Posted tagged ‘Gail Collins’

Loaded Lawyer v. AK-47

May 6, 2010

Suspect with Loaded Lawyer

I’ve always found the age-old male/Freudian question “what do women want?”  irritating.   I don’t particularly like the way it lumps women together.  But what really annoys me is the undercurrent of exasperation–the idea that the answer to the question is just too irrational or illogical to be discoverable.

Even though I don’t care much for this formulation, but a variation seems appropriate for tonight’s post:  what do Congressional Republicans want?   What, especially, when it comes to reconciling issues of anti-terrorism and gun control?   Here’s a place where the undertone of illogic and irrationality seems appropriate.

(Sorry, to any of you who thought this post was going to be about women.  Or Freud.  You’re stuck with Lindsay Graham.)

On the one hand, the Republicans in Congress, as exemplified by Graham, are very upset at the idea of offering suspected terrorists access to lawyers (as in Miranda rights); on the other, they are perfectly willing to grant such suspects access to automatic weapons of all types and calibers.   As Gail Collins describes in a wonderful Op-Ed piece in the May 6 New York Times, “I think you’re going too far here,” said Graham, in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Distrust of governmental intervention and power are a watchword with many congressional Republicans.   Except when it comes to torture.  Many urge the government to take on that power–as long as people who are water boarded have a right to purchase a handgun before submergence.

Part of the problem, of course, is limited imagination and memory.  Many can’t seem to conceive of someone who may be labeled “right-wing” being arrested for terrorist activities; they don’t seem to remember names like McVeigh and Hutaree.

What they do seem certain of (whether rightly or wrongly) is the power of the NRA.  Which, as Gail Collins notes, gives one answer to my question—what do Congressional Republicans want?  To get a 100% score in the NRA grading system.

Call me naïve.  Call me (those of you who know I’m an attorney) biased.   Even call me a woman who knows at least some of what she wants.   If I have to be confronted, I would rather face a terrorist armed with a lawyer, than an AK-47.

Further To….

February 20, 2010

One of the good and bad features of a daily blog (especially for a blogger with a daily job) is that it requires the blogger to get posts out quickly, sometimes before an issue is very well understood.  (Sorry!)  In such cases. the post is really a reaction (perhaps premature) to an issue, rather than any kind of cogent analysis.  Sometimes the post doesn’t even reflect the blogger’s longer-term, or considered, reaction to an issue,  but, at best, is simply a snapshot of the moments in which it was written.

Here is further information about the topics of two recent posting:   the first relates to The Line Between Satire and Sneer (illustrated by the teapot surrounded by UFOs), which expressed my wish that the TV show Family Guy hadn’t joked about  the mother of a character with Down’s Syndrome being the former governor of Alaska.    Palin and her daughter Bristol interpreted the program as a cruel jab at Palin’s son Trig (with Down’s Syndrome).  An article in today’s New York Times describes the reaction to Palin’s outrage of the actress,  Andrea Fay Friedman, who did the voice-over for the Down’s Syndrome character and who herself has Down’s Syndrome.  Ms. Friedman accuses Sarah Palin of not having a sense of humor, and of misunderstanding the episode, which presents the Down’s Syndrome character as an obnoxious but strong figure:   “I’m like ‘I’m not Trig. This is my life, ” Ms. Friedman said in a telephone interview with the Times, “I was making fun of Sarah Palin, but not her son.”

I still don’t like Family Guy.  (It’s the crassness.)  And I still wish that the show had not given Palin further “mileage”.  But the article, which gives more information about both the episode and Ms. Friedman,  certainly clarifies another perspective.

The second story which is subject to increasing illumination as the days go by is about Joe Stack, the man who ran a plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building (and whose disgruntlement with the IRS apparently began when the IRS refused to give him a tax exemption as a church.)   Gail Collins has a great article today, The Wages of Rages, about Stack, but also various lame-brained attempts of Republican politicians to expropriate Tea Party rage for political capital.   Yes, she manages to include a reference to Mitt Romney tying his dog to the roof of his car.