Skip to content

Month: October 2015

Mass shootings aren’t natural disasters: The twisted logic that govern American gun-control

Mass shootings aren’t natural disasters: The twisted logic that governs American gun-control

by digby

I wrote about the Oregon shooting at Salon today:

It’s hurricane season and all along the east coast residents are girding themselves for major weather. Every once in a while a major storm makes landfall and property is destroyed and lives are lost. One hopes that doesn’t happen this year. But natural disasters are a fact of life people just learn to live with. Tornadoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, major floods and fires are considered to be acts of God and while we try to mitigate the damage everyone knows that we cannot stop them.  It’s just the way it is.
In America, gun violence is just another natural disaster. Like an earthquake for which you can never really be prepared, most people have come to see a mass killing like that which happened in Oregon yesterday as being unpreventable. We might as well try to stop the sun from coming up in the morning. All we can do is try to comfort the survivors and help people cope with the aftermath. On any given day we could personally be the victims of gun violence or turn on our TVs and computers and witness some kind of mass shooting, horrifying domestic dispute that ends in carnage, accidents or criminal activity. And that’s normal.
To the rest of the world, this is simply insane. Elsewhere they treat gun violence like a public health threat and limit the public’s exposure to it through strict gun regulation. Different cultures have slightly different approaches but there is no other developed country in the world that treats gun violence as if it were a simple fact of life they must live with.
But the fact that Americans accept this, doesn’t mean they want it to be this way. The polling shows that majorities of Americans support common sense gun regulations of the kind which are proven to work in other countries. The problem is that the political system is corrupted by the pro-gun lobbying groups which not only insist that society has no right to regulate their killing toys, they ensures that it has no ability to do it. Once again it has to be noted that after a disturbed young man went into an elementary school and gunned down 20 tiny first graders and 6 adults, everyone was so shocked that it was assumed that something would have to change. It was unthinkable that it wouldn’t.
But it didn’t.
I wrote about why in my last piece about gun carnage, after a disgruntled employee shot two former co-workers on live TV. We can thank one man who runs one powerful lobbying group, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. According to the Frontline documentary “Gunned Down” it was clear that the NRA was thrown by the Newtown massacre and there was personal pressure on board members to accede to some kind of gun safety regulation to appease the national sense of horror over the event. At the very least, they thought it would be wise for the organization to keep a low profile in the aftermath. But without telling anyone LaPierre staged a press conference in Washington DC and came out swinging. He said in no uncertain terms that there would be no compromise, no negotiation. He doubled down on the vacuous, insincere NRA logic that the reason those tiny children were gunned down in their 1st grade classrooms was the fact that there weren’t enough guns there. He infamously declared:
“The only way — the only way — to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun… What if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook elementary school last Friday, he’d been confronted by qualified armed security?
“Our children— we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it.”
The best they can do is to say that if we had sharp-shooters stationed in classrooms all over the country we could maybe cut the death toll. There would still be dead kids, of course. Maybe even more would die. But it is simply inconceivable to them that we might seek ways to end this violence in the first place. They say the world is full of monsters and predators. But just as we cannot hold back the tides it is impossible to keep deadly weapons out of their hands.
LaPierre gave no quarter after Newtown and the results speak for themselves. The bill the president pushed as hard as he could died in the Congress. And that, I believe, was the watershed that convinced Americans that we were impotent to deal with the problem. If the NRA is so powerful that it could single-handedly derail some very minor regulation in the wake of a massacre of babies then it just seemed hopeless. (And politicians wonder why people have lost faith in government.)
Yesterday, President Obama made yet another in a long line of impassioned speeches exhorting the congress to enact legislation to require a simple universal background check. He asked the press to show charts and graphs that illustrate the vast difference in deaths from firearms and terrorism, the latter problem of which we seem prepared to do absolutely anything to prevent and the former absolutely nothing. The difference is dramatic.
But the truth is that even national security will not deter gun-rights zealots from their rigid adherence to their cause.  Recall that in December of 2001, as Attorney General John Ashcroft was rounding up American and foreign Muslims by the hundreds, he refused to allow the FBI to check records to see if any of them had bought guns. This would have violated their 2nd Amendment rights, you see. The New York Times reported:
[I]t is in keeping with Attorney General John Ashcroft’s strong support of gun rights and his longstanding opposition to the government’s use of background check records. In 1998, as a senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft voted for an amendment to the Brady gun-control law to destroy such records immediately after checking the background of a prospective gun buyer. That amendment was defeated…
The Justice Department’s action has frustrated some F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials who say it puts the department at odds with its own priorities. Even as the department is instituting tough new measures to detain individuals suspected of links to terrorism, they say, it is being unusually solicitous of foreigners’ gun rights.
There is literally no reason the gun proliferation activists and the NRA will allow the common sense gun regulation that exists everywhere else in the developed world.
There are many fine people working to bring some sanity to American gun laws. In fact, one of the saddest consequences of all this gun violence is that each time a new mass killing takes place you see that more family members from previous horrific events have been radicalized by the government’s inability to deal with this problem. And one cannot give up hope. But the world’s worst terrorist attack couldn’t budge them. The wanton killing of 20 little six-year-olds merely motivated them to strengthen their resistance. Constant gun violence in work places and churches and movie theatres and schoolrooms has only caused them to redouble their efforts to put more and more guns into society. It’s hard to even imagine what could possibly make a difference at this point.
So Americans now carry on as if it’s as normal for average citizens to be randomly gunned down in a classroom or during a prayer meeting as it is for a tornado to tear through a small town in Oklahoma or wildfires to burn through the forest. All they can do is watch in horror and be grateful it hasn’t happened to them. Not yet anyway.

Donald Trump says that crazy people are going to slip through the cracks and there’s nothing you can do about guns. So there you go.

Ugliest tweet ‘o the week

Ugliest tweet ‘o the week

by digby

And no it’s not a right wing troll — that would be too easy. It’s an allegedly respectable member of the media:

People think I’m nuts when I say the press is obsessed with the dirty,dirty. They aren’t finding it in Clinton’s emails. So they’re pulling this sophomoric BS. I’m sure all the Village kewl kidz laughed their designer bobby socks’ off when they read this one.

And then there’s this one:

He’s just trolling her now, right? That can’t be serious.

When they say “efficiency,” watch your back by @BloggersRUs

When they say “efficiency,” watch your back
by Tom Sullivan

When you start hearing “efficiency” used around the office, watch your back and update your resume. It’s like “shareholder value” that way. When Republicans in government start using “efficiency,” same difference.

On Election Day 2014 while Democrats across the country were getting clobbered, there were a couple of bright spots in North Carolina (believe it or not). Democrats picked up a net 3 seats in the state legislature, including sending home an ALEC board member. But in a sweep election where Republicans should have won it all, Democrats won 3 of 3 contested state Supreme Court seats and 2 of 3 contested Appeals Court races. Republicans couldn’t have that. The GOP-controlled legislature responded in 2015 by changing the way judges are elected.

It was just one of many tweaks they have made to change how elections run. Some of them are not so obvious. At the Daily Kos Connects Asheville Conference last weekend, DocDawg, aka Bill Busa, presented findings on how Boards of Elections across the state began “to reshuffle the polling places in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘cost-savings’.” Busa’s presentation last Saturday revealed how elimination of early voting places disproportionately increased the distance black voters have to travel to the polls.

Joan McCarter writes:

Most of the voter suppression actions taken by the new Republican majority legislature and McCrory have been very transparent, very apparent to the public: redistricting to corral black votes; voter ID; reducing early voting days; eliminating same day registration; and, particularly damaging to the black voter, eliminating voting on the Sunday before the election, the traditional “Souls to the Polls” activity of black churches. All of that was well publicized. This, however, this eliminating and moving of polling places was done very quietly. In Busa’s words: “There was no systematic ‘we’re going to go into one hundred counties, we’re going to steal polling places from blacks in all one hundred counties.’ What there was was a rather more efficient and slimy way of doing the same thing.” It was done under the radar of everybody but Busa and his partner, who sniffed out the problem and have the statistical analysis chops to document it.

Busa is the data scientist who earlier this year broke the story that voter registration at NC social services agencies fell off dramatically after Gov. Pat McCrory took office. Having worked with our local Board myself, finding suitable, public polling locations is rather tricky business; using non-public locations like churches requires tying up . There are handicapped access and other physical requirements. Placing one where the data say there should be one (for fairness) is easier said than done. Still, Busa’s analysis is a way of seeing how these quiet decisions affect voters in a way I have never considered before. Video at the link.

It is not unlike “precinct consolidation.” This too is occurring around the country in the name of efficiency and cost savings. Very similar to what Busa found with early voting sites, precinct consolidation seems to disproportionately impact minority voters’ distance-to-polls travel by increasing the physical size of precincts and the number of voters a single precinct has to process on Election Day. Longer lines, you think? How is this offset by early voting and vote-by-mail programs, etc.?

Coming soon to a GOP-controlled state near you?

Fighting over the wingnut trophy

Fighting over the wingnut trophy

by digby

This is a funny article by Weigel about a spat between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul over who can take credit for the Planned Parenthood crusade:

But the fight over Planned Parenthood funding put the spat, and the strategies, under a spotlight. Paul, who has cultivated a relationship with Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, claimed leadership of a “nationwide movement” to defund the family planning behemoth. Before the summer recess, he secured a vote on a standalone defund bill. It failed — and Cruz, without naming the sponsor, called it a “legislative show vote,” inferior to nixing Planned Parenthood funds in the must-pass continuing resolution to fund the government.

Paul and Cruz had been on these terms before. In 2013, during the Texan’s similarly pyrrhic crusade to defund the Affordable Care Act, Paul had offered short-term extensions designed to allow debate without a shutdown. In his 2015 memoir, A Time for Truth, Cruz wrote that his “friend Rand Paul” had undermined him, blindsiding him in a colloquy on the Senate floor.

“His questions echoed the skeptical attacks of Mitch McConnell, and I marveled that Rand had decided not to be with us in this fight,” said Cruz.

“It’s curious because he sent me a really nice, handwritten congratulatory note thanking me for my help,” Paul told Politico’s Manu Raju. “I don’t understand.”

The Planned Parenthood fight allowed each man to fight the same battle, without the editorial delay. Cruz, not Paul, was demanding and getting credit for the great social conservative cause of the summer. To Paul’s great frustration, Cruz lobbed verbal grenades at the leadership, dubbed himself a “fighter,” and got applause even when he handily lost. For all the furor about Planned Parenthood, Cruz did not really slow down the compromise that funded the government.

Paul dropped the subtlety. “Ted has chosen to make this really personal and chosen to call people dishonest in leadership and call them names, which really goes against the decorum and also against the rules of the Senate,” Paul sniped on Fox News Radio this week. “As a consequence, he can’t get anything done legislatively. He is pretty much done for and stifled and it’s really because of personal relationships, or lack of personal relationships, and it is a problem.”

Cruz sniped right back in an interview with Hugh Hewitt. “The attacks he directed at me are not terribly surprising,” he said, “particularly given that Rand campaigned for Mitch McConnell and then Mitch McConnell in turn has endorsed Rand for president. But I have no intention of responding in kind to Rand’s attacks.”

I hate to sound like Donald Trump but that has the stench of leu-seurs all over it:

Neither critique addressed the issue that Cruz allies are making to close the sale. It was the same one undergirding the “liberty leaders” email — that Cruz is raising enough money to beat the establishment, while Rand is struggling. Also relevant, but said by no one, is that the trial of Paul’s super PAC leaders, on corruption charges, begins in Iowa next week.

Oh my …

.

Fiorina impresses the establishment

Fiorina impresses the establishment

by digby

When you lie, prevaricate and deceive as skillfully as Carly Fiorina, Republican politicians are always going to be impressed:

Coming out of a closed-door meeting at the Capitol Hill Club with Fiorina and her campaign staff Wednesday evening, several House Republicans repeatedly said they were “very impressed” by her, and some even said they were seriously considering throwing their support behind her.

The former business executive was able to draw members of Congress from across the Republican conference — conservatives and establishment members — at a time when the Republican Party is becoming increasingly fractured. According to members who attended the event billed as a roundtable discussion, Fiorina addressed the standing-room-only crowd for a few minutes, highlighting her background as a business executive and the need to control government spending, and then took questions from attendees.

“She was as impressive with the members and this audience as she was in the debates,” said Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam. “Clearly, the only challenge for her now is the high-level of scrutiny that she’ll be under. And she’s clearly a tier-one candidate — that was not lost on anyone in there. I can clearly see there is a pathway for her to be a nominee.”

Roskam added: “There was a wide range of Republican members who were there and her message and her passion and her clarity really resonated with the group.”

They’ve got visions of Rubio-Fiorina tickets dancing in their heads.

.

That unconstitutional Constitution

That unconstitutional Constitution

by digby

The wingnuts love the Constitution except when it has some provision they feel isn’t constitutional — like say, that thing about having no religious test for office holders:

logo
Who DO You Stand With: Ben Carson or the Washington Post?
If you believe that Sharia Law is consistent with the United States Constitution, then you ought to stop reading this e-mail right now.
If, however, you believe that Ben Carson is right, that anyone who submits to Sharia Law should not be elected President of the United States, then I urge you to stand with Dr. Ben Carson today.

SIGN THE OPEN LETTER OF SUPPORT TO BEN CARSON

Dr. Ben Carson is getting slammed across the nation by liberal newspapers like The Washington Post and TV hosts for simply telling the truth.
What did Ben Carson say?
When asked if he believes if Sharia Law is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said, “No, I do not.”
Ben Carson was also asked if he would have any objection to a Muslim serving as president. Assuming that a practicing Muslim would submit to Sharia Law, he answered…
“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”
The media has totally and intentionally distorted what Dr. Carson said in an effort to drive him out of the race for president. You and I must not let them succeed!
Ben Carson has doubled down on his courageous stand against radical Islam. As he explained it on Fox News Channel on Monday night…
“We don’t put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution. If you’re a Christian and you’re running for president and you want to make this [country] into a theocracy, I’m not going to support you. I’m not going to advocate you being the president.”
“Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets [of Sharia Law] and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.”
That is precisely what he told Chuck Todd of NBC News, but NBC carefully took Carson’s statement out of context and twisted it into a pretzel to make him look like a bigot.
And then, all the other mainstream news media jumped on board, trying to make it look like Ben Carson said something he did not say. And, that he did not understand the Constitution. As if the left has ever cared about the Constitution.
So, are you going to let the lies and distortions of the news media stand, or will you stand with Ben Carson?
He needs your encouragement and support now!
The news media has tried to say that Ben Carson is wrong because the Constitution says that no one shall be denied the office of President because of his religion.
Ben Carson didn’t say that at all. He said he would not“advocate” that a practicing Muslim be elected President of the United States. But, he did say that Sharia Law was inconsistent with the United States Constitution!
Judge for yourself whether Ben Carson was right…
Equal Rights. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all Americans, but Sharia Law denies equal rights for women or non-Muslims.
Freedom of Religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but Sharia Law does accept the right of other religions to practice their beliefs.
Freedom of Speech. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Sharia Law limits freedom of speech and no one can say or write anything negative about the prophet, Mohammed or the Quran.
In fact, according to Sharia Law, anyone criticizing or denying any part of the Quran must be put to death.
There are many more things that Sharia law prohibits that are inconsistent with American practices and traditions including…
  • A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
  • A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
  • A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
  • A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
  • Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
  • A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
  • A woman is prohibited from driving a car or speaking alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
  • The Quran says that Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
The list of things inconsistent with American values and traditions is much, much longer than the short list provided above, yet the ignorant news media intends to use this stand by Dr. Carson to drive him from the race.
Shallow candidates like South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham are already attacking Ben Carson.
Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that is an unindicted co-conspirator due to their shadowy ties with radical Islam, is calling on Carson to “withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution.”
Unbelievable!
But, make no mistake about it, Ben Carson is being attacked on all sides.
Tell him that you are with him. Tell him to stand firm. Tell him that he is right.
Won’t you please do that today?
Ben Carson needs your encouragement now.
Please put your name on the Open Letter to Ben Carson.
And, please make a contribution to help Ben Carson be elected as the next President of the United States.
Thank you, and may God bless America and Ben Carson.
Sincerely,
John Philip Sousa IV
National Chairman

Honestly, I don’t know how their brains don’t explode over something like this:

Judge for yourself whether Ben Carson was right…

Equal Rights. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all Americans, but Sharia Law denies equal rights for women or non-Muslims.

Freedom of Religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but Sharia Law does accept the right of other religions to practice their beliefs.

Freedom of Speech. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Sharia Law limits freedom of speech and no one can say or write anything negative about the prophet, Mohammed or the Quran.

Predictable prescience — Rubio the oracle

Predictable prescience

by digby

So the wingnuts are spreading this around like Rubio is the Oracle of Delphi:

What this proves is that this wasn’t actually the “big surprise” everyone was claiming it was last week. Moreover, while Rubio was breathlessly sounding the alarm you’ll notice that he forgot to mention what it is he would do about it.

Last night on Megyn Kelly he offered his expertise:

“They may conduct some operations against ISIS, but this is not about ISIS,” Rubio said. “This is about propping up Assad, who is a client state of both Iran and Vladimir Putin.”

Rubio explained that the purpose of the airstrikes is to position Russia as the most important outside power broker in the region, replacing the U.S.

Rubio added that choosing Assad over ISIS, as Donald Trump seemed to suggest on “The O’Reilly Factor” last night, is a terrible idea.

“I don’t think the choice should be Assad or ISIS. I think they both need to go.”

“It diminishes out importance…. we’re now a junior partner…blah,blah,blah…Assad gassed his own people” And then he just keeps saying the same thing over and over again about how the US is not longer the big swinging superpower as if that’s the real issue.

As for the solution to the Syria problem he says we need put together a coalition of “Sunni ground forces” to fight ISIS and take out Assad. What a good idea. Someone should get right on that …

.

Another mass shooting…

Another mass shooting

by digby

At this point I don’t know how many people are dead but preliminary reports say 10 dead and at least 20 wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg Oregon.

This is just unconscionable.

Here’s a piece I wrote for Salon a couple of months ago after the shooting of a TV reporter on the air.

Another day, another horrific shooting. An angry man with a grudge against his former workplace killed his former co-workers as they did their jobs. It’s so sickeningly common there’s even a name for this very specific form of mass killing: “going postal” after a series of workplace gun massacres by postal workers going back to the 1980s. Yesterday’s  had the unique and extra-disturbing characteristic of first taking place during a live TV spot and then further unfolding on twitter and Facebook where the shooter posted video of the murders from his own point of view. He was a failed celebrity who used all the modern forms of media to document his depraved acts.
But the unusual public nature of this particular crime does not mean that similar gun murders aren’t an everyday occurrence. The Washington Post published a shocking statistic yesterday: In the 238 days of 2015 America has had 247 mass shootings. This is happening more than once a day. We are so inured to it that we don’t hear of them most of the time unless there is something conspicuously different about it. (This is very likely attributable to the depressing fact that the vast majority of mass killings are perpetrated by men murdering innocent women and children in their personal lives.)
Chris Hayes featured some alarming statistics on his show last night. He pointed out that despite the fact the US is average among other industrialized countries in virtually every crime and only have 5% of the world’s population, we have had 31% of the mass shootings since 1966.  You don’t have to be an expert to see that the the fact that we lead the world in  civilian gun ownership with 88.8 guns per 100 people  (the next highest is Yemen at 54.8 per 100) has something to do with it.
Our leaders and would-be leaders reacted to this terrible crime in various ways. President Obama, clearly depressed at having to make yet another statement like this, said, “It breaks my heart every time you read or hear about these kinds of incidents.” He then added, “What we know is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism,” which may be the most radical thing he’s said while in office. It’s obviously true, but it’s been taboo to say it.
Jeb Bush very weirdly shrugged his shoulders, signed autographs and smiled for pictures as he impatiently responded to reporters’ questions. Most of the others on the GOP side tweeted condolences and made the expected statements of support for the families and co-workers.
Bernie Sanders told the Hill,”I am saddened by the senseless deaths of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Jane and I have their families and friends in our thoughts.” Hillary Clinton went even farther, expressing her personal horror at the event and then, as she did after Charleston, gave a very strong statement:
There is so much evidence that if guns were not so readily available, if we had universal background checks, if we could just put some time out between the person who’s upset because he got fired or the domestic abuse or whatever other motivation may be working on someone who does this, then maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage…We have got to do something about gun violence in America and I will take it on.”
Unfortunately, even the shock of a man gunning down rooms full of first graders was not enough to get us to face up to our problem. And there’s really one man who bears most of the responsibility for that: the head of the NRA Wayne LaPierre. After the Newtown massacre, most Americans believed it was inconceivable that nothing would be done. There was tremendous momentum to start making some necessary changes. But as a recent PBS Frontline documentary called “Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA” put it, LaPierre would have none of it:
NARRATOR: His advisers wanted him to lie low, but LaPierre had a very different idea. Expecting trouble, he hired personal security guards, and headed into Washington.
ROBERT DRAPER, The New York Times Magazine: Without telling anyone, LaPierre himself staged a press conference in Washington, D.C.
NARRATOR: The media gathered. Many expected a chastened and conciliatory LaPierre.
ROBERT DRAPER: I think there was an assumption that, surely, he’s going to throw the gun safety advocates, and for that matter the Newtown parents, some kind of bone.
NARRATOR: But LaPierre had something else in mind.
WAYNE LaPIERRE: The only way — the only way — to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
ED O’KEEFE: And he almost immediately goes right back to what they usually say, which is that the answer to this is more guns.
WAYNE LaPIERRE: What if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook elementary school last Friday, he’d been confronted by qualified armed security?
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, The New York Times: His comments are aimed directly at the gun owners of America, to rile them up, to get them behind the NRA’s no holds barred, never say die, you know, no compromise position.
WAYNE LaPIERRE: Our children— we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it.
NARRATOR: In Washington, they said the speech was a political disaster.
PROTESTER: The NRA stop killing our children!
NARRATOR: In New York City, LaPierre was called the craziest man on earth and a gun nut. But those who know LaPierre say the speech was no miscalculation.
PAUL BARRETT: This was not off the cuff. He didn’t lose it. This was very thought out. And they decided on a strategy and they executed the strategy.
JOHN AQUILINO: Because the people that it resonated with gave more money, and this is what you need to do in order to keep that— that tough persona.
PAUL BARRETT: And we’ve got to send the signal that this is not the time to compromise, that Obama is the enemy, and they want to take your guns away. Yes, it’s too bad about the kids, but we are not going to back down.
And that was that.
(The documentary is well worth watching in full if you are unfamiliar with LaPierre’s history with NRA and the dramatic influence this one man has had on our country.)
Would sensible gun control put an end to violence?  Of course not. Will it stop all murder and suicide? Obviously not. But we are experiencing an epidemic of gun violence in this country the likes of which no one else in the world has to live with. And the way to deal with that is by treating it as an epidemic.
There is a famous story about a British doctor by the name of John Snow who had a theory that cholera was spread through water contaminated by sewage. In the 1850s, it was widely assumed that the disease was caused by breathing vapors or a “miasma in the atmosphere” and Snow was unable to convince his colleagues otherwise. In 1854 there was a bad outbreak in the London suburb of Soho, where Snow happened to live. He suspected that the outbreak was due to a very busy public water pump in the center of town and set about tracking it meticulously through hospital records and interviews. By creating a geographical grid to chart of deaths, connecting them to the pump and eliminating other possible sources, Dr Snow was able to create what he considered proof that the drinking water was causing the outbreak. He took the evidence to the town officials and convinced them to take the handle off the pump. The epidemic ceased almost immediately.
It was years before the medical profession fully understood the bacteriological basis for the disease and develop treatments for it. But the point is that it wasn’t necessary to cure the disease to end the epidemic. What ended it was shutting down that pump.
What Clinton said in her statement yesterday is indisputably true. We have all the epidemiological evidence we need to know that gun control will save lives. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, after DC banned handguns, gun homicides fell by 25 percent and gun suicides fell by 23 percent. Even more dramatically, after Australia banned automatic, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and initiated a buyback program to take 700,000 guns out of private hands after a horrific mass shooting nearly 20 years ago, they have not had a single mass shooting since. Gun homicides fell by 59 per cent and firearm-related suicides fell by 65 per cent with no consequential rise in homicides and suicides by other means.
They didn’t cure violence or hatred or depression or death.  They just shut down the pump. We could too. It’s really not that complicated.

Move over Madonna, there’s a new diva in town

Move over Madonna, there’s a new diva in town

by digby

Wow, Hillary Clinton is a real diva. Sheesh, what a horrible person.

I’m going to guess she followed up with, “I AM big, it’s the politics that got small …”

Oh wait, she never said that at all. Here’s the story:

In the latest batch of nearly 4,000 emails released Wednesday from her time at the State Department, Clinton expressed frustration in a 2010 note to longtime aide Huma Abedin over not being able to place a call to then-Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), who had announced her retirement.

“I’m fighting the [White House] operator who doesn’t believe I am who I say and wants my direct office line even [though] I’m not there,” a seemingly exasperated Clinton wrote.

“I just have [sic] him my home [number] and the State Dept [number] and I told him I had no idea what my direct office [number] was since I didn’t call myself,” the now-Democratic presidential front-runner continued.

“I just hung up and am calling [through] Ops like a proper and properly dependent Secretary of State — no independent dialing allowed.”

Golly, it sounds to me like she actually thought it was funny. But what do I know? I’m not a deep insider who can tell that Clinton’s a bitch on wheels with a royal attitude to rival Queen Elizabeth.

Do you know what’s in *your* file? (If they can do it to a congressman they can do it to you too)

Do you know what’s in your file?

by digby

After his abysmal performance in those Planned Parenthood hearings I dislike Congressman Jason Chaffetz with something of a passion. Nonetheless, this is absolutely, unequivocally wrong and heads should roll over it:

The Secret Service’s assistant director urged that unflattering information the agency had in its files about a congressman critical of the service should be made public, according to a government watchdog report released Wednesday.

“Some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out,” Assistant Director Edward Lowery wrote in an e-mail to a fellow director on March 31, commenting on an internal file that was being widely circulated inside the service. “Just to be fair.”

Two days later, a news Web site reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, had applied to be a Secret Service agent in 2003 and been rejected.

That information was part of Chaffetz’s personnel file stored in a restricted Secret Service database and required by law to be kept private.

The report by John Roth, inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, singled out Lowery, in part because of his senior position at the agency. The report also cited Lowery’s e-mail as the one piece of documentary evidence showing the degree of anger inside the agency at Chaffetz and the desire for the information to be public.

Lowery had been promoted to the post of assistant director for training just a month earlier as part of an effort that Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy said would reform the agency after a series of high-profile security lapses. Clancy had tapped Lowery to join a slate of new leaders he installed after removing more than two-thirds of the previous senior management team.

During the IG’s probe, Lowery denied to investigators that he directed anyone to leak the private information about Chaffetz to the press and said his e-mail was simply a vent for his stress and anger.

The Chaffetz file, contained in the restricted database, had been peeked at by about 45 Secret Service agents, some of whom shared it with their colleagues in March and April, the report found. This prying began after a contentious March 24 House hearing at which Chaffetz scolded the director and the agency for its series of security gaffes and misconduct. The hearing sparked anger inside the agency.

The IG’s inquiry found the Chaffetz information was spread to nearly every layer of the service.

Staff in the most senior headquarters offices, the president’s protective detail, the public affairs office, the office of investigations, and field offices in Sacramento, Charlotte, Dallas and other cities all accessed Chaffetz’s file — and many acknowledged sharing it widely, according to the report. The day after the March 24 hearing, one agent who had been sent to New York for the visit of the president of Afghanistan recalled that nearly all of the 70 agents at a briefing were discussing it.

All told, 18 supervisors, including assistant directors, the deputy director and even Clancy’s chief of staff knew the information was being widely shared through agency offices, the report said.

“These agents work for an agency whose motto — ‘Worthy of trust and confidence’ — is engraved in marble in the lobby of their headquarters building,” Roth wrote in his summary report. “Few could credibly argue that the agents involved in this episode lived up to this motto.”

After reviewing the IG report, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the Oversight Committee’s ranking Democratic member, said he was “deeply troubled” by what Roth’s team uncovered and said Clancy should remove staff who have shown themselves to “unwilling or unable to meet the highest ethical standards.”

Every one of the agents who looked at the file and who shared it should be fired. otherwise, it’s just another sign that our police agencies are running amock and using information in their databases for political purposes. If you think it couldn’t happen to you or someone you like, you should reconsider. The government is collecting and storing information on everyone.

.