The Democrats tried to make a run at Republicans on the terrorism issue and the gun issue by talking about how the Republicans don’t want to prevent guns from falling into the hands of “Suspected terrorists.” The problem with this argument is that there is no due process for “suspected” anything, which combined with this sort of thing (and Colorado Springs) makes it wise for them to be wary.
What was “Burritos and Tacos” serving *before* that sign went up?
Opponents to DST: Farmers, cows, and babies. (Also, right-thinking individuals everywhere.) Also, here are some helpful maps and charts.
A stupidity virus exists, apparently.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott directed churches and charities not to help refugees. As it happens, things don’t work that way.
David Frum, Agent of Daesh. I’m not sure people recognize how terrible the argument Frum is mocking actually is.
Hey GOP candidates, this here is some low-hanging fruit.
Some Montana ranchers are preparing for the Syrian invasion from Canada. (As opposed to a Canadian invasion from Canada.)
The Jewish need no longer fear, Chris Deerin says The Corbyn Show is over, though one way of looking at it he might be doing better than Miliband. Cameron doesn’t seem worried.{More}
Argentina turns to capitalism.
What it’s like in Marco Rubio’s classroom.
Calhoun County, Alabama, has a little over 100,000 people and two military tanks, but no more.
The latest in Pennsylvania: You do not have a right to see pornographic emails at the attorney general’s office, despite Kane’s efforts.
No slippery slope here. They just jumped right on down.
About the Author
10 Responses to Linkluster 61*7
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
I think it’s pretty reasonable to think that the bar to buying guns if you are on the terrorist no-fly list shouldn’t be any higher than the bar to getting on an airplane. If this means that Republicans being wary of aligning those bars means that they seek to eliminate the bar to getting on a plane, then fair enough. But they’re not. (Maybe you are.) And, in fact, we’re not talking about a cautious wariness about the proposed policy at all, but an ironclad, immovable opposition owing to the fact that it involves gun regulation. And they’re not talking about the associated alleviation of the air travel restrictions, so wariness about the restriction of commercial freedom based on no-due-process inclusion on a no-X list is a red herring. The opposition is about guns.
And, while I do think that Frum’s rejoinder is fair – they already hate us and are trying to kill us – I don;t think that means, or in any case that it’s the case that, the argument he’s responding to is that bad either. It may not be a slam dunk, but I don’t think anyone is exactly sure what will bolster or reduce ISIS recruitment right now. It seems quite plausible that turning away Muslims trying to flee them could create a group of people more receptive to their threats and/or arguments than would otherwise have been the case. Again, not a slam-dunk, but, no, I guess count me among those who don’t recognize exactly how terrible the argument is, if that’s supposed to be really terrible. It might be right.
Re: Frum
I perhaps should have said “framing” rather than “argument.” As someone who was on the fence, I found the implication that Muslims are one bad policy choice away from joining ISIS to have the opposite of the intended effect. In contrast to “Shutting down the refugee program is what ISIS wants” which, while it didn’t sell me, counted in the column against killing the refugee program. These are arguably different framings of the same argument (though they’re not quite the same argument to the ear even if they’re meant to be from the mouth), but the former is in my view terrible and if I come down in favor of the refugees it is because I disregard it. The more seriously I take it, the more dangerous it sounds like Muslims in general are.
(I just went to modify the LF version to change it from “argument” to “framing” only to discover that on the LF version I just stopped after the first sentence. I think it’s because it ties in to a conversation had here that wasn’t had over there are about the weird attempts by some to make Tsarnaev sound like he might have been driven to it by anti-Muslim sentiment. Attempts that were, I should add, shut down by leftward cohorts who I think realized the possible implications.)
Re: guns
I’m eager to see the GOP square that circle. I kinda hope the list is used just so the NRA, et. al. can stomp the list to death.
If the Democrats are willing to image the guns in Muslim terrorist hands loud and often, I think they could get a lot of traction on the issue. Or at least negate an area of vulnerability by turning it around.
Conservative and pro-gun types on Twitter seem unduly cocky about the vulnerability here.
That list has been an insult to the constitution since it was first used.
Oh, I’m not defending the list (for flying or guns) on its merits. Politically, though, it’s not a bad argument.
I know, it’s actually a very good argument, & not even out of line for Democrats (since they’ve supported the list politically).
But the GOP really likes the list, so I’m all for the Democrats finding a way to make them choke on it.
7:40 is early? When I was in school, primary school started at 8:00, secondary school at 7:20 and Junior college at 7:45 (and that’s only because the junior college I attended was in middle of town. Kids these days…
It’s funny that for all that I believe this, I got up an hour earlier just so that I could drive to school and get a good parking space.
That is to say, waking up at 5:30 in the morning to go to school builds character.