up in the Governor's Mansion, the one place in Springfield guaranteed to infuriate the citizenry even more?
Why else would Genson be making a special effort to mock belittle the legislators on the impeachment panel?
Now, again, I realize that these things may just be the byproducts of arrogance and stupidity. But I can't help but wonder whether there's a plan.
