This is just amazing. I'm tempted to say "Keep digging." But this is who these people are. They built a party on some of the ugliest impulses of humanity and now they are paying for it. I can not feel sorry for them. I can not be "charitable" to anyone who applauded while this thing was in motion.
I have to confess that I'm a bit meh about hate crimes legislation. Matthew Shepard was murdered, after being kidnapped and beaten, etc. So, many crimes were committed. And absolutely, they were committed because he was gay. We punish the crimes of murder, kidnap, and battery. I'm sure that in Montana, the punishments are quite severe. Why isn't that enough?
I'm not engaging in rhetoric, I'd like a real answer.
I read an excellent post elsewhere by someone who wanted the term "hate crime" replaced with "domestic terror." Because hate crime IS different from other crime in that it is deployed not just to hurt an individual, but to keep a segment of the population in fear, in "their place." The difference from terrorism as we understand it is negligible.
I think Judy Shepard answered that. Because of bias, hate crimes are not investigated with the same fervor. All that is being requested is an equal footing. Also, hate crimes are not just crimes against an individual but are crimes against a whole faction designed to terrorize.
I am with you on this. I have never liked the idea of hate crimes legislation because it seems like a recipe to create bad law when you start trying to get too deeply into and punishing the personal attitudes of criminals. I think the strongest argument for hate crimes type legislation is that it is meant to address the concerns of an additional victim. Not just the direct victim of the crime but the community to which the crime is also directed. I don't think that holds up well but it is what it is.
I view hate crimes legislation as the country's means of acknowledging prejudice against certain groups of citizens and providing a means to pursue resolution - resolution that may not be forthcoming in that individuals hometown due to the prejudice of local law enforcement. What Judy Shephard said.
You can also view it as another avenue of justice, much like appealing cases to the United States Supreme Court.
Oh, and to your question. I am little bit uneasy about Hate Crimes legislation, too. But I think that if other classes are protected by it, gays, the disable and transgenders should be, too.
This is about where I come down too. I don't like the idea of Hate Crime legislation--to close to punishing for thought--but if they are going to exist, they should cover all the relevant groups.
We punish the crimes of murder, kidnap, and battery. I'm sure that in Montana, the punishments are quite severe. Why isn't that enough?
I'm not engaging in rhetoric, I'd like a real answer.
Others have pointed out that hate crime legislation was essentially our first anti-terrorism legislation. Crafted to combat groups like the KKK which, I doubt anyone here needs reminding, remains the deadliest terrorist group in US history (even worse when you consider the differences in technology from say, Al-Qaeda).
I'd just like to add that in addition to harsher penalties the move the federal jurisdiction for hate crimes is a real plus in areas where a fair local trial might be in doubt.
In addition hate crime legislation protects every single American.
It's is a common misconception that it is only enforced in protection of minority, the law actually covers everyone.
The biggest upset is that this didn't come from Michelle Bachman. If someone were going to say something this insane, you'd have to think it would be her. Part of me would love to get some sort of survey of congresspeople to see how they stand on issues like this that we all take as common sense. Part of me really wouldn't.
Please don't think I am making light of an obviously serious situation, but I think sometimes the social satire South Park has to offer can be incredibly accurate: http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/401/
I agree that if hate crime legislation does exist, it should absolutely include sexuality. However, as the boys point out in their presentation "Hate Crime Laws: A Savage Hypocrisy", a man who murders another man for sleeping with his wife also does so due to hate. Hate crimes, by definition, separate people based on race or sexuality, and inherently treat people differently.
These are few reasons why I contributed, travelled and canvassed in some of the scariest towns for the dude in the White House. I am deeply proud whenever these morons usher their hatred for others. Trust me, there is a gay and colored person in her family.
Because the 'why do we need hate crimes laws' issue has been hit out of the park, I'd like to emphasize that Judy Sheperd is a national treasure. She's up there with Beulah Mae McDonald in taking a stand that everyone ought to agree with, while knowing from her own most bitter and intimate experience there are folks who don't agree.
Losing your child to violence, which you then learn was perpetrated by bigots looking to kill them a _____________, is not the kind of loss anyone can know how they might respond to. Both of these moms responded by building a case for stopping the violence, in the ways available to them, and they should have a parade in their honor.
Also, the geography-sheltered children of the East Coast should know that not only is Laramie not in Montana, it's not even by Montana. The major airport for Laramie is Denver. This matters because in order to understand why we need hate crimes enhancement in the form of a federal bill to support local law enforcement, you have to get the vastness of the intermountain West a little bit.
Laramie is a two-stoplight town in the middle of a whole lot of nowhere. Judy Sheperd talks to Rachel Maddow in this clip about the consequences of Matt being murdered for all of Laramie. The town had to furlough four officers later in the year of Matt's death.
They ran out of money to enforce the law after investigating a murder that involved a conspiracy to kill a ______________ that resulted in Matt's death. The hate crime aspect brought in a level of complexity that used a lot of overtime hours and ran out their budget.
Point being, the hate crimes enhancement is not only needed because the town in which James Byrd was killed may not want to investigate his death and expose their own dirty laundry. Therefore, it's going to be addressed only if the feds take the heat for treating a lynching as a serious crime--that would be enough of a reason.
But wait, you also get a mechanism to motivate local law enforcement to fully scope out what happened, knowing that they aren't going to be broke by Thanksgiving (or Memorial Day if they're on a July 1 fiscal year) as the price for doing their jobs on behalf of a member of a minority group so hated, you can get killed for being one.
At the risk of sounding like a hateful bigot (I'm not, trust me on this one), the Matthew Shepard story has drifted into mythology, and did so almost immediately. Shepard's death, while senseless and tragic, was NOT because he was gay. Shepard was killed by an acquaintance who at the time was out of his mind on a drug bender and wanted money for drugs. An acquaintance who did drugs with Shepard on more than one occasion prior to the heinous murder and was himself bisexual. In the hours and days following this brutal attack, Shepard's friends told reporters that it MUST have been because Shepard was gay. Well, that's all the media needed. A good looking gay young man was killed in a backwater Wyoming town by some stupid rednecks who hate gays. PRINT IT! Not exactly true. I understand the rationale behind hate crimes legislation, but I think that it's a slippery slope to placing more value on the lives of some particular groups than others. And an ignorant bigot is not going to be dissuaded by legislation he can't understand, even if he CAN read.
At the risk of responding to a troll who would be best left alone under the bridge:
How do you know?
That is, do you have some source of inside info--other than the story created by the conspirators after the fact, that verifies the assertions made by two drug-addled robbers and murderers that you've repeated here?
Believe me, the last thing I want is to live in a country--and a region--in which some drug-addled thieves chose a victim to rob and brutalize based on their belief that a gay guy would be weaker and more likely not to report on them. It's really your underlying assumption that someone would benefit from reading this crime as different than a robbery that I'm questioning.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
It is very, very important that Obama can right the economy by 2012. Because if we get an un-reformed Republican Party in power...
I have to confess that I'm a bit meh about hate crimes legislation. Matthew Shepard was murdered, after being kidnapped and beaten, etc. So, many crimes were committed. And absolutely, they were committed because he was gay. We punish the crimes of murder, kidnap, and battery. I'm sure that in Montana, the punishments are quite severe. Why isn't that enough?
I'm not engaging in rhetoric, I'd like a real answer.
I read an excellent post elsewhere by someone who wanted the term "hate crime" replaced with "domestic terror." Because hate crime IS different from other crime in that it is deployed not just to hurt an individual, but to keep a segment of the population in fear, in "their place." The difference from terrorism as we understand it is negligible.
I think Judy Shepard answered that. Because of bias, hate crimes are not investigated with the same fervor. All that is being requested is an equal footing. Also, hate crimes are not just crimes against an individual but are crimes against a whole faction designed to terrorize.
I think Rachel Maddow said it eloquently, because the crimes have at heart the purpose to terrorize a whole community, not merely a single individual.
I am with you on this. I have never liked the idea of hate crimes legislation because it seems like a recipe to create bad law when you start trying to get too deeply into and punishing the personal attitudes of criminals. I think the strongest argument for hate crimes type legislation is that it is meant to address the concerns of an additional victim. Not just the direct victim of the crime but the community to which the crime is also directed. I don't think that holds up well but it is what it is.
I view hate crimes legislation as the country's means of acknowledging prejudice against certain groups of citizens and providing a means to pursue resolution - resolution that may not be forthcoming in that individuals hometown due to the prejudice of local law enforcement. What Judy Shephard said.
You can also view it as another avenue of justice, much like appealing cases to the United States Supreme Court.
This is little bit pedantic, but Matthew was killed in Wyoming not Montana
Oh, and to your question. I am little bit uneasy about Hate Crimes legislation, too. But I think that if other classes are protected by it, gays, the disable and transgenders should be, too.
This is about where I come down too. I don't like the idea of Hate Crime legislation--to close to punishing for thought--but if they are going to exist, they should cover all the relevant groups.
Others have pointed out that hate crime legislation was essentially our first anti-terrorism legislation. Crafted to combat groups like the KKK which, I doubt anyone here needs reminding, remains the deadliest terrorist group in US history (even worse when you consider the differences in technology from say, Al-Qaeda).
I'd just like to add that in addition to harsher penalties the move the federal jurisdiction for hate crimes is a real plus in areas where a fair local trial might be in doubt.
In addition hate crime legislation protects every single American.
It's is a common misconception that it is only enforced in protection of minority, the law actually covers everyone.
And just when I think members of the Republican Party can not become more vile, the Gentlewoman from North Carolina speaks and my stomach turns.
The biggest upset is that this didn't come from Michelle Bachman. If someone were going to say something this insane, you'd have to think it would be her. Part of me would love to get some sort of survey of congresspeople to see how they stand on issues like this that we all take as common sense. Part of me really wouldn't.
Isn't this one of Andrew Sullivan's pet issues?
Please don't think I am making light of an obviously serious situation, but I think sometimes the social satire South Park has to offer can be incredibly accurate:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/401/
I agree that if hate crime legislation does exist, it should absolutely include sexuality. However, as the boys point out in their presentation "Hate Crime Laws: A Savage Hypocrisy", a man who murders another man for sleeping with his wife also does so due to hate. Hate crimes, by definition, separate people based on race or sexuality, and inherently treat people differently.
This woman is repulsive. Go back a few decades, and she would have been one of the ones in the crowd at a lynching.
These are few reasons why I contributed, travelled and canvassed in some of the scariest towns for the dude in the White House. I am deeply proud whenever these morons usher their hatred for others. Trust me, there is a gay and colored person in her family.
Because the 'why do we need hate crimes laws' issue has been hit out of the park, I'd like to emphasize that Judy Sheperd is a national treasure. She's up there with Beulah Mae McDonald in taking a stand that everyone ought to agree with, while knowing from her own most bitter and intimate experience there are folks who don't agree.
Losing your child to violence, which you then learn was perpetrated by bigots looking to kill them a _____________, is not the kind of loss anyone can know how they might respond to. Both of these moms responded by building a case for stopping the violence, in the ways available to them, and they should have a parade in their honor.
Also, the geography-sheltered children of the East Coast should know that not only is Laramie not in Montana, it's not even by Montana. The major airport for Laramie is Denver. This matters because in order to understand why we need hate crimes enhancement in the form of a federal bill to support local law enforcement, you have to get the vastness of the intermountain West a little bit.
Laramie is a two-stoplight town in the middle of a whole lot of nowhere. Judy Sheperd talks to Rachel Maddow in this clip about the consequences of Matt being murdered for all of Laramie. The town had to furlough four officers later in the year of Matt's death.
They ran out of money to enforce the law after investigating a murder that involved a conspiracy to kill a ______________ that resulted in Matt's death. The hate crime aspect brought in a level of complexity that used a lot of overtime hours and ran out their budget.
Point being, the hate crimes enhancement is not only needed because the town in which James Byrd was killed may not want to investigate his death and expose their own dirty laundry. Therefore, it's going to be addressed only if the feds take the heat for treating a lynching as a serious crime--that would be enough of a reason.
But wait, you also get a mechanism to motivate local law enforcement to fully scope out what happened, knowing that they aren't going to be broke by Thanksgiving (or Memorial Day if they're on a July 1 fiscal year) as the price for doing their jobs on behalf of a member of a minority group so hated, you can get killed for being one.
At the risk of sounding like a hateful bigot (I'm not, trust me on this one), the Matthew Shepard story has drifted into mythology, and did so almost immediately. Shepard's death, while senseless and tragic, was NOT because he was gay. Shepard was killed by an acquaintance who at the time was out of his mind on a drug bender and wanted money for drugs. An acquaintance who did drugs with Shepard on more than one occasion prior to the heinous murder and was himself bisexual. In the hours and days following this brutal attack, Shepard's friends told reporters that it MUST have been because Shepard was gay. Well, that's all the media needed. A good looking gay young man was killed in a backwater Wyoming town by some stupid rednecks who hate gays. PRINT IT! Not exactly true. I understand the rationale behind hate crimes legislation, but I think that it's a slippery slope to placing more value on the lives of some particular groups than others. And an ignorant bigot is not going to be dissuaded by legislation he can't understand, even if he CAN read.
At the risk of responding to a troll who would be best left alone under the bridge:
How do you know?
That is, do you have some source of inside info--other than the story created by the conspirators after the fact, that verifies the assertions made by two drug-addled robbers and murderers that you've repeated here?
Believe me, the last thing I want is to live in a country--and a region--in which some drug-addled thieves chose a victim to rob and brutalize based on their belief that a gay guy would be weaker and more likely not to report on them. It's really your underlying assumption that someone would benefit from reading this crime as different than a robbery that I'm questioning.