Ohio's Republican-dominated legislature is pretty much the most batshit insane legislative body in the U.S., if not the world, preferring the persecution of gays and the handing out of guns to anybody who wants them over actually getting anything done (the Ohio GOP has also never passed up an opportunity to cut corporate taxes and slash environmental and health regulations).
Our Republican "governor" is an ineffectual moron who couldn't wipe his own ass without hundreds of pages of instructions explaining how to do it -- and he'd still find a way to screw it up.
So it comes as no surprise that the Buckeye State's GOP decided to override outgoing governor Bob Taft's veto of a poorly written gun law that makes it even easier for criminals to hide their guns from police officers.
According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio House Bill 347 further relaxes restrictions on carrying guns, altering the current concealed carry law to allow motorists to drive with their weapons holstered and hidden from view. The law also wipes out municipal bans on assault weapons.
Surprisingly, polls show most Ohioans are actually supporting Taft on this one. This despite his single-digit approval ratings. There's a good reason for this; it's probably the only smart thing he's done as governor.
Why? Mainly because there is absolutely no credible evidence suggesting guns help lower the crime rate. In fact, the only real study by gun lobbyists supporting their erroneous assertion about more guns causing a reduction in crime was thoroughly debunked. The methods of John Lott, the NRA's gun guru, have also been called into question, and on more than one occasion. Statistics support the fact that street crime is not affected by concealed carry; you are more likely to be killed with a gun by a loved one, than by a stranger.
But don't tell that to the Ohio legislature, which is still going to be run by Republicans after the next session begins in January. Their answer to everything appears to be to let just anyone have guns -- consequences be damned. This presents a danger to the safety of law enforcement, and a gross infringment of the right of communities to self-government.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Why Impeachment Should Be Pursued
Reading the letters in response to a TomPaine.com dual column on impeachment (one by David Corn, the other by Jennifer Van Bergen), one gets the distinct impression that even those who are undecided on the issue feel it should remain an option.
I have the following argument to make in favor of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney: if we don't, we're letting criminals get away with murder -- both literally and figuratively. When the ugliness of Iran-Contra played out, it became clear that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (the president and vice president, respectively) had committed treason against the United States.
Congress investigated the scandal, which involved the selling of arms to Iran by the Reagan administration and using the profits to fund the terrorist Contras in Nicaragua. Yet the Legislature stopped short of impeaching both traitors. The fact innocent people died as a result of that treason did not seem to matter.
The precedent set was terrible, and it had long-lasting consequences that haunt America to this day. Had Bush Sr. and Reagan been impeached, the former never would have become president and gone on to wage the first war against Iraq. Al-Qaeda might not even exist today, the chief reason for its formation being the establishment of an American military presence in Saudi Arabia -- the home of Mecca, Islam's holiest city.
And we certainly would not have George W. Bush, the elder Bush's son, occupying the White House. We would not be bogged down in another pointless war in Iraq.
But impeachment did not happen then. And the rest, as they say, is history. What will happen down the line if Democrats fail to exercise their Constitutional duty to impeach and remove George W. Bush and Duck Cheney?
The answer, of course, is a future Bush regime (or some other power-mad executive) committing high crimes in office -- with the terrible assumption, vindicated by history, that a sitting occupant of the White House may commit any crime (no matter how vile) and get away with it because Congress is afraid of what voters will do in response.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead from the current war, and thousands of American soldiers have been killed. These are acts of murder, for which the current Bush regime is directly responsible.
There is ample evidence Bush and Cheney have committed literally hundreds of impeachable offenses. Democrats have a duty to begin investigations leading to impeachment. And they must carry out this duty without fear.
Because, really, did the Republicans bother to think about the consequences when they impeached then-president Bill Clinton in the House of Representatives? No, they didn't. They did it and still maintained power. Voters did not hand control of both Houses of Congress to the opposition.
So enough cowardice on the part of Democrats. Start the investigations, and begin the impeachment process. If nothing else, it'll prevent Dick Cheney from ever being able to run for president.
I have the following argument to make in favor of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney: if we don't, we're letting criminals get away with murder -- both literally and figuratively. When the ugliness of Iran-Contra played out, it became clear that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (the president and vice president, respectively) had committed treason against the United States.
Congress investigated the scandal, which involved the selling of arms to Iran by the Reagan administration and using the profits to fund the terrorist Contras in Nicaragua. Yet the Legislature stopped short of impeaching both traitors. The fact innocent people died as a result of that treason did not seem to matter.
The precedent set was terrible, and it had long-lasting consequences that haunt America to this day. Had Bush Sr. and Reagan been impeached, the former never would have become president and gone on to wage the first war against Iraq. Al-Qaeda might not even exist today, the chief reason for its formation being the establishment of an American military presence in Saudi Arabia -- the home of Mecca, Islam's holiest city.
And we certainly would not have George W. Bush, the elder Bush's son, occupying the White House. We would not be bogged down in another pointless war in Iraq.
But impeachment did not happen then. And the rest, as they say, is history. What will happen down the line if Democrats fail to exercise their Constitutional duty to impeach and remove George W. Bush and Duck Cheney?
The answer, of course, is a future Bush regime (or some other power-mad executive) committing high crimes in office -- with the terrible assumption, vindicated by history, that a sitting occupant of the White House may commit any crime (no matter how vile) and get away with it because Congress is afraid of what voters will do in response.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead from the current war, and thousands of American soldiers have been killed. These are acts of murder, for which the current Bush regime is directly responsible.
There is ample evidence Bush and Cheney have committed literally hundreds of impeachable offenses. Democrats have a duty to begin investigations leading to impeachment. And they must carry out this duty without fear.
Because, really, did the Republicans bother to think about the consequences when they impeached then-president Bill Clinton in the House of Representatives? No, they didn't. They did it and still maintained power. Voters did not hand control of both Houses of Congress to the opposition.
So enough cowardice on the part of Democrats. Start the investigations, and begin the impeachment process. If nothing else, it'll prevent Dick Cheney from ever being able to run for president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
