Hate crime legislation makes some more equal than others

Disclaimer: Let me say from the start, I am not homophobic.  My best friend from high school is openly gay.  I have known and been and continue to be friends with many homosexuals.  What you are about to read is not an attack on homosexuals, bisexuals or transgendered people.  It is a critique of the very idea of “hate crimes” legislation, nothing more.

The fact that I must post such a disclaimer is horrifyingly emblematic of our politically correct society.

---

The Senate passed new “hate crimes” legislation for violent crimes against homosexuals, transgendered people and so forth.  The legislation makes it a Federal crime to make a violent attack on a homosexual, et al, and gives Federal law enforcement the ability to “assist” local law enforcement when dealing with such crimes.

My question is, why is it more important that a criminal attack a person because they are a minority, a woman, or gay, than because the criminal wanted to take their wallet?  In the end, it’s all violent crime.  The crime is the violent act.  The motive is an aspect of the crime, not the crime itself.

In essence, we are criminalizing one form of thought over another.  Not one form of crime, but one form of thought.

Filed under: crime, politics, Prejudice, racism, civil rights, class, hate, hate crimes, homosexual, legislation, minority, protected, race, thought police, transgendered

Add Insult to Prejudice

(H/T to SnarkandBoobs for the video clip)

The Japanese have a saying: “The raised nail gets hammered down.”

Juan Williams was a consistent critic of the Bush Administration and is generally a supporter of Barack Obama. He is a well educated black American. But now he opposes the NFL player’s union. He’s not towing the party line and refusing to demonize Rush Limbaugh, and he’s being attacked.

Filed under: Prejudice, racism, house negro, juan williams, on the porch, Prejudice, race, rush limbaugh, warren ballantine

The Company We Keep

So, a consortium of bidders for the Saint Louis Rams has apparently dropped conservative Talk Radio jockey Rush Limbaugh, based upon racist statements which he is accredited to have said.

The National Football League’s owners and commissioner were uncharacteristically vocal about the issue:

Limbaugh’s bid ran into opposition from within the image-conscious NFL on Tuesday when Colts owner Jim Irsay said he would vote against the radio personality. Commissioner Roger Goodell said the commentator’s “divisive” comments would not be tolerated from any NFL insider.

The league tries to avoid getting snared in controversial issues outside sports, which has caused Limbaugh trouble in the past. In 2003, he was forced to resign from ESPN’s Sunday night football broadcast after saying of Philadelphia’s Donovan McNabb: “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.”

Apparently, the “image-conscious NFL is just fine with drugs, DUI, manslaughter, domestic violence and-oh, yeah–dog fighting, but having a conservative viewpoint in politics and being critical of the NFL promoting a player based upon his race is unacceptable.

Filed under: racism, speech, sports, colts, football, goodell, irsay, limbaugh, nfl, owner, purchase, racism, racist, rams, ray lewis, rush, saint louis

Racism Knows No Boundaries

I allowed myself to cool down before writing about this.

Today on my way home, I was listening to the radio.  I have it tuned to the news/talk station on the way in to work, and on my way home from work that station has Sean Hannity’s radio show, which I sometimes let play.

Today, Sean had guests Leo Terrell and Armstrong Williams.  Leo Terrell was arguing that opposition to President Obama is based upon racism, while Armstrong argued that opposition might come from other factors.

I stuck with the discussion because Terrell claimed that calling President Obama a “radical” was a code-word used by racists to discredit blacks.

It’s not that the President is arguing for our government to engage in activities that it is not authorized or permitted to do under the Constitution.  It’s not that his policies, when examined with clarity and rationality, are essentially national socialistic in nature.  It’s not that he has associated with Bill Ayers, Van Jones and Rahm Emanuel, all established and proud radicals.  It’s not that he has single-handedly quadrupled the deficit and is trying to commit the government to more spending.

No, it’s because he’s black that opponents call him “radical.”

Filed under: media, Prejudice, racism, hannity, Prejudice, racism, terrell

Crossing Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter (D-GA) has done many good things in the days since his presidency.  Habitat for Humanity has been one of his personal causes, building homes for families that would otherwise never have had a chance to own a house.  He has been a champion for humanitarian causes and has at least tried to build peaceful relationships between warring neighbor countries and groups.  I have tremendous respect for much of what he has done since leaving office in January, 1981.

President Carter has also done a number of things that I strongly disagree with.  This week he inserted himself into the debate about Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC), stating that he believed the congressman’s “You lie!” outburst during President Obama’s speech last week was borne of racism.  He went on to say that Americans who oppose the President’s policies did so not because they disagree with those policies, but because the man is black.

“I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white. And this has permeated politics ever since I’ve been involved in it back in the 1960s, not only in the South, but also in many places throughout the nation.”

He added, “And the outbursts that we see, the scatological language, the sign that I saw on television last night, “We should bury Obama with Kennedy,” for instance, and “Obama is a Nazi,” and Obama’s picture with Hitler’s moustache on it—those kinds of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate over whether we should have a national program in health care. It’s deeper than that.”

I saw the very same reports President Carter saw.  I saw the signs protesters were carrying.  I did not see, in any of the reporting that I watched or have researched since, any signs saying that President Obama should be buried with the recently deceased Senator Ted Kennedy.  Rather I saw people with signs to bury “Obamacare.” That is the colloquial term being used by many to describe HR 3200, which is the Democrat’s proposed health care reform bill.

Filed under: Prejudice, racism, speech, fascism, hitler, Jimmy Carter, nazi, obamacare, racism, you lie