Why I hate Saxby

I received the following reply from Saxby Chambliss regarding my e-mail to him urging him to support federal legislation which would include the GLBT community under hate crime law:

Dear Mr. C:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on hate crime legislation. I appreciate hearing your concerns on this matter.

There is little evidence that indicates that violent crimes motivated by "hate" go unpunished in the United States. Most states already have criminal laws that prohibit the anti-social behavior addressed by hate crime legislation - including laws against murder, rape, arson, assault, and battery.

I oppose the creation of Federal hate crime legislation for a variety of reasons. First, I do not believe the Federal government should interfere with the criminal laws already on the books in our states. Second, many hate crime bills attempt to establish a "protected class" of crime victims who would receive special protection under the law. And finally, we already have laws to prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes. Those people guilty of violent crimes against anyone should be prosecuted under existing law.

An open response to Saxby:

Why Saxby did you feel the need to put the word hate in quotations? Do actions based on prejudice, bigotry, or a misguided interpretation of ones holy scripture not count as hate to you? Do you not consider actions taken by Muslim extremists against women or Christians or Americans as directed by hate? Or, do you not want statements you have made to be considered provocations of hate crime that you could be prosecuted for? For example, your remarks made during a November 19, 2001 meeting with emergency responders in Valdosta, Georgia, where you said that they should "turn the sheriff loose and arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line". Or because, in 2002, Ralph Reed praised the Confederate flag in radio adds which helped you to defeat Max Clealand? Maybe you don't want "protected classes" because you don't want certain classes of people to have any protection from violence or words that incite violence.

Saxby, did you realise that crimes committed due to sexual orientation were double of those committed due to race in Georgia in 2007? If there are twice as many and you don't think there should be federal laws to reinforce and help pay to prosecute these crimes, are you also against the federal laws pertaining to hate crimes based on race? Should the federal government not enact ANY law that has already been addressed by any state? While we do have a federal system, that separates the duties and rights of the federal and state governments, your arguments are sounding more like those from a politician from GA in 1860, than those from a GA politician in 2009.

As I said in the previous paragraph, hate crime law does not only make hate crimes a federal offence, but it provides federal financial help in prosecuting these crimes. After Matthew Shepard's killing, the jurisdiction in Wyoming which prosecuted those responsible for his murder had to lay off 5 police officers after the trail concluded because the cost of the trail was more than they could afford. Saxby, are you saying that the state of GA should be forced to lower the police presence, making ALL Georgians more vulnerable to ALL crime because you do not want to allow federal money to be used to prosecute these kinds of crime? If so, then shame on you.

Oh yeah... Sarah Palin endorsed him too. That in itself should have been enough!

If you would like to contact Saxby about this, go here

If you are interested in these issues and would like to see more ways to help, please visit my site here

Michelle's garden irks mega agri-conglomerates

I think it's just awesome that Michelle Obama has decided to implement a garden at the White House. Further, as it is the ultimate manifestation of a philosophy of local consumption, I think that everyone who has enough space and some sun should grow food. It's good for your carbon footprint and good for your tummy. But also, I think that the more people touch dirt the better. It is, after all, the stuff of which we are made, from whence we have come, and to which we shall return. We need to acquaint ourselves more intimately with it. It is a known fact that people who loose contact with the soil slowly go crazy and exhibit bizarre behaviors such as purchasing antibacterial soaps and becoming preoccupied with Brangolina. They also may begin to flatulate explosively.

Well of course, the Obama garden will be sans chemicals. Predictably, this fact has the panties of mega agribusiness all in a wad. The Mid America Croplife Association (MACA), which is basically a PR group for chemical producers like Dow, Monsanto, and DuPont, has circulated an open letter to the Obamas encouraging them to use "Crop Protection Products", otherwise known as pesticides, in their garden. In a preface circulated with the letter, the representative from MACA says, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made Janet Braun, CropLife Ambassador Coordinator and I shudder."

What sleazebags! There might be an argument to be made that, at least presently, chemicals need to play a legitimate role in food production, but their use is unsustainable. And to suggest that any home gardener should refrain from using non-chemical methods is ridiculous and deplorable.

Corporations strip individuals of morality, by design.