AG Holder Urges New Hate Crimes Law
 

And there it is - the answer to whatever ails us - adding new and improved political polygrip to the broken dentures of legal teeth. :rolleyes:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Yup, that'll fix it for sure.

I'm sorry, does the crime of murder in the first degree not already qualify someone for the death penalty?

Do they need another few years added because of their attitude towards the victim, or do we just need to administer their just rewards in a more timely manner?

TR

More newspeak.

I can't imagine 3 1/2 more years(or more) of this guy.......:rolleyes:

GB TFS :munchin

If the law passes can I press charges against Holder for implying that I am a racist and a coward?

Ooooh, there's a class action suit in the making right there.

Are we getting sandbagged by the Fourth Estate? (The Drudging of America continues)
 

I'm beginning to wonder if the recession means that the editorial duties of newspapers such as USA Today are being handled by Microsoft Office 2007's spell check and grammar check.

AG Holder needs no help sticking his foot in his mouth but that's what he got in this article. The text of his speech, available here, shows him making a transition from the crimes he describes as manifestations A bit later, he makes the transition by saying
By my reading of AG Holder's speech, he did not conflate the two issues as the USA Today piece suggests.

Moreover, as the balance of the quotation indicates, AG Holder's speech raised the issue of the Department of Justice working with Congress to shape laws that have been under discussion for the past ten years. This approach is markedly different than what the editorial thrust of the USA Today piece implies.

I am increasingly concerned that, for a variety of reasons, we are getting misreported, sensationalized, facts from the MSM. Are we on the right side of the aisle (and the issues :cool:) being baited so that we react to what we read rather than what was actually said and done?

The OPFOR is well aware of the importance of a good IO campaign.

Sometimes, a passage in a work of fiction communicates an idea more effectively than any other choice of words.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken.You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.

Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

And there you have it - a free press in action. :(

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I don't believe so. Reading the article, I maintain vehement disagreement with the AG's position that "bias-motivated" crime deserves any more attention than a similar crime motivated instead by greed, anger, laziness, jealousy, boredom or any other factor. Were the Holocaust Museum murderer a young, white Jew that killed out of an intense hatred of museum patrons in general, would that lessen the resulting tragedy of the death and injury of the guards? If someone beats an elderly Asian woman to the point of hospitalization, does it matter if the assailant did so to take her wallet and steal her identity, or because the attacker hates "chinks"? If our justice system metes out punishment with an eye towards deterrence, what exactly are anti-hate crime laws really attempting to deter? A law against battery is enacted to attempt to discourage physical attacks by punishing those that do so. Thus, is the desired effect of a hate crime law to prevent hate? Are we really so self-important that we believe we can simply legislate away racial prejudice? I fail to see any difference between a sociopathic Latino murdering another, randomly selected Latino, and the same guy murdering a randomly selected caucasian; the end result is a dead human being, and is race-immaterial.

I feel we all have prejudices of one kind or another. I freely admit that given a choice, I prefer to associate with my SF brothers. So long as I'm not purposefully rude to others, what is the societal harm? If a person has a visceral distaste for, say, amputees, but never allows this bias to be overtly manifested, will a stronger anti-hate crime law change this person's view? I contend that it won't, and thus an emphasis on "bias-motivated" criminal law is both redundant and ineffective.

Ms. Rand's work may prove to be more prophetic than many would care to admit.