I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Probably going to end u with the dreaded marks....but just read this and no surpise at all:

Family Ties” vs. “Modern Family”: If you want to know why Republicans are
from Mars and Democrats are from Venus, or why Republicans are the “Family Ties”
party and Democrats are the “Modern Family” party, just look at our NBC/WSJ
poll. Fourteen years ago, back in 1999, the poll asked this question: What
should be a more important goal for society -- promoting greater respect for
traditional values, or encouraging greater tolerance? An overwhelming majority
of Republicans (by 76%-16%), a majority of independents (54%-31%), and a
plurality of Democrats (49%-41%) all picked traditional values. But when we
asked that question again in our new NBC/WSJ poll, there was a significant
change: Almost two-thirds of Democrats picked tolerance (64%-31%), and
independents moved, too (narrowly siding with traditional values, 48%-43%). But
the Republican percentage remained virtually the same from 1999 (77%-18%). This
movement by Democrats and the non-movement by Republicans might very well
represent the biggest difference between the two political parties, especially
when it comes to social issues and values.

What a beautiful, beautiful bird. 

A little something else.  I note the one Senator who just couldn't bring himself around.

*** The Gang of 16: Yesterday, by a 68-31
vote, a group of bipartisan senators defeated a GOP filibuster on the
Democratic-backed gun-control measure, so now Senate debate begins on the
legislation. Sixteen GOP senators voted against the filibuster, while two
Democrats (Mark Begich and Mark Pryor, both up for re-election next year in red
states) voted for it. But we want to focus on the 16 GOP senators for a second,
because they tell a larger story beyond guns. Here are the 16 who voted for
cloture: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Richard Burr (R-NC), Saxby
Chambliss (R-GA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN),
Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven
(R-ND), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), John McCain (R-AZ), Pat Toomey
(R-PA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS). If you’re the White House, these are the
universe of 16 GOP senators willing to work you – on the budget, immigration,
and guns. Of course, there’s one VERY BIG exception: Marco Rubio, who’s working
on the bipartisan immigration proposal, voted FOR the filibuster.  But for the
most part, these 16 senators have been ones most open to going to a dinner with
the president (in fact, we think all but three have been to a dinner with him
already), and they all seem to playing a part in one of the compromise working
groups, either immigration, the budget or guns. File away this list, you’ll need
it quite a bit if you are covering Congress.

GG - I lived on Whidbey Island once, near Clinton.  I hope that is the wet side of the island, as even if it might not get as much rain, it was very damp.  I think Langley was drier maybe?  Beautiful views of the Olympics!

Just saw the most disgusting tv ad on CNBC.  Basically urging one to sign a petition protecting their 2nd Ammendement rights as Congress was about to take their guns away.  I guess they can find 1 million people with that ad, but funny, they don't seem like the type that would be watching a business channel. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were mentioned, so who knows if they lent their name to it.

E - hoping for boring. Still, one big drag.

GG, the background checks are performed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS. It is part of the FBI. It is a system that checks the criminal history of individuals to see if they are convicted felons, have been adjudicated mentally ill, or are otherwise ineligible to possess a firearm (there are several other criteria, but those are the two most-commonly mentioned). If you go to www.fbi.gov, hover your cursor over "Stats & Services" and select "Gun Checks/NICS" from the drop-down menu, it will take you to the NICS homepage. All the regressive hysteria about not prosecuting people who fail background checks and are deemed ineligible to purchase a firearm completely miss the point that the person was not able to purchase the firearm. DUH! In addition, people might fail background checks because of inaccurate information, identity theft or mistaken identity, or the simple fact that they didn't know they weren't eligible. Even if they knowingly tried to buy a gun knowing they were ineligible, it is at most a prosecution for false statements (18 USC 1001). With prosecutorial resources thin and growing thinner to the point of transparency, I think Federal prosecutors devote more time to prosecuting bank robbers, drug traffickers, Medicare fraud, public corruption, and other crimes more pressing than false statements. False statements is usually an add-on charge.



L

HL - thank-you.  One of my friends was wondering about the effect background checks would have on people who might feel the need to get mental health treatment, but be afraid that if they did that it would then mean they could no longer pursue a hobby such as hunting or target practice.  I think the answer would "probably" be no effect.

Lucille Ball was a beautiful woman.  I didn't enjoy her humor much when I was young, but find it hilarious now.  The lipstick thing - I think she was a woman who would have jumped at the collagen treatment that so many movie folks seem to go for now.  She seemed to wish her lips were more luscious than they actually were, which is too bad, because IMHO lipstick that follows the natural lip line is much more beautiful than pretending your mouth is something that it ain't...  JMO, mind you.

GG, you are correct. To be denied a firearm on the grounds of mental health, you must be *adjudicated* mentally ill, meaning found to be so in a legal proceeding. Getting therapy for mental health issues would not qualify, unless they revealed in treatment that they were planning to harm people. I think then that the therapist is supposed to contact law enforcement. I don't know that part as well, but I will ask DH.



L

This sounds promising:

But quietly, lawmakers have been working on several plans that would lead to some of the most significant advancements in treating mental illness in years, proponents said. All stand a good chance of being in the final gun-control bill the Senate is now taking up.       

The legislation would, among other things, finance the construction of more community mental health centers, provide grants to train teachers to spot early signs of mental illness and make more Medicaid dollars available for mental health care.       

There would be suicide prevention initiatives and support for children who have faced trauma. The sponsors of one of the bills estimated that an additional 1.5 million people with mental illness would be treated each year.       

The issue is one of the more distinguishing — and unnoticed — aspects of the gun-control debate, which has been stymied by partisan squabbling.       

Unlike other initiatives that the Senate is likely to vote on — expanded background checks, a restriction on high-capacity ammunition magazines and a ban on certain semiautomatic weapons — mental health unites lawmakers Republican and Democrat, urban and rural, even those with safe seats versus those who may face competitive races.       

One bill, sponsored by Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, has been joined by some of the Senate’s most conservative members who are strongly backed by the National Rifle Association, including Marco Rubio of Florida and Roy Blunt of Missouri, both Republicans.       

Another bill, which has the support of Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, and Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, unanimously passed a Senate committee this week, something that could hardly be said about any of the gun legislation.       

“This is a place where people can come together,” Ms. Stabenow said. “As we’ve listened to people on all sides of the gun debate, they’ve all talked about the fact that we need to address mental health treatment. And that’s what this does.”

More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/us/politics/senators-make-bipartisan-push-for-mental-health-care.html?hp&pagewanted=print

Right, GG. People are killed in car accidents by drunk drivers and people who disobey traffic laws and signals. Does that mean we shouldn't have traffic laws? We should just let everyone drive wherever and however they want? Should we do away with driver's licenses because people drive without them anyway? It is a specious argument to say that gun regulation won't prevent gun deaths, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns. Food and medication regulations don't prevent deaths -- therefore we shouldn't regulate food or medication. Not. When it is harder to vote than it is to buy a gun, there is a problem.



L

Paula - I agree with the truism that someone who wants to kill will find a way. But many gun crimes are crimes of opportunity. In addition, with stricter gun laws parents of troubled teenagers may feel legally obligated to be careful about their firearms use. Crime will never go away, and nor will murder - not as long as animals walk the earth. So we can only fight for a lower degree of violence.

As long as the NRA convinces people in our culture that they have more right to shoot a bullet than to visit the doctor....tell me, which of those two --shooting a bullet and visiting a doctor-- lies more squarely on the side of LIFE and LIBERTY and which lies on the side of death?

To the extent that we can move further away from the death end of the life -death continuum, and further to the life end, then our society's most vulnerable citizens will be safer. We as country will be the mightier for it.

ETA: I crossposted with several. My paws are clumsy typing props.

Paula - I know that you said you were in favor of background checks and other things in the bill - but at the same time it felt to me (by the reference to 9/11 and the notable lack of guns in that instance - as well as the reference to bad guys always having guns) that your point was that an enactment of gun control will not fix things - the conclusion made by most people who level those arguments is that therefore gun control should not be passed.

Do I know how to solve the problems of our society?  No.  I don't.  I do feel very strongly that reasonable discussion is important and can help us make some baby steps toward improving our society.  I understand that many people who are uncomfortable with some (many) of the changes that have occurred in the last 40 years think that if we could just return to "Leave it to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" that all would be well with the world. 

What they don't seem to remember is that things were also very messed up then.  They may not have been AS messed up for white guys - but I remember pretty clearly just how difficult it was as a female to be accepted in my chosen field.  Remember how you used to have to ask the pharmacist for condoms?  Did that actually help reduce unwanted pregnancies?  Blocking access to birth control to people who are going to have sex anyway doesn't do anything other than cause either more abortions or more undesired pregnancies. 

I know this is far afield of the gun control issue -but it is a societal issue - and according to many the root cause of the need for additional gun control is the society - the violent society of the US.  But the point is that the 50's wasn't the glorious golden age that some people want to think it was.  It had problems - many problems - just not the exact same problems we are in the middle of now.

The single biggest thing IMHO that would help us solve some of the problems of our society is to get the nut cases who call themselves the media off the air.  When people are making millions by constantly spewing hatred it helps no one other than those who are getting rich on hate.  Hatred doesn't help, it hurts.  There is a lot to be said for middle ground and cooperation - each side finding points of agreement rather than disagreement.  The way to peace is not to pound your opponent into a pulp, but rather to find ways - to look for ways to get along despite your differences.  Differences make life interesting, not threatening.