Sleepless in Seattle takes off at the moment when Annie starts dunking a tea bag and trying to chatter at the same time. It's almost too much for her whirring brain. But the movie never gives [Meg] Ryan enough to do. and her face often settles into moping; it takes on the sadness of a spoiled child, which doesn't suit her any more than her sensible plaits.
The best reason to see Sleepless in Seattle is Tom Hanks, but then he's always the best reason to see a movie. Only once has everything fallen into place around him: in Penny Marshall's Big, where he took the central conceit -- a child's soul padlocked in an adult body -- and turned it into a rhapsody, way beyond anything that Marshall could have expected.
I liked Sleepless. I think it's a solid film.
For whatever reason, Anthony Lane hated it. But he likes being bitchy so factor that in.
He fancies himself better than the fancies others.
I do agree with him that Meg Ryan should have been given even more to do. I disagree about the 'great' Tom Hanks. Maybe Anthony Lane would today as welll.
I really think that Hanks is the weak link. Rita Wilson, Rosie O'Donnell, Victor Garber, Rob Reiner and others that make the film. And Meg Ryan was the perfect actress for a Nora Ehrpon film.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Thursday,
June 28, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, some wonder who will
eventually replace Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, attacks on the press
in Iraq continue, we note the attacks on Al Mada, Nouri offers name calling of his rivals, the return of the VA's dreaded Madhulika Agarwal, and much more.
In an new article published by the Navy Times today, Patricia Kime reports
on a study for the US military's Trauma Combat Casualty Care Committee
which found "that nearly a quarter of the 4,596 combat deaths in Iraq
and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2011 were 'potentially survivable'."
There's
not been a comprehnsive evaluation of deaths in Iraq but that's
probably partly due to the fact that the violence has never stopped.
This morning kicked off with Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reporting 3 Taji car bombings have left at least two people dead and another fifteen injured. AP noted those numbers increased to 5 dead and eighteen injured. In addition, AFP noted a Baghdad car bombing has claimed 8 lives and left thirty injured. Kareem Raheem (Reuters) quotes
Baghdad police officer Ahmed Nouri stating, "There were bodies
scattered everywhere. Glass and vegetables covered the whole place. I
feel lik my clothes are completely covered in blood and the smell of it
is in my nose. In some places you cannot tell the blood from
the (pulverized) vegetables." On the Baghdad bombing, AP quotes
Hadil Maytham who was with her children when the explosions took place,
"It shook the doors and the windows of the house. Then we heard
shooting, probably by police who usually shoot randomly after
explosions." AFP also noted a Baquba bombing claimed 2 lives and left four people injured and a Ramadi car bombing left five people injured. Reuters added,
"A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed one and wounded five
in Abu Dsheer, a Shi'ite area in southern Baghdad, police said." In
addition, KUNA reports,
"In Diyala Governorate southewest of Baghdad, unknown armed men killed
four security elements at a checkpoint in Baqubah city." AFP added this evening that 2 Shawa were killed in Samarra with an additional two left injured. As the day ended in the US, AP was counting 22 deaths and over fifty injured. It has been a very violent month in Iraq with Iraq Body Count counting 404 deaths by violence this month (June 1st through yesterday).
Meanwhile
many speculate about Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's health and his
eventual death, specifically who would take over. Hayder al-Khoei (Niqash) argues
it's very unlikely that Grand Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi (born in
Iraq, adult life spent in Iran) would be named the replacement as some
hope and some fear:
Shahroudi is a
well-regarded scholar but his political position in Iran hinders, rather
than helps, his prospects in Iraq. In fact, any political position a
cleric holds actually has direct – and negative – implications on his
religious credentials in Najaf. In Iran, religion and politics may be
symbiotic. But in Iraq they do not go hand in hand.
The
Shiite schools in Najaf, headed by al-Sistani have been practicing what
is known as a tradition of quietism here for centuries: that is, a
policy of religious leaders not interfering in political affairs.
Clerics in Iraq do get involved in politics and the Grand Ayatollah does
intervene in political affairs, but unlike in Iran, only on rare
occasions.
Additionally, the process by
which a successor to the religious movement is selected must be
considered. As Iraqi government spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, put it:
"there will be a transition period for a few years after the leading
cleric dies but there are set mechanisms in place [for choosing a
successor] and anyone who attempts to fill this gap using financial and
political power from outside Iraq will fail".
Al-Dabbagh
is referring to the gradual process of selection, involving other
senior clerics in Najaf who will have a role in persuading the masses
toward one, or several, clerics suitable to eventually take al-Sistani's
place. It will not be clear cut at first and it may take some years for one strong, leading cleric to emerge.
As
political and financial independence is crucial, it seems unlikely that
senior clerics in Najaf will persuade the masses to start following
someone like Shahroudi, with such an overt political role in Iran.
But
the likelihood of Shahroudi replacing al-Sistani does not just depend
on theological differences between clerics in Iraq and Iran. It also
depends on the attitude of the masses. By following al-Sistani, Shiite
Muslims indicate their reluctance to tie their religious and spiritual
identity to a modern political system.
In 2009, Hashemi-Shahroudi
ordered 'measures' to be taken to curb the press which frightened him
-- specifically websites and satellite TV. Whether he could replace
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani or not, he would certainly fit in with
Nouri's never-ending attacks on the media.
Today, AFP reports,
"Baghdad: Iraq's interior ministry has given dozens of media outlets 45
days to comply with Communications and Media Commission (CMC)
regulations over licences, or they will face 'legal procedures'." Reporters Without Borders issues a statement which includes:
Tension
between authorities and media have peaked this month with a decision by
the Communications and Media Commission (CMC) – still pending
implementation – to close 47 radio and TV stations on the grounds they
lack official permits, and with demonstrations by journalists calling
for the repeal of the Law on Journalists' Rights, which parliament
adopted in August 2011 and which is widely regarded as violating the
rights it claims to defend.
Disturbing decision by panel of questionable independence
Reporters
Without Borders is alarmed by the CMC's decision, which triggered such
an outcry that the interior ministry has given the radio and TV stations
concerned 45 days from 25 June to comply with regulations.
The CMC took its decision more than a month ago but it was only revealed on 23 June by the Journalism Freedoms Observatory (JFO), which obtained documentary evidence of the plan. It concerns both local and foreign TV stations such as the BBC, Voice of America, Radio Monte Carlo, Radio Sawa, Al-Baghdadia TV and Al-Sharqiya News.
Many
journalists and some politicians have criticized the decision as an
attempt to gag the media, pointing out that the head of the CMC is
appointed by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and that many of the
targeted media are noted either for the non-partisan nature of their
Iraqi coverage or, in some cases such as Al-Baghdadia and Al-Sharqiya, for their frequent criticism of the Iraqi government.
Iraq
is currently experiencing a major political crisis with the prime
minister facing mounting opposition. He is often accused of
authoritarianism, nepotism and corruption.
Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO) head Ziyad al-Aajey told the Associated Press in a telephone interview
that he believes the latest action against international news outlets
is a direct warning from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"It is a government message to the media outlets that if you are not with us, then you are against us," he said.
Nouri has a long history of attacking the press. We noted some of that Sunday:
But
Nouri began his crackdown on the press in July of 2006, he was freshly
named prime minister. He continued it. At one point, his attacks
translated into a reporter for the New York Times having an Iraqi
soldier aim a gun at him, pull the trigger and then laugh because there
was no chamber in the round. This is what Nouri's encouraged and
fostered in Iraq. He's sued the Guardian, he's sued everyone. Saleh
al-Mutlaq tells CNN in December that Nouri's acting like a dictator and
Nouri spends months trying to get al-Mutlaq stripped of his Deputy Prime
Minister post.
In 2012, Nouri's favorite thing is to storm Iraqi news websites with hits to try to get them denied service. No one comments on that because there's hardly any foreign press in Iraq anymore. But there's too much still for Nouri. Little Saddam can't do what he wants to do if there's a chance that the world's watching.
In 2012, Nouri's favorite thing is to storm Iraqi news websites with hits to try to get them denied service. No one comments on that because there's hardly any foreign press in Iraq anymore. But there's too much still for Nouri. Little Saddam can't do what he wants to do if there's a chance that the world's watching.
This led some to insist that there are no web attacks in Iraq. Yes, there are. It's pretty much destroying Al Mada
which, today, is temporarily back online. You won't find new content.
The daily has been hard by these attacks and hasn't published since the
end of May. However, May 25th they did report
that their website was exposed to daily attacks that were causing it to
crash. They apologized to their readers and noted that tehcnical staff
was attempting to prevent the hacks and the disruption of service.
Why would Al Mada be attacked? Maybe for articles like this one
where people complained that Nouri al-Maliki's photos going up at
checkpoints, mini-shrines, were very dictator like. Or maybe noting
that the lack of potable water was not a new development but what was becoming a regular feature of summer in Iraq. Or maybe questioning claims of generator output or even claims of generators period. Or analyzing
the electric crisis and wondering if this summer's heat would lead to
yet another (the third) resignation by a Minister of Electricity.
Al Mada
is one of Iraq's finest newspapers -- a newspaper that repeatedly puts
US coverage to shame. It could be a leader in the Middle East.
Instead, it's repeatedly attacked and the US press can't even be
bothered with noting that fact. Is it professional jealousy or just the
US press forever being self-absorbed.
In Iraq, the political crisis continues. Kitabat reports
that Ibrahim al-Jaafair hosted a meeting at his home last night and
that various factions of the National Alliance met in what is seen as an
effort to save Nouri al-Maliki. Whether the Sadr bloc supports the
effort or not, Bahaa al-Araji did attend. Alsumaria reports that Nouri is insisting that a no-confidence vote is over and that it's either a dialogue or early elections.
Nouri wasn't the one calling for a no-confidence vote in himself so he's really not the one with the power to decide when such an effort is over. Dar Addustour notes the Kurdish Alliance sees Nouri's threat of early elections as his effort to avoid being questioned by the Parliament. Alsumaria reports Nouri is stating today that a campaign to sew confusion is being waged in Iraq and, while that would make a good confession from Nouri, he is yet again pointing the finger at others. Al Rafidayn quotes Nouri stating that the answer to the problems is not rushing to the Constitution. Well he would say that. When has he ever respected the Iraqi Constitution? Just one example, he's been prime minister since 2006. The Iraqi Constitituion's Article 140 insists a referendum and census on Kirkuk will be held. It insists it is not to take place any later than the end of 2007. Despite taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, Nouri has repeatedly refused to implement Article 140 and offered one excuse after another of why it's not a good time. Nouri has no respect for the Constitution and, over Article 140 alone, should be impeached and removed from office. Despite his inability to follow his oath, Nouri managed to insist that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is not netural and is not professional.
Kitabat notes the call remains for Nouri to appear before Parliament for questioning. One thing they might question him on is the topic Dar Addustour's reporting: Parliament's Human Rights Commission has found proof of torture in Iraq prisons -- something Nouri has repeatedly denied takes place. While ignoring that finding, Nouri has insisted today that there are no journalists in prison. Which probably means there are many.
Nouri wasn't the one calling for a no-confidence vote in himself so he's really not the one with the power to decide when such an effort is over. Dar Addustour notes the Kurdish Alliance sees Nouri's threat of early elections as his effort to avoid being questioned by the Parliament. Alsumaria reports Nouri is stating today that a campaign to sew confusion is being waged in Iraq and, while that would make a good confession from Nouri, he is yet again pointing the finger at others. Al Rafidayn quotes Nouri stating that the answer to the problems is not rushing to the Constitution. Well he would say that. When has he ever respected the Iraqi Constitution? Just one example, he's been prime minister since 2006. The Iraqi Constitituion's Article 140 insists a referendum and census on Kirkuk will be held. It insists it is not to take place any later than the end of 2007. Despite taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, Nouri has repeatedly refused to implement Article 140 and offered one excuse after another of why it's not a good time. Nouri has no respect for the Constitution and, over Article 140 alone, should be impeached and removed from office. Despite his inability to follow his oath, Nouri managed to insist that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is not netural and is not professional.
Kitabat notes the call remains for Nouri to appear before Parliament for questioning. One thing they might question him on is the topic Dar Addustour's reporting: Parliament's Human Rights Commission has found proof of torture in Iraq prisons -- something Nouri has repeatedly denied takes place. While ignoring that finding, Nouri has insisted today that there are no journalists in prison. Which probably means there are many.
Turning to the United States . . .
Senator
Barbara Boxer: I want to say I came here to talk to you about the
epidemic of veteran homelessness and to offer up an idea that doesn't
cost any money that I think would be terrific in involving the American
people in this -- fighting this epidemic. You know, I would say probably
all of us in this room -- I certainly hope all of us in this room --
have safe, comfortable homes to live in and we take it for granted. But
every night, 67,500 of our nation's veterans are homeless. 67,500 of
our veterans are homeless. This is inexcusable because no veteran should
ever have to spend a night on the streets and I know we all agree with
that. Ensuring that our veterans have safe, stable housing is also a
smart thing to do because research has shown that a home is the very
foundation that a veteran can build and sustain a successful life. In
my home state of California, I met a veteran, Holbert Lee. And when
Mr. Lee returned home from Vietnam, he ended up addicted to drugs and
homeless on the streets of San Francisco. We have an organization there
called Swords to Plowshares
and they helped him turn his life around, Madam Chairwoman, with the
help of a housing voucher and VA support services, Mr. Lee now has a
home to call his own. And today as a vocational specialist at the San
Francisco VA, he is working to assist other veterans. Holbert Lee is a
success story and proof of what can happen when we end the cycle of
homelessness. But there are too many more men and women who we have not
reached. Now our government announced a goal to end veterans
homelessness by 2015. And I like to think that when we announce a goal
like that, we mean it. This isn't just something we throw out. But
yet [VA] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki admitted, "While we're not where we
need to be just yet, we have movement but it's too early to begin
high-fiving one another." And it is clear from those words that we have a
long way to go. So I introduced S. 1806, the Check the Box for Homeless Veterans Act of 2011.
Very straightforward. It creates a check off box on the annual federal
tax return. Tax payers can decide to make a voluntary contribution of
one-dollar or more to support programs that prevent and combat veterans
homelessness. The donations are deposited in a new homeless veterans
assistance fund established at the treasury that can only be used to
supplement Congressionally appropriated funds for these various programs
to help veterans. Now let me be very clear, the funds in the check off
box will not be allowed by law to replace any budgeted dollars --
there needs to be a maintenance of effort -- but they would be used to
supplement those dollars. So colleagues, I want to say -- Well, before I
do my real close, I want to place in the record with your permission,
Madam Chair, letters of support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, from the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, from TEAM AMVETS, from the Center for American Homeless Veterans Inc. and from the California Association of County Veterans Services Officers and Swords to Plowshares. I think -- If I might put those in the record, if that is alright?
Chair Patty Murray: We will do that.
Senator
Barbara Boxer: And I think that they -- If you read these letters,
there's -- They strongly support this approach. So in conclusion I
would say that our veterans have given so much. You're dealing with this
every day and a lot of them suffer, they suffer mightily. And having a
home is the least we can do and I think that all of Americans want a
chance to help. They -- they feel sometimes helpless. But with a
dollar on a check-off, if every American paying their taxes did that, we
could do something special. I hope you will consider this. I will
work with you to make it happen. I thank you for your dedication.
Boxer
was speaking at yesterday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing
on proposed legislation. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the
Committee. Yesterday, we noted her bills S. 3340 The Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012 and S. 3313, The Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012.
On the latter, we also noted some of the testimony of Tracy Keil.
Tracy and her husband Iraq War veteran Matt Keil faced obstacles to
having a child following Matt Keil being shot on February 24, 2007 while
on patrol in Ramadi. If Matt Keil had a basic insurance policy with
any corporation, fertility and conception issues and care would not
have been an issue. As a veteran, Matt Keil's 'insurance' -- and that
of his family -- comes via the VA. And Murray's bill brings the VA up
to 2012 and puts veterans and their families on equal footing when it
comes to reproductive health. Tracy Keil probably said it best
yesterday, "War time changes a family, it shouldn't take away the
ability to have one."
This is a basic issue
that shouldn't be surrounded with any controversy or resistance. It's
not 1980, we're not just learning of Baby Louise (Louise Joy Brown, born
in 1978, the first child conceived via in vitro fertilization). Though
the VA has dragged its feet for decades, these are not new issues.
Tracy Keil was part of the second panel along with VetsFirst's Heather Ansley, Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem and the American Urological Association's
Dr. Mark Thomas Edney. The first panel was VA's Dr. Madhulika Agarwal,
William Schoenhard, Thomas Murphy and Robert Hipolit. Excerpt of the
first panel on this issue.
Chair Patty
Murray: Well the VA can't offer much in the way of care for spouses.
What does that mean for couples who need extra assistance conceiving a
child because of a war injury?
Dr.
Madhulika Agarwal: Thank you again, for this question, Madam Chair.
Uh, Congress has generally restricted eligibility of health care
services in VA to spouses. There are some rare exceptions such as in
[one word here -- no idea what she said, speak into the microphone] VA.
S. 3313 is aimed at expanding that authority to include infertility
management for spouses under some circumstances when the veteran's
injury has precluded their ability to procreate naturally. Uh, we do
not have a position on this yet but are reviewing it. And, again, look
forward to working with you and the Committee.
Agarwal? We last encountered her in the June 4, 2009 House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health. That performance led to the next day's entry here of "The VA's Madhulika Agarwal: Lying or grossly uninformed?"
In the three years, she's clearly not improved. For example, I think
Chair Murray knows S. 3313 and doesn't need anyone from the VA to tell
her what it would do -- Murray is the sponsor of the bill. We all
caught that, right? Murray asked what services VA provided. The answer
is really none. But to eat up time and give a false impression or who
knows what, Agarwal starts babbling about what Murray's bill will do.
And, in her opening statement, Agarwal had already declared that the
VA had no position on Murray's bill. (Which I think is both offensive
and a medical dereliction of duty.)
In addition to the snapshot, coverage came last night with Kat's "Justice for Camp Lejeune families?" offering the latest on the issue Ranking Member Richard Burr has long championed; Ava's "Scott Brown backs two veterans bills" noted Brown's S. 3324 Housing for Families of Ill and Injured Veterans and S. 3308 The Women's Homeless Veterans Act; and Wally offered "Veterans' cemeteries" on Senator Kelly Ayotte's S. 2320 Remembering America's Forgotten Veterans Cemetery Act of 2012
about the untended graves at Clakr Veterans Cemetery in the
Philippines. With those items covered, we'll note a Bill of Rights
issue. Specifically the Second Amendment.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Mr. Murphy, you addressed the Second Amendment
issue. If individuals -- Let me ask you this, how many veterans names
have been turned over to NICIS? How many are currently on that list?
Thomas
Murphy: I don't have the details on the number of names that are
currently on that list. I can tell you the details around the number of
requests for relief or removal from that list.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: How many names have been requested to be relieved?
Thomas Murphy: 185, Senator.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: And how many have been granted?
Thomas Murphy: A total of 19.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: And that's out of 127,000 names that have been turned over on the NICIS list.
Thomas Murphy: Correct. I'm assuming your numbers are correct. I don't have those in front of me.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Trust me, they are.
Thomas Murphy: Okay.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: If individuals seek releif from the NICIS
list,reporting requirements, does the VA assist them in coming up with
the evidence needed to show whether they're dangerous?
Thomas Murphy: Yes, Senator, we do.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: What do you do?
Thomas
Murphy: The Duty to Assist Act requires us to fully develop the case.
This is not a light matter in the Veterans Administration. This is a
fully adjudicated, full developed claim with a-a full decision letter
with an explanation of how the decision was arrived to with a lot of
supporting evidence and documentation provided.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Are there any veterans that are determined
incapable to handle their own personal finances that's name is not put
on the NICIS list?
Thomas Murphy: Let me make sure I understand the question. Are there veterans who --
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Do you -- You have sombody who's determined that a
veteran cannot write a check so they cannot handle their finances.
They have now assigned a spouse to be in charge of the finances. Is
there anybody that that's happened to that that veteran was not then
listed on the NICIS list?
Thomas
Murphy: I can say that there are not supposed to be. I'm not saying
that through an administrative process of errors that it hasn't
occurred.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: My understanding -- and I'll get you to go back
and clarify this if I'm wrong -- every veteran who is relieved of their
financial -- or deemed that they can't handle their own finances is
automatically put on the list?
Thomas Murphy: They're placed on the list by the Veterans Administration, yes.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: So what are the qualifications of the VA
employees who make the decisions about whether veterans and their
families should be stripped of their Second Amendment? What training do
these people go through?
Thomas Murphy: I-I don't believe we have an option in this, Senator. We're directed --
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Well you've got VA -- You've got VA employees
that are making a decision about whether somebody is capable of doing
their own personal finances. That determination that they're not
capable of doing that strips them of their Second Amendment right. It's
very simple. What training does that VA employee go through to be
qualified to make a determination that would strip someone of their
Constitutional rights?
Thomas
Murphy: Our employees -- Our adjudicators are trained in determining
whether or not that veteran is capable of making the financial
determinations they have with the funds that Veterans Administration
provides that individual. As a result of that decision, they are placed
on the NICIS list. It's not a determination of whether the individual
is capable of handling firearms or not, it's can they manage their
personal finances.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: I know. But when they go on the NICIS list, they are now deprived of firearm ownership.
Thomas Murphy: That's correct.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Okay. So a determination that they can't handle
their personal finances strips them of their Second Amendment right and
also, the way that it's written, it forbids any firearm to be handled by
anyone in the household. So you, in essence, strip the spouse of the
Second Amendment right, you strip children of the Second Amendment right
because you've determined that a veteran can't handle their own
personal finances. Are we in agreement?
Thomas Murphy: We are.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Okay. Now I don't want to make this too
simplistic. If a veteran can't sign their name to a check and the VA
determines that their spouse should be assigned the financial
responsibilities because you're transferring money into an account, do
we agree that that would trigger their listing on the NICIS list and
that would lose their Second Amendment right and everyone else in the
household.
Thomas
Murphy: That's one I need to ask Mr. Hipolit to verify for me. I'm not
-- I'm unaware of the requirements for other people in the household on
the restriction to own firearms.
Richard
Hipolit: Yeah, that's correct as well. I was also not personally
aware of the household restriction. I know that if VA determines the
person is incapable of handling their financial affairs that does get
them on the NICIS list but
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: But you would agree, Mr. Hipolit, that a
determination that they can't handle their finances has a wide
definition to it.
Richard
Hipolit: I would say that if VA determines that they're unable to
handle their finances that does qualify them to get on the NICIS list
and their names are referred for the list.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: That's not necessarily a mental determination. It could be a physical determination, correct?
Richard Hipolit: Uh --
Ranking Member Richard Burr: -- that they're not capable of handling their finances.
Richard Hipolit: If they had a physical disability that impaired their ability to handle they're financial affairs, yes.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: So they're automatically classified as dangerous?
Richard
Hipolit: Our determination is just whether they can handle their
financial affairs and then that automatically triggers the requirement
to refer their names.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: So would you agree that the purpose of the NICIC
list which was to take guns away from dangerous people and the threshold
that VA currently uses to determine who goes on the NICIS list are
potentially two very different things?
Richard
Hipolit: I think that the law enforcement forces determined who should
be put on the NICIS list and they determine that person --
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: But they don't in the case of veterans. In the
case of veterans, the only person that determines whether they get on
the NICIC list is the VA and it's determined based upon are they capable
of handling their own finances.
Richard Hipolit: Well the law that requires us to make a referral is --
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: And you're the only agency in the federal
government that across the board sends every person that's not qualified
to handle their personal finances to the NICIC list?
Richard Hipolit: That's not my understanding --
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Are you ware of that?
Richard Hipolit: It's my understanding that other agencies refer people as well.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Other agencies refer people but they have a
different threshold for the ones that they refer. I think they might
use the definition of dangerous and what I've heard you say is dangerous
does not come into play. Mental capacity does not come into play.
Capability of handling your own personal finances is the only threshold
and when they hit that, they're automatically put on the NICIS list.
Richard
Hipolit: From VA's standpoint, if they're determined to be unable to
handle their financial affairs, we have to refer them.
Ranking
Member Richard Burr: I hate to dig in on this. I just want to point
out to you that the threshold is very, very different at VA. There are
many veterans, spouses, and family members who are deprived of their
Second Amendment right to own firearms based upon an arbitary decision
by somebody at VA that they can't handle their own personal finances.
These people are all of the sudden labeled as dangerous when in fact the
decision may have been a physical disability that didn't permit them to
handle their own finances. I hope this is something the Committee will
look at. I -- I'm actually shocked that the Veterans Affairs Committee
is not outraged at the way this is being implemented. 127,000 of our
country's veterans are stripped of a Constitutional right. Some
probably should. Many of those 127,000 never have had that right take
away. I thank you.
