The Beekeeper's Apprentice
Archives January 2005
|
Blog Archives
|
|
VA Lawmakers Drop the Intelligence Ball Again
1/31/2005 My oh-so-red state of Virginia has dropped the proverbial ball again. The Virginia Senate defeated a bill that would require unlicensed small gun dealers at gun shows to have background checks done before they could sell a firearm. My first question: (1) What the heck are small dealers doing selling guns without a license to begin with?? A (big suprise) republican Senator was quoted in the Washington Post as saying: "Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax) countered that the change would not affect crime rates because few guns bought at gun shows are used in crimes. He said, too, that it would be hard to enforce and would create long lines at shows, as buyers queue up for criminal checks. "You shut down a portion of this trade and of this business. That's what you're doing. You'll shut it down, overwhelmingly," he said." Which leads to my second, third and fourth question: (2) I have to wait in long lines just to get through the checkout at the local Food Lion grocery store, do you really think I care if some idiot has to wait in line to buy that 9mm? (3) shutting down the gun shows would be a bad thing? and (4) how do you know, Sen. Cuccinelli, that these guns bought without background checks at gun shows are rarely used in crimes, and care to quote your sources for this information? So, what did the police, who have to deal with the murders and accidental shootings, think? Well, according to Henry L. Marsh III, a democrat from my hometown of Richmond who sponsored the bill, "argued that many of the state's police chiefs supported the idea and said it would help reduce crime." I have to tell you, it's a lot easier for me to take seriously what the police have to say about this bill than a republican senator who lives a hair's breadth from the White House where duck huntin' and brush clearin' and pretendin' to be cowboys is the entertainment du jour. "Guns don't kill" is the NRA mantra - Yes, they do, in the hands of a hothead. "Only criminals would have guns" - no, you take the guns away from the criminals, too. Less guns = less criminals, because lets face reality, folks, it takes a lot of energy to murder someone with a baseball bat or a knife, and it takes time. I have to wonder how many convicted murderers would have gone to the bother if they didn't have the gun in their hand capable of killing in a split second. I'm highly skeptical of people who say that the crime rate wouldn't go down if guns were completely outlawed - mainly because it seems like so much backwards-thinking to me. If anything, 'heat of passion' murders would drop drastically - by the time the killer digs around in the closets for a half-hour looking for the baseball bat, or gets distracted by the 6 pack in the fridge or the oreos on the counter on the way to get the butcher knife, the 'heat of passion' is over. Ever heard of a 'drive-by knifing'? No, and there's a reason for that. Betcha never heard of a drive-by beating, either. Just a few thoughts to chew on. Does Cheney Have a Clue At All? 1/30/2005 I wonder if Vice President Cheney even realizes how utterly ridiculous he looked at the ceremony held Thursday to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz? Didn't his wife tell him that a hunting attire is not acceptable clothing to wear to a function to mourn the murder of millions of people? Didn't one of his aides tell him that everyone else will be dressed for a funeral, so, Mr. Cheney, suck it up, clip on that tie, pat your cow's lick down, and if you're a good boy we'll all go out for hot chocolate afterwards? Or is it that this man is just so unconceivably out of touch with humanity that he simply thumbs his nose at an event which demands solemnity? Did he forget, or did he even ever know, that the people who HAD to live and die there 60 years ago, who had no choice in the matter, who had rags to wear in the brutal cold of winter and nothing on their feet, no hot food in their stomachs, and faced gas chambers on a daily basis, who watched their loved ones herded off to the chambers like cattle to the slaughter and then had to live with the ever present coating of human ash from the crematoria - the ashes and burning meat stench of their own loved ones? I would like to give the benefit of the doubt - Cheney wasn't told that the affair was to be a solemn occasion and that everyone else would be dressed in funeral black and grey, but didn't the very place such a ceremony was being held tip him off? He didn't dress like that in Washington DC on January 20 when the temperature was 25 degrees and it had snowed the day before and the wind was whipping at 25 miles per hour, he dressed appropriately for the event. Then why couldn't he dress appropriately for the Auschwitz ceremony? Because he just doesn't seem to care about it, if it doesn't directly relate to himself. That's the only reason I can think of for his lack of respect. A Review of Romeo Dallaire's Shake Hands With the Devil 1/29/2005 Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire was the commander of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda in 1994 during genocide in which over 800,000 persons were slaughtered in 100 days. Dallaire's account is a horrendous story of an ever-present ethnic conflict which raged into the insanity which turned neighbor against neighbor, doctor against patient, priest against parishioner, and on and on. Dallaire came away from his command a broken man, and describes in his book the hollow eyed horror of Rwanda's surviving Tutsi population and of his own troops who were forced to watch the genocide occur. They begged for help from UN members such as the US and Dallaire's own country Canada, and received nothing. At times, while holed up in the capital city of Kigali while being constantly shelled and shot at by all sides in the then-raging civil war, they had little water, little food, and thousands of refugees they desperately tried to keep alive in the local soccer stadium and local hotels. All this, from March 1994 through October 1994, with no help from the large, rich, and more than able nations who could most afford to help. The world turned its back on itself during those 100 days, in allowing such a scene of misery, suffering and regional destabilization to occur unchecked and unchallenged, and even unacknowledged. Dallaire's account is exceptionally detailed and vivid - he imparts some of the terrible and gut-wrenching scenes that he witnessed. It gets under your skin, just reading his accounts. It stays with you - the descriptions of a 3 year old baby scrambling over the body of a dead person...walking across a bridge that someone worries might collapse from the weight of the bodies in the water pressing on the bridge supports.... This book can give you nightmares. Maybe, though, all of us Americans need a few more nightmares - maybe then, we'll speak up and tell our government to intervene in Sudan. 10 years later, another ethnic-based genocide is happening as we speak in Sudan. Again, despite all the promises of 'never again', another genocide is happening RIGHT NOW. The sorry truth of the matter is, Sudan has been under watch for several years, and it never seems to end. Given some teeth by powerful nations like the US, however, the genocide can be ended. One of the most stomach churning remembrances that Dallaire relates, however, is an American staffer who told him "...it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to justify the risking of the life of one American soldier." I have to wonder how many American soldiers would have taken on that challenge, although noone seems to have asked them. In his conclusion, Dallaire tells us that the rage produced in the young people who have survived a horror like Rwanda is the true danger - and it creates extremists like those who perpetrated 9/11. Rage at the utter disregard of them by the first world powers. With no guidance, with not even enough to eat or clean water to drink, with no attempts to provide them with anything but the most meager of educations, with no prospects, and no legitimate way to create their own, they turn to the gun. The same problem has shown itself in extremist organizations such as Al Quaeda. It's time that we all think long and hard on what kind of world we want to live in - and then tell these sorry excuses for leaders that we allow positions of power what kind of world we want to live in, and make them live up to their promises. The more dangerous the undeveloped or underdeveloped world becomes, the more dangerous the developed world becomes, and the correlation of the two became tragically and painfully direct on 9/11. Even if our governments cannot accept that ending these genocides is simply the right thing to do, maybe they will consider that allowing such rage to be born and fostered will pose a direct threat to the rest of the world. Senator Allen and Crimes Against Humanity 1/29/2005 I recently received an email from the ACLU requesting me to follow their link and send letters to my senators requesting that they oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General. He condones the use of torture by the United States to obtain information it desires, which is a crime against humanity. I sent an email to both of my senators from this oh-so-red state of Virginia, George Allen and John Warner. I received the following reply from George Allen: "Thank you for contacting me regarding President Bush’s nomination of Alberto Gonzales to become the next Attorney General of the United States. I appreciate your concerns and value to opportunity to respond. I applaud President Bush’s nomination of Alberto Gonzalez. He is the embodiment of the American dream, a man whose hard work, legal sense and intellect have already lifted him to some of the highest positions of trust in our nation. I look forward to his confirmation hearings and a fair vote before the U.S. Senate. I am confident that he will make an outstanding U.S. Attorney General. Once again, I appreciate you contacting me regarding this matter and hope you will not hesitate to contact me again about issues important to you. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website (http://allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family.
With warm regards, I remain I fully expected that if I received any type of acknowledgement of my letter in opposition to the nomination of Gonzalez, that the response would be just what I got - patronizing, uber-right wing and "tote the party line no matter the cost." However, besides that down to the core of my gut feeling that torture is quite simply wrong, it is useless on a practical level. Torture only elicits the responses that the torturer wants, not what the torturee actually knows, if anything. Torture leaves a stain on human consciousness in the form of severe distrust and rage. Eventually, it effects us all. It's also discouraging to know that my voice will not be heard by those to claim to represent me, because they do not represent me or where I would like to see America in ten years. So, I ask the staunchly 'conservative' republican senators: When will you stop toting your party's line? How high will the price have to be for the American public, for the world public, and for the further disintegration and deadening of the human spirit in all quarters before you finally look within yourselves and ask the right questions? The questions of morality - is it moral to inflict pain and suffering on another human in order to obtain often useless information from them? Is it moral to ignore suffering in parts of the world where suffering has become the norm, such as that which is happening as we speak in western Sudan? Republican Senators: you helped the Bush administration claim moral superiority and moral mandates with the election. It's time to show the world how moral you really are, by blocking the nomination of a man who shows no compunction in promoting worldwide suffering, to one of the highest levels of authority that can be obtained in this country. So long as you continue to promote rage and hatred throughout the world by ignoring the suffering you inflict with your complacency in the face of it, this world will continue to become more dangerous for all of us, not just Americans. America needs to start setting an example for the rest of the world through our humane treatment of all and our works to better the world around us. Dear Senators Allen and others who think that this man Gonzalez will be a boon for American safety and American life: You are wrong. This man will only further division both at home and abroad. There must be a better choice. Dear Democratic Senators: Some of you have very eloquently spoken out against this nomination, and I applaud you for it. However, you have stated that you have no intention of fillibustering Gonzalez' nomination. You must, or you will be as complicit in the furtherance of the declining state of morality in this country as the Republicans who will not face their own consciences. To accept torture as a viable means to an end will condemn you in the eyes of a world tired out from conflict. You may not be successful in blocking this nomination, but you MUST try.
Sincere regards, Democrats Complain about the Iraq war - It's About Time! 1/25/2005 What can the Apprentice say about the fact that a few Senators who claim to be democrats FINALLY, yes, FINALLY have started to weigh in on the war in Iraq and oppose the nomination of Condi? All I can say is it's about time! What were they waiting for? Nuclear war? Armageddon? Jerry Falwell to have a J. Edgar moment and get camera phoned wearing lacy undies?? Too bad they're about, hmm...yes, about FOUR YEARS too late. Now, let me explain. I have voted for democrats all my voting life. I voted for Dukakis. I voted twice for Clinton. I voted for Gore and I voted for Kerry. Clinton was a pretty good pick, in my humble opinion. The economy boomed (ok, it was tech stocks, but who knew?). The water was getting cleaner. The air was getting cleaner. Minimum wage went up for the first time in what, 15 years? I think we all know that the only reason Gore came so close to winning before the election was stolen out from under his pompous nose was he was riding on Clinton's coattail. Four years ago, that was fine by me. Ride that tailor-cut suit coattail all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I said, as soon as I saw in 2000 Barbara Bush go on the Today Show and defend her little boy's intelligence. I couldn't believe anyone would vote for a man who had to have his mommy defend him on national tv. "Vote for the smart one", I said then. Then I heard someone on tv say the same thing in 2004 to undecided voters. "Vote for the smart one." So millions of undecided voters went out and voted for the smart one. Unfortunately, more (rigged touchscreens and unequipped minority precincts aside) seem to have voted for the stupid one. Immediately upon Kerry's concession (groan) speech on 11/3/04, all the democrats in Congress start wheedling and whining about 'unification' and 'reaching out'. Again, the Apprentice said "WHY??? Why should we reach out? Why should we try to unify with a pathological liar and all around nutcase?". Personally, I wanted to see the dems in congress fillibuster every single thing, right down to the most insignificant and right back up to the most dangerous, that BushCo would try in their 2nd term. Instead, we got wheedling and whining and 'efforts at unification'. Screw that. Now, the dems want to get indignant. They want to fight BushCo and their hot zone of insanity. I say: What the hell took you so long? Your constituency has been out there, fighting all along. It's about damned time you get on board! I have to give credit where credit is due, though. Kudos, high-fives and cheers all around with a round of shots to match to Barbara Boxer to have the cojones to sign the Representatives contest of the electoral vote, and a big hurrah for grilling Condi into indignation. We love you, Barb. Peace. Bill O'Reilly Thinks the ACLU is Fascist? This Guy Really Does Live in LALA Land 1/25/2005 Bill O'Reilly topped himself by saying that "Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro probably is. And so would Mao Zedong." Bill calls the ACLU fascist. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Third Edition, fascism is defined as: 1. A right wing system of government characterized by extreme nationalistic beliefs and strict obedience to a leader or the state. 2. Extreme right-wing or intolerant views or behaviour. The ACLU, of which yes, I do happen to be a card carrying member, doesn't quite fit the above definition. I have one example of their complete lack of partisanship and complete lack of fascism: The ACLU helped to defend Rush Limbaugh recently in his court case involving his drug problem. The ACLU worked to protect the patient-doctor priviledge and to keep his medical records secret, as they should be. Rush had denigrated the ACLU for years, exactly as O'Reilly does now. Even though Rush had vehemently impugned their purpose and very existence for years, the ACLU came to his defense because he is, like the rest of us, an american citizen, and has the same rights as the rest of us. If they were a fascist society, they would have clamored for his sealed medical records to be made public and left him hanging in the breeze. What about the article attached to this missive? The ACLU has been fighting for years to keep religious belief (and a narrow and highly sectarian one, at that) out of the science curricula of public schools. I say GREAT! Keep up the Good Work! Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it has no peer-reviewed research behind it, and as for theory? All ID says is a vague version of "God did it". No, it doesn't say 'god', no, it doesn't say 'jesus' and it doesn't have to. "God did it" is inherently implied when it prattles on about evolution not being a fact, it's ONLY a theory, Darwin recanted on his deathbed and humans and dinosaurs cohabited the earth and every other piece of veiled proselytizing the evangelicals and fundamentalists can regurgitate. On the other hand, evolution doesn't have a thing to say about origins, but it sure does tell us, with more than ample evidence and more than ample explanatory power, how life on this planet developed. What is the danger of allowing veiled fundamentalist christian Religious Reich proselytizing in the form of the lies and falsehoods of ID to be entered into the public school science curricula? Well, that's a pretty easy question to answer: this great country of ours is already lagging behind the rest of the world in the sciences, engineering and technology. Do we really need to cripple our young people any more than they already are by budget cuts to schools? I don't think we, as a country, can afford that. Some people, such as Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, and the other snake-oil salesmen from the 80's who suddenly are being taken seriously claim that they have some mandate over the rest of us who may or may not share their sectarian worldview. If you want your children to have religious training, then take them to church, take them to sunday school, or teach them at home, but do not force your particular religious belief on the whole of society. America needs to get past these puritanical notions and move on into the 21st century with the rest of the developed world. What we need is to take this country a step further and be the scientific and technological mover and shaker we once were and can be again. One of the tactics that ID'ers and right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly use to promote their Religious Reich agenda is twisting the definitions and convincing much of the populace that their definition is correct. They are still wrong, and their definitions are still twisted, but they keep spouting the same rhetoric over and over again until it sticks. Their definition seems to be that any group that argues in favor of universal rights, including freedom OF and FROM religion are fascist. Actually, the definition is just the opposite. Hitler would be a card-carrying member of the ACLU? Wrong. Civil liberties are not on the agenda of totalitarian regimes. Stalin a card-carrying member of the ACLU? No, again, wrong. Freedom in any shape or form is not on the agenda of totalitarian regimes. Castro? Please, enough already. Bill has shown that he has no concept of what freedom really means. The ACLU does, and proved it when they came to the aid of Bill's buddy Rush. They prove it every day when they fight for the rights of religious persons to practice as they see fit, when they fight for the rights of non-religious persons to not be ostracized and officially harmed for their lack of belief, and they fight for right-wingers under assault by the very system that they themselves espouse.
|