Home Blog Page 3238

McDonnell Bullies State Police?

11

Is the McDonnell administration bullying and muzzling the Virginia State Police?  Based on this article, it sure looks like it.

Some tenured legislators raised their eyebrows during this year’s General Assembly session when a State Police official spoke in favor of raising speed limits to 70 mph on certain state highways. The agency had opposed it.

The shift in position followed instructions from Gov. Bob McDonnell’s administration to the law enforcement agency that a public endorsement was expected, according to a government source with knowledge of the conversations who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Administration officials made it clear to the State Police that it was expected to back the speed limit change, which McDonnell supported, and remain silent on some gun measures, the source said. The State Police offered testimony on at least one gun proposal this year – defeated legislation to require criminal background checks on certain private gun sales – before being hushed on others, the source added.

Obviously, this is not good if true. I can just imagine the howls of outrage if a Democratic governor had done this. For its part, the State Police “declined to comment.” Hmmmm.

P.S. In other news, Bill Bolling seems to think that the Virginia National Guard are supposed to act as his travel agents, and possibly as his transportation back from Italy.  I dunno, but doesn’t it seem like the Virginia National Guard might have more important things to do than figuring out how Bill Bolling can fly through a volcanic ash cloud?

Video From “Open Carry”/Anti-Government Protest at Fort Hunt

7



Thanks to Cliff Schecter and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence for this video from the “open carry”/anti-government event at Fort Hunt earlier today. Note the interview at the end where “featured speaker” Mike “Break their windows” Vanderboegh says there could be “more Ruby Ridges” and “more Wacos.”  What I really want to know is, in what conceivable way have people like Mr. Vanderboegh been “pushed farther back” by the government? Was it the increased gun rights or the lower taxes that were the final straw for these guys? Hmmmm.

UPDATE: Also, check this ad, an “open letter to Senators Webb & Warner from families of Virginia Tech victims & survivors.”

UPDATE #2: The Washington Post reports, Mark Warner is “noncommittal” on closing the “gun show loophole,” while Jim Webb “came out firmly behind requiring background checks of all purchases at gun shows” (according to Lori Haas, whose daughter was wounded in the Virginia Tech shootings).

Gun Rights Marchers

2

Normally I am a rather quiet advocate for gun rights, but picking the anniversary of the biggest domestic terrorism act as your day to march for gun rights should exclude you from being able to ever own a gun.

Monumentally bad taste, and remarkably stupid and insensitive decision to pick today, the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombings, as your day to march on this particular issue…

Joe Biden on “Devastating Blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq”

0



Meanwhile, in other excellent news, a new BBC survey finds, “For the first time since the annual poll began in 2005, America’s influence in the world is now seen as more positive than negative.”  The BBC attributes this to “Barack Obama becoming president.”  As always, I wouldn’t expect all the “nattering nabobs of negativity” out there (e.g., Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck) to give Barack Obama credit for this. But I will, and I hope you will too, because he definitely deserves it. Nice work, keep it up!

Video: Terry McAuliffe and Jon Bowerbank Promote Virginia Wine in Cuba

0



For more on Terry McAuliffe and Jon Bowerbank’s recent trade mission – promoting Virginia wine, among other things – to Cuba, see here. Or, just watch the video. It’s fascinating how much Jon Bowerbank looks like Burl Ives, and how much Terry McAuliffe looks like Alec Guiness, but I’m sure that’s just a strange coincidence for “our men in Havana.” 🙂 Also, is that Virginia wine they’re drinking or something more tropical? Heh.

“He Fooled Me!” New Ad Questions McDonnell on Race

0

A new Democratic PAC is going on the air with a radio ad targeting Gov. Bob McDonnell. From TPM:

In the wake of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) botched Confederate History Month declaration, a new group of Democrats has gone on the air to tell African Americans in the state their new Governor is not the big-tent leader he promised to be. […]

The ad makes no bones about targeting the tentative ties to the black community McDonnell’s supporters claimed he forged during his all-moderate-all-the-time 2009 campaign.

Listen to the ad at the YouTube page of the semi-palindromically-named Americans for America.

AARP Plugs for Financial Reform

0

Holy Swingin’ Grannies! Deep-voiced Grandpas, too! AARP comes out for financial reform. Hahaha. Mildly spiteful. (It’s about time):

Sarah Palin’s Right: You Should Run on Energy

( – promoted by lowkell)

Over the past week, Sarah Palin encouraged Tea-Party candidates to make energy issues a central part of their campaigns. “There’s nothing stopping us from achieving energy independence that a good old national election can’t fix,” she said.

Palin’s full of surprises, but this piece of campaign advice caught me off-guard. After all, a recent poll found that energy is the issue that inspires the most faith in Democratic lawmakers. Since President Obama made clean energy a central part of their campaign in 2008, this poll suggests that this is what the majority of people want.  Therefore, Democrats AND Republicans should all be running on clean energy.

Tea-partiers are always more than welcome to pontificate & peddle” more of the same”, blathering about dirty, old energy technologies that date back to the 19th century.

When in fact it will be bold Republicans and smart Democrats that support clean, innovative, job generating “energy ideas” that will truly get a lift by campaigning on energy.  

Eight years of “Drill, baby, Drill,” during the Bush administration got us exactly where we are now – in trouble and dependent on foreign oil. But that isn’t what the American voters want now. American voters want progress and they want jobs.  The clean energy plan at the center of the economic package, which just approved a $100 million investment in smart grid technology, will lead to 30,000 Americans getting new job training.

These are the energy policies that Americans will have the most faith in. And that’s why I encourage the undecided Senators out there–those lawmakers and candidates from both parties who have been quiet about clean energy and climate legislation–to step forward and declare their support for a clean energy future for America and show some leadership.

Rather than being scared about what the Tea Party will say in response, lawmakers should be listening to American voters. People want to see progress right now, not more Congressional gridlock.

Comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is primed for passing. It has already passed in the House. A new Senate bill is expected to become public in the coming days and will have tri-partisan support in the Senate thanks to Senators Kerry (D), Graham (R), and Lieberman (I). After the bill is unveiled, negotiating will begin in earnest.  Forward movement is further propelled by the White House backing, thanks to President Obama’s repeated requests for a bill to be delivered to his desk. And it has already gone through numerous hearings and been thoroughly debated on the Hill.

Senators should pass a clean energy and climate bill this summer and head into the final campaign push with a real success in hand–an action plan to deliver on the three of the most pressing issues for American voters right now:

• Jobs: The clean energy and climate bill that passed the House last just is projected to create nearly 2 million jobs. In fact, for every $1 million invested in clean energy, we can create 3 to 4 times as many jobs as if we spent the same amount on fossil fuels.

• The Economy: There is a consensus among economists that America can prevent the worst impacts of climate change without hurting the economy. As Paul Krugman explained recently, the House bill would leave the American economy between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent smaller in 2050 than it would be otherwise.

• National Security: This week, the U.S. Military warned that oil would be in dangerously short supply in the next few years, exacerbating political tensions and around the world. In contrast, Think Progress found that clean energy and climate legislation would reduce Iran’s petrodollar receipts by $1.8 trillion through 2050. That’s an average of $100 million per day that doesn’t fall into the hands of a regime that sponsors extremist groups around the world!

These are the kind of real numbers that Americans are looking for. That’s why those up for reelection this fall should run on a positive, forward-looking energy policy instead of the 19th century leftover rhetoric that Palin is dishing out.

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the director of the NRDC Action Fund. Become a fan on Facebook or Twitter.

the violence of Patriots’ Day

13

in 1775, the outbreak of the American Revolution.  The British marched  from Boston to seize arms accumulated by Americans.  The 1st shots were fired at Lexington, the badly outnumbered Americans fell back. The next engagement was at Concord. By then several hundred Americans had gathered, At North Bridge they drove the British back, and as the Redcoats retreated towards Boston, continued to fire upon them from behind rocks and trees.  More troops marched from Boston to rescue the endangered column. they retreated to Boston, where the colonists cut them off and began the siege of Boston.

This is an important day in Beantown, one experienced as a Marine ’66.  The Post band at Quantico, came up, playing at a gathering the night before. We were near Concord Bridge for the ceremonies the next morning (only 20 feet  from the cannon firing every minute), finishing the day at the end of the Marathon on a day when the Japanese finished 1-2-3-4.

Like other Americans, my memories of the date are clouded by violence of a different kind –  the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidians in Waco, and two the terrorism of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols at the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

Today I reflect upon violence.

Of course April 19th holds an important place in our national memory.  We have the image of the Minutemen, dropping their plows and grabbing their muskets.  Only Lexington and Concord were not entirely unexpected, and the response began as soon as the British began their march out:  American spies knew the British would be coming, They sent out three messengers:  Samuel Dawes, Paul Revere and William Prescott, with the latter two joining Revere after he had managed to ride out from Boston to sound the alarm.  

The events of that morning had been building for several years. I will not recount the prior history except to remind people of the Boston Massacre of 1770 and the Tea Party of December 16, 1773, the latter which led to the occupation of Boston by the British.  

The idea that Americans would respond to a threat of force or tyranny with force of their own took shape in the iconic image of the Minuteman, celebrated in poetry by the Longfellow:

Listen my children and you shall hear

of the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere

and Emerson’s “Concord Hymn”:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

    Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled;

Here once the embattled farmers stood;

    And fired the shot heard round the world.

For better or worse, our nation was born at least in part through violence, and we have celebrated that violence, however justified it may have been.

The image of Lexington and Concord has shaped our understanding of the 2nd Amendment, which does, after all, refer to a well-regulated militia.   We have from time to time heard arguments about what a militia is:  after all, McVeigh and Nichols were involved with a group calling itself the Michigan Militia, even though it was not under government regulation and the Michigan National Guard was.  And Waco, the siege of the Branch Davidian compound, was in large part because of weapons – it was ATF that went in.   Just as the earlier siege in Ruby Ridge was because of weapons.  And that siege was connected to Waco because of a visit by Randy Weaver.  

I do not wish to justify or glorify violence.  I acknowledge it. I recognize that at times its use is unavoidable. I also acknowledge that once one begins rationalizing the use of violence, it is very easy for things to spin out of control.  Was it justified for the FBI to try to take out Randy Weaver when he was barricaded with his wife and family?  Did the shot taken by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi qualify as an act of murder?  After all, while the case was transferred to Federal jurisdiction where the charges against Horiuchi were dismissed, the Federal government wound up paying millions to the Weaver family for the deaths (including Weaver’s wife) that occurred.  Was she merely collateral damage in an otherwise justified use of force?

What then about Waco?  Was “David Koresh” a madman who was jeopardizing the lives of women and children in the compound?  After all, we had already seen the mass deaths of another religious cult in Guyana, the willingness to kill any who might be viewed as threatening the survival of the cult.  

What about an atmosphere of paranoia, of black helicopters?  What about the escalation of rhetoric that could feed that paranoia?

What about books that fantasize violence against the government?  Why is it so often that these mental constructions about violence somehow wind up also being virulently anti-Semitic, as were the Turner Diaries of William Pierce that so influenced Timothy McVeigh?  That book argued for the elimination of Jews and of non-whites.  As we reflect on this day, on what McVeigh did, and look at our own time, we may remember the racism because we have a president with a Black skin, but with the last name of Bernstein I cannot forget the antisemitism, something the various “Aryan” groups have in common with much of the Klan, which also bombed synagogues in the South.

I teach government.  I am very pressed for time to prepare my students for tests –  my AP students have their exam two weeks from this morning, and we lost 9 days to snow.  Perhaps I should not take the time to explore these issues.  But I make a point of finding the time for relevant events around us.  And this is relevant.  How can I not carve out the time to help them understand?  My students range in age from 14 to 18.  The oldest were small children at the time of Oklahoma City, and few were even alive at the time of Waco.  

Each year when this date comes around I worry.  Perhaps there will again be violence on this day, or on the day that follows, which is the anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado.  That is only 11 years ago, and those of my students who are seniors have some memories of the television from that event.

I was a Marine.  One thing I learned during my service in the mid-1960s is that for the average person it is not easy to deliberately kill another human being.  We can do so in rage, we can do so in anger after we or those and that we love have been attacked.  I never saw combat, but from friends who did I also learned that one was changed by the act of taking another life.  I am grateful I have not had that experience.  

One is also changed by experiencing violence towards that one values, either personally or in principle.  When that happens, it seemingly becomes easier to rationalize one’s own use of violence, to overcome whatever reluctance one may have, even if it results in “collateral damage” beyond the target at whom we aim our anger or our retribution.

Gandhi is reputed to have said that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.  I do not know if he actually offered those words, even as I acknowledge they seem an accurate representation of his beliefs and life.  In sports we have the likes of umpires – a retaliatory hitting an opposing batter is sometimes prevented by a warning, and often responded to by rejection and fine.  There is an external power that can say “enough” before the violence escalates out of control.  

Yet we glorify violence and the willingness to stand up for one’s own, certainly in sports with loops of violent hits in football and hockey, in your face dunks in basketball, . . .  

There are times when one must stand up.  Violence may become part of what is required.  That was certainly so 235 yearss ago this morning, in the suburbs of Boston, where this date first acquired its honored position on our calendar.

It is unfortunate that memory of that day cannot avoid the memories of Waco and of Oklahoma City.  Perhaps someone with historical memory might have timed the raid on the Branch Davidian compound for some other day, any other day, on the calendar, to avoid the association that enabled the likes of McVeigh to claim a connection with the patriotic events of 1775.  Perhaps April 18th or 20th would not have made a difference.  I truly do not know.  

Like many who read this, I will listen to what Rachel Maddow will offer tonight, the McVeigh tapes.  For some, the main attraction may be that part of the human soul that finds a need to slow down and look at car crashes.  For me, it will be at least equally if not more an attempt to more fully understand a mind set that is alien to my own experience and way of thinking.

Patriot – the word comes from Patria, homeland.  It has great appeal, not merely to fans of Tom Brady or the George Mason U basketball team (and that university is named after one who demonstrated his own patriotism without ever bearing arms in combat, but by refusing to agree to a Constitution without protection for individual rights and liberties).  I love this nation, I love what I as the descendant of  immmigrant Jews has been able to experience in education, in political participation, in my ability to be able to criticize my government when I think it is wrong.

Less than two weeks before the events of Lexington and Concord, Samuel Johnson, according to Boswell, opined that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”  We do not know what the good doctor intended by those words.  At times they are used to be dismissive towards those who are passionate about this country, who honestly believe that criticism of the country is somehow unpatriotic, who might be used by demagogues to suppress political opposition.  

I am not sure what meaning I should ascribe to Patriotism.  I know that at some point violence seems an unavoidable consequence of the human condition, and the willingness to resort to violence, however reluctantly, may be necessary to ‘secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” as we read in the Declaration.  

However reluctantly.  And it is here that I can begin to separate the events of the 1990s from the iconic events of 1775.   The violence of Lexington and Concord was offered in resistance to violence, implied and actual, being advanced by the British Army.  Leaving aside for now Waco, what McVeigh did in 1995 cannot be viewed as a reluctant resorting to violence, but rather as a deliberate attempt to foment more violence.  That to me besmirches whatever real meaning one might find in the events of 1775.  

Patriota’ Day.  

“the shot heard round the world”

I will not glorify the events, but I will acknowledge the willingness of those New Englanders to sacrifice, including the sacrifice of a part of ones own soul in the taking of human life.

And I will again return to the words of the Declaration, which acknowledges what they did as the signers of that document could read just above where they affixed their own names:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

our sacred honor – where is there honor in blowing up a building that houses a day care center?  And, to return to Waco, to understand the anger it involves, at what point is the application of force in a situation that at worst represents a stalemate violate a sense of honor?  

I can offer no easy conclusions.  Insofar as people differ in experience and outlook, they will interpret things in radically different and seemingly contradictory manners.  That is true of words, it is true of history.  What the Constitution and the Declaration mean to me are evidently not the same as they do to those in “militias” or even some on the Supreme Court.  While I have never resorted to physical violence to advance my viewpoint at the expense of one with which I disagree, I understand that I am fully capable of doing so if pushed far enough.

Those in New England chose to draw a line.  In part, the nation we enjoy is a direct result of what they did, of the violence in which they participated.  If we honor this nation, we cannot avoid honoring them, including their violence.

I believe that was a violence born of sacred honor.  I see it at least in part as reluctant but necessary violence.

I attempt to make such distinctions, even as I acknowledge the real possibility of a slippery slope, the best experience of which I have had is to see someone foolishly start going down the lakeside slope of Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes, and watching how he had to be rescued.  

our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor

a three-fold statement that somehow reminds me of Corinthians,  of faith, hope, and charity

in each case the last of the three is perhaps the most important.

For me, honor requires me to respect the humanity of others, even as they may be the most deadly possible adversary.

Today is Patriot Day.  It is a day associated with violence.

But it is so much more.  It is day of honor, of commitment, of sacrifice.

Peace.

Scott Surovell: “The Gun Movement Comes to Fort Hunt”

41

Over at his blog, The Dixie Pig, Del. Scott Surovell (D-44) shares his thoughts on the “open carry”, “Restore the Constitution” rally scheduled for today at Fort Hunt Park in his district. According to Surovell, his constituents are reacting with “concern, fear, and outright anger with some.” The bottom line, from Surovell’s perspective, is that “writing a letter to the editor, starting a blog, or running a TV ad are much more effective methods of communication than staging a rally with a loaded and/or unloaded weapons in what is really a suburban neighborhood park just because you can do it.”

For all of Del. Surovell’s thoughts on today’s anti-government, “open carry” rally in Fort Hunt Park, click here. What do you think?

P.S. As the Washington Post story points out, “Those coming to the “Restore the Constitution” rally give Obama no quarter for signing the law that permits them to bring their guns to Fort Hunt, run by the National Park Service, and to Gravelly Point on the banks of the Potomac River. Nor are they comforted by a broad expansion of gun rights in several states since his election.” That’s right, Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have expanded gun rights since they took office in January 2009. Why don’t they get any “credit” for this from pro-gun folks?

UPDATE: Rep. Jim Moran (D-8th, VA) weighs in.

The free association and gathering of individuals is a constitutionally protected right that all Americans should support, regardless of whether one agrees with the substance of the protest. Holding an armed rally at a public park however, raises major public safety concerns.

These anti-government demonstrations are fueled by the belief that our constitutional rights under the Second Amendment are somehow under attack and urgent action is needed. While this may be a powerful rallying point for special interest groups, the claim could not be further from the truth. In fact, much to my dismay, virtually every action the federal government has taken in the past decade has weakened commonsense gun laws already on the books.

I understand that the Park Service is well aware of the situation and is working to ensure the public’s safety is protected. I urge anyone attending the event to protest in a peaceful manner, respectful of the park and its visitors. I maintain my belief that firearms do not belong in national parks but unfortunately, that’s now the law of the land.