Why have the nation’s first black president and his “nation of cowards” attorney general made virtually no attempt to attack this problem head-on?The answer comes in the comments:
Because Racist. Because Shut up.or
Because it's racial retribution time. That's why.The entire story, about a news station that finally decides to point out the lawlessness that's resulting in racially-motivated crimes by blacks against whites, is here.
6 comments:
And ... here's the problem. It shouldn't matter why you commit a violent act, it should matter that you did it. If I beat the crap out of you because your black, It's the same as if I beat the crap out of you because you're white. Should the Brian Snow case be labeled a hate crime, because he was beaten nearly to death because he was wearing a Giants jersey at a Dodgers game? Because, I don't hate any general group of people ... but ... I might make an exception for Dodgers fans. So, if you don't think penalties for violent crime are harsh enough, increase them. But treat them all the same. I see what you're getting at -- violence against white people is almost never prosecuted as a hate crime (although the Wisconsin case with the gay victim ... Matthew something or other... counts, although it was his gayness, not his whiteness that counted) but the opposite is frequently ... whether it is fueled by hate, or not. But this shouldn't be a tit for tat argument -- it should be that all violent crime is inspired by some form of hate -- so punish it accordingly, and equally, and stop trying to assume which particular brand of hate existed in a mind you can't examine.
I don't believe in hate crimes laws, but if we have them, I want them applied fairly. I don't want tit for tat, I want consistency from the media and I want those who say we don't talk about race to talk about this.
But ... they will never be applied fairly, and we both know that. Much better to eliminate them entirely. How could they possibly be applied fairly, in any event? To prove a hate crime, you need to be privy to my thoughts ... and you aren't. What if I were to beat a guy senseless while calling him a n----r f-g ... seems like a hate crime, right? But what if the guy was a straight Canadian? The idea that the crime is worse because of what I said during it's commission, or the happenstance of the victims orientations is ridiculous.
"I don't hate any general group of people ... but ... I might make an exception for Dodgers fans."
This is wrong Max. You should not hate them. You should feel compassion and pity for them. They don't know any better or can't help themselves. If you had poor upbringing and a sub-room temperature IQ, you also might be a Dodgers fan ...
-Mark Roulo
I concur completely. Read *again*, and you'll notice that this piece was about identifying the crime in the media.
Mark... you also have to believe that games start with inning 3, and end with inning 7 ... Darren, no, I got it the first time, and I know you agree. I was just being more emphatic ... because I hate the notion of hate crimes. My problem with the article is -- one of the problems with hate crime legislation is that something like the knockout game is not something that would or should be identified as a hate crime under the law -- if it's primarily a black on white crime, maybe it is: but that wouldn't be enough to qualify. There would need to be some overt demonstration of hatred for white people. Otherwise, it's just an assault.
Post a Comment