As you may know, this weekend a drunk-driving Mel Gibson serenaded the Malibu police with a string of antisemitic expletives, among other choice numbskullery (‘sugar tits?’). Joe Gandelman makes the two relevant points here. First, most of us already knew that Mel Gibson is a bigoted ass. Atrios points out that Mel hardly needs a 1.3% 0.13% blood alcohol content to let the hate shine through. Second, it is not illegal to be a bigoted ass and calls to prosecute him for a hate crime push that area of law dangerously into thought-crimes territory. Speaking as a Jewish person I have roughly the same feeling about this as when a few Nazis march down main street. God bless America that they can do that unmolested and the rest of us can safely ignore them. Stifling opinions merely serves to validate them, even the batshit-crazy ones.
***Update***
Artist’s reenactment of the arrest:
Steve
I hear Jews are responsible for all the flame wars in the world.
yet another jeff
Ok, the only way this seems it could qualify for a hate crime is if his hatred of Jews caused him to drive in an illegal condition. A .12 sure isn’t enough to cause one to spout crazy talk, an experience drinker won’t exactly be off in crazy land after 4 beers in an hour.
However, he should be arrested for saying “sugar tits.”, DUI notwithstanding.
Zifnab
Firstly, it’s worth noting that the whole Holocaust denial thing is attributed to Mel’s dad, not Mel himself. Secondly, its worth noting that the apple doesn’t usually fall far from the tree, and as Mel has made little effort to distance himself from his dad, so its no surprise he shares a number of similar ideologies.
I’m not a big fan of hate crimes legislation. If a guy punches you in the jaw because he’s an ass and another guy punches you in the jaw because he’s an ass and your black… we have variable prison sentences for a reason. And if you can prove a crime was racial motivated (which is rarely a simple task) you can probably also make the case that said individual has been or will be a repeat offender. Which is what a law like this should REALLY be seeking to punish – those who repeatedly lash out in stupidity, for whatever reason.
The idea that Gibson can or should be punished for talking shit in the back of a cop car while drunk… that’s completely over the line. You start pushing legislation like that, and I garantee you 50 Cent will be on trial inside a week for calling some dude a cracker and some bumble-snot Congressman will be pushing to outlaw Rap music because its a hate crime to Anglo-Saxton Protestants. Because, in white Republican America, where the IRS is used to crack down on poor tax evaders and Jerry Falwell wants to co-op the civil rights act for evangelical preachers, turnabout is a bitch.
Ancient Purple
I agree that calling for hate crime prosecution is completely over the top.
On the other hand, I do hope that once and for all, Gibson will commonly be referred to as “the anti-Semetic Mel Gibson” every time his name is uttered.
Nutcutter
The sound you hear is Darrell breathing a huge sigh of relief.
And also, what Zifnab said.
Steve
Right, well, except without a hate crimes designation, you can’t simply sentence someone to extra time because you think they “will be a repeat offender.”
I’m not a huge fan of hate crimes statutes, but I’d much rather have a sentencing enhancement statute on the books than just leave it up to the whim of individual judges as to whether the racial nature of a crime merits an extended sentence. That just leads to arbitrary results.
Punchy
Tim, Tim, Scientist Tim…
1.3% BAL?? You’re slipping. Of course you mean 0.13%. Cue Homer.
Now, as for his behavior–I agree that such a BAL is NOT worthy of causing such way-out-of-control invective. It’s just not an over-the-top, crazy, “who’s this chick laying next to me” amount of liquor to justify what he said and how he acted. I’m guessing he was on more than just ethanol.
Would LOVE to see the FULL blood tests done…
Pug
This crime was possibly a “hate crime”. The damn Jews drive Mel to drink.
Punchy
OT–where the HELL is Mr. Cole? 10 of the last 11 posts by Tim? Is Mr. Cole taking time off to take his new wife Cindy S. on a honeymoon?
srv
Could we have a roundup of possible Academy Award nominees for this year also?
Borrrring.
Tim F.
Wups. I have no idea why I put the decimal in the wrong place.
demimondian
I agree. Gibson is a jerk, but it’s not news that he’s a moronic, bigoted jerk. I hadn’t seen any of the other choice samples he’s provided over the years, but…
I don’t share the common opposition to hate crimes legisation. As an aggravating factor during sentencing (which is how it’s treated in law), it’s a perfectly reasonable predictor of future behavior which should be taken into account. It’s not a crime to say something hateful, unless that something is also a part of a separate crime with a particular intent (e.g. in a case where “I’m going to kill you, motherfucker” is already a crime, “I’m going to kill you, you motherfucking [expletive deleted /]” *might* be a worse crime if the expletive is intended to cause fear to someone with a rational basis for being afraid.)
Most people think of hate crimes legislation in the light of Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton, where people abused the race card. It’s worth pointing out, though, that Sharpton never got hate crimes charges filed, and his victim, the police officer who exposed Brawley’s fraud, eventually won a slander judgement against him.
[By the way, Tim…at 1.3% blood alcohol by volume, your fingernails are black, and you’re busy dying. But I assume you knew that.]
EL
I don’t know who suggested prosecuting for a hate crime, but it sounds like a dumb idea in this context. OTOH, I’d love to see him prosecuted to the max for DUI and resisting arrest.
KC
Gibson’s been a nut for a while. With luck, after this experience, nobody will pay any attention to him and he’ll be stuck in his mansion hating all by his lonely self.
Krista
It’s kind of funny, ’cause thinking back, a lot of the characters he’s played have been slightly crazed. At the time, I thought it was just acting…
Darrell
Had Zifnab not caught that, reading Atrios’ post, Atrios clearly implies it was Mel Gibson himself. Fucking dishonest as hell of Atrios, wouldn’t you agree Tim?
Mel Gibson’s own words this past weekend speak for themselves, but to deliberately mislead what Mel G. did NOT say as Atrios is clearly doing, is pretty fucked up, and I think Tim F. owes a clarification since he references Atrios on this one.
Punchy
Yeah, but I don’t remember Riggs ripping off some anti-Semitic coments to Getz, nor do I remember him complementing Murtaugh’s wife by noticing her “sugar tits”…
Cyrus
Because clearly, that’s working so well with Michael Jackson. (Well, if you’re talking about any kind of “eccentricity” rather than Gibson’s kind specifically.) Although this might be an interesting experiment — those still willing to go to the Neverland Ranch or whatever it’s called are almost part of a cult of personality. How will it be different when the cult is not one of personality and predates the nutty celebrity?
I don’t have problems with hate crime legislation. Maybe the name “hate crime legislation” sounds unfortunately Orwellian, but that doesn’t mean it actually is. No hate crime law or case I’ve heard of criminalizes racial slurs, as much as reactionaries would like to imagine it. And if there is a slippery slope, it began looong before the first hate crime law was passed. Such laws just force judges and juries to take seriously whether a crime was motivated by some flavor of bigotry. We already draw distinctions between manslaughter and first-degree murder, for example, even though the number of cold bodies is the same. Hate crime laws don’t seem like a major change to that.
Steve
On the whole issue of whether Gibson and his dad have ever met before, good post here with lots of background on whether it’s appropriate to believe Gibson shares his father’s views.
Punchy
After reading about exactly what Mel said, how he threatened, how he went just nuts….does anyone think that South Park episode was DEAD-ON? At the time, I thought they went overboard with it, but now Stone and Parker look genius..
zzyzx
This obviously isn’t a hate crime, it’s just hate. And hey, it amuses me to have to read people write, “Just because he’s an anti-semite and made a movie on a subject that is frequently used for anti-semitism, doesn’t make the movie itself bad.”
All of that is actually true, but the mental gymnastics that people have to go through to get there is fun to read.
As a Jew who lives in Seattle, has an obviously Jewish name, looks Jewish, and has been known to play in a JCC softball league, this obviously is not the story that scares me this weekend. For those who are so afraid of hate crime laws, not that Haq is purposely not being charged with that because it would be harder to prove and would have a lesser penalty than the murder and attempted murder charges they are bringing up.
Steve
For those who are so afraid of hate crime laws, not that Haq is purposely not being charged with that because it would be harder to prove and would have a lesser penalty than the murder and attempted murder charges they are bringing up.
Well, not every state has the same sort of “hate crime laws.” In some places it’s simply an aggravating circumstance that they pile on top of the murder charge or whatever other substantive crime you’ve committed.
Darrell
I like your example of first degree murder and manslaughter to illustrate that the degree of intent makes a difference in punishment.
But is it really worse to be beaten within an inch of your life because of your race or religion vs. being similarly beaten because the criminal wanted to steal your money or because he wanted to prove himself tough in front of his friends? I don’t see any difference. Both are intentional and malicious.. and that’s the crux the problem with hate crime legislation imo.
I’m hesistant to criticize hate crime legislation though, as I’m usually for most anything which levies harsher punishment on criminal scumbags, which hate crime laws accomplish. I just don’t see how crimes of racial prejudice are any worse than other malicious motivations involved in violent crimes.
jg
What’d he say?
g-rant
Darrel:
I don’t see how Atrios was dishonest. He is claiming that Holocaust minimization is essentially the same as denial (as does Neiwart.) Gibson does seem to be minimizing the Holocaust in his Noonan quote. He also doesn’t seem to repudiate his father’s beliefs, either.
jg
you can’t see a difference between being assaulted for your money versus being assaulted because you don’t belong in this white, christian country?
Steve
I doubt it makes a huge difference from the victim’s perspective. However, one important point raised by others above is that crimes motivated by racial animus are more likely to be repeated – or so goes the argument, in any event – than crimes with some run-of-the-mill motivation.
I also think hate crimes tend to have a more detrimental effect on the local community than regular crimes, and society is entitled to punish them more for that reason alone.
Like I said above, I’m still not a big fan of these laws, but the arguments are reasonable.
Here is an interesting article on an atypical application of the hate crime laws – a Satanist who was beaten up just for being a Satanist…
jg
he wqsn’t dishonest. Darrell is just doing his job as a wingnut blog commenter. He’s taking every opportunity, real or imagined to send a shot across the bow of any lefty commenter. Remember its not what the lefty said its how you attack their credibility that gets through the head of middle america.
g-rant
Sigh. I know. I’m a long-time lurker, very occasional poster. So should know better than to engage Darrell, but this just seemed particularly egregious.
Jim Allen
Who’s Darrell?
Oh yeah! Thanks again demi!
Pooh
Absolutely, great point.
Darrell
Atrios attributed a statement to Mel Gibson which he never made. Atrios is a dishonest lowlife, and so are you for defending his dihonesty
Darrell
Yes, how “egregious” of me jackass, to object to the dishonesty of Atrios attributing a statement to Mel Gibson which he never made.
Tom in Texas
I’m sorry, and I know it means I agree with Darrell, but I gotta call BS on this. I think someone who is willing to rob and murder someone because they need money is just as likely to do that the next time they are broke as a racist to kill a black person for fun. Why on earth would a criminal who steals your money just stop doin it next week? Or rather, what makes it any more likely he would than the racist killer? Is the guy arrested driving while drunk really more likely to quit drinking and driving? Just because you understand their motivations (they seem “rational”) does not mean that the criminal will be rational in their application of them.
jg
Please don’t respond to Darrells attempts to discuss Atrios. Its a jackalope.
Darrell
Are they more likely to be repeat offenders than other violent criminals? Has that been established as a fact, or just blog rumor so far? Also, I think you’re minimizing to some extent the violent motivations of criminals by referring to them as “run-of-the-mill”. Perhaps that wasn’t your intent, but that’s how it reads. Again, is the hatred which drives a criminal to murder any less, just because that hatred was not based on race? I don’t think so
Tom in Texas
God I’m psychic
Pb
Y KANT DARRELL READ
jg
Without knowing what the other hate was based on its impossible to answer your hypothetical.
In your opinion whats worse. Being hated because you did something to somebody or being hated because you’re not the same nationality or religion as the guy who hates you..
jg
Wouldn’t God already know that?
Darrell
No one is talking about justifiable retaliation based on “something you did to somebody” you obnoxious shitstain.
Vladi G
Wow, Darrell is stupid. I mean, I knew he was stupid, but I didn’t know he was this stupid. Atrios reprints one quote attributed to Mel Gibson, and lo and behold, it was actually a quote given by Mel Gibson. What a shocker.
Let me draw you a map, genius. Gibson is a holocaust minimizer. Niewert makes the case that holocaust minimizers are essentially the same as holocaust deniers. Atrios even points out that Gibson is a minizer, not specifically a denier:
Now, if you disagree, make your case. But don’t call him dishonest just because you’re too stupid to interpret what he said properly, despite the fact that he laid it all out pretty clearly.
Oh, and in addition to being a total moron, Darrell is also a serial liar and a plagiarizer.
jg
Justifiable retaliation isn’t what I’m talking about either. That was pretty cool how you put words in my mouth, totally shot the point down and insulted me at the same time. John Cole is very proud of you I bet.
Perry Como
Ahhh, a window into the psyche of a statist. A statist may feel that a certain a law is poorly thought out — even to the point of having rational reservations about that law — but as long as it “levies harsher punishment on criminal scumbags” the law must be good.
Darrell
How selective of you to ignore one passage falsely attributed to Mel Gibson while citing another which Mel Gibson actually said.
As Zifnab pointed out above, Atrios conflates Mel Gibson and his father, implying that the miminization of the number of jews killed, the “6 million” number being chanllenged.. came from Mel Gibson when it did not
jg
At worst Atrios is guilty of the composition fallacy by asserting that Gibson holds the same beliefs as all holocaust deniers. Gibson’s own statements give that impression but….
Tom in Texas
JG: a hate crime is irrational to us. We (I assume) cannot possibly fathom what would make someone kill another based solely on the color of their skin. We can underrstand why a poor man would rob and murder a rich one — not condone, but understand. This does not make the racist’s crimes any worse. It does not mean they are more likely to commmit a crime in the future (even if there is a statistical correlation, we do not cahrge people for multiple crimes until they commit them). Whether or not you
Darrell
Nothing inconsistent about it halfwit. I believe the punishment meted out to violent criminals is not harsh enough. Hate crime laws make sentencing harsher for these criminals. I may not agree with the rationale behind them, but if they keep violent criminals locked up longer, I think that’s usually a good thing. What a “controversial” position that is, huh whackjob?
Tom in Texas
Sry incomplete thought: Whether their motives are repugnant to you or not has no bearing as to how they should be tried — for the crimes they committed.
jg
I never said it did. I never said I support hate crime legislation.
Perry Como
Not at all. As a big government loving statist it is perfectly acceptable to compromise principles as long as you agree with the results. The ends justify the means, and all that.
Perry Como
Addendum: Strong. Smart.
Vladi G
Exactly, which is where I told Dipshit to make his case if he disagreed. But nowhere did Atrios claim that Gibson believed something without evidence without that caveat. Just because Darrell apparently lacks reading comprehension skills, that’s no reason to attack Atrios.
Darrell
First of all jackass, they didn’t ask my opinion before enacting hate crimes legislation. Second, given that reality, it’s not compromising my “principles” in the least to be glad that at least some violent criminals will receive a harsher punishment as a result.
Faux News
I have been musing about this statement just today. Perhaps I should change my BJ name to “sugar tits”. It does have an agreeable and friendly feel to it.
Perry Como
Why is Charles Krauthammer so dishonest?
Darrell
No asswipe? Then why in the hell did you post this?
jg, again demonstrating himself to be a twit
Perry Como
I actually like the term. After all, two great things put together can make one really awesome thing (or a pair of awesome things in this case).
chopper
its a jewish conspiracy. to make mel look like more of a drunk.
what’s going to be really explosive is when it comes out that he was drunk on manischewitz.
chopper
…and the thread is officially darrelled.
good show all, see you in the next one.
Tom in Texas
Personally I liked how the scotsman referred to the sugar tits thing as “his alleged propositioning of an arresting officer with lurid, explicit suggestions.” If that was a proposition, I’d be terrified to meet the woman who took him up on it.
Perry Como
If you disagree with the reasoing behind the law…
Yet accept the law because of its results…
You are most assuredly compromising your principles. Instead of denouncing a law where you disagree with its means, you are happy to accept that law since you agree with the ends. Statist.
Perry Como
Oy.
Tom in Texas
Hate crime legislation is immoral and anti American. We cannot attempt to decipher what made one commit a crime and prosecute on that, and we cannot assume that one’s motivations make them a more likely criminal in the future and arrest on that either. We prosecute based on the crime committed, and sentence based on the guidelines for the crimes actually committed: not crimes thought about, not criminal acts they more likely to commit tomorrow.
Faux News
Of course Gibson could have also called the female Officer:
Splenda Tits
Equal Tits
Sweet and Low Tits
Sugar Substitute Tits
The list goes on and on.
jg
Because I was asking if you really couldn’t see a difference between the two. Asking that question doesn’t mean I feel one should be subjected to a longer prison sentence> I just can’t believe how easy it is for you to be ignorant just to continue to believe what you believe.
Perry Como
My reservation is that hate crime laws put to much power in the hands of prosecutors. When the state is allowed to imprison citizens based on thoughts, that bothers me.
Look at the case with the Satanist. Tagging on a hate crime charge would have doubled the sentence. The teens taunted the guy about being a Satanist, but they probably did it because they were asshats. An overzealous DA would have pursued the hate crime charge and justice would not have been served.
Perry Como
That would have been insulting.
VidaLoca
Tom in Texas —
Agree with you on this:
There’s no way of knowing with enough certainty what a person’s future crimes may be to permit prosecuting them before the fact. However,
Quite often we can reach reasonable conclusions about motivation for a crime committed in the past. So, is it reasonable to place extra sanctions on crimes committed out of a motivation of hatred/prejudice/bigotry? I’d say yes. We’re willing to condone, for example, crimes committed in self-defense. We’re willing to condone crimes committed in defense of another (IIRC, this is the “greater good” defense). We’re less willing to condone, but able to comprehend, crimes committed out of greed or passion. Hate crimes are distinct from all of these however; they’re driven by a purely malicious and violent ideology — and it seems to me that it’s reasonable to take an interest as a society in suppressing the embodiment of such ideologies in acts of violence.
However, and parenthetically, the only crime Gibson seems to have committed here is DUI. I don’t think what he said is criminal, though it is reprehensible.
So, I guess I end up coming down on Darrell’s side on this one though for different reasons than he does.
Tom in Texas
Steve, I know I’ve already disagreed with the theory you cited (but did not necessarily agree with) that racial criminals are more likely to commit future crimes, but here I have to differ with your opinion personally. I think crime period has a disastrous effect on a community, and crimes committed for socioeconomic reasons are as bad, if not worse, than crimes of racial motivation in terms of how they affect their neighbors.
As a quick examply I’ll use Houston. In Katy, a wealthy Houston suburb, three teenaged boys on the local state championship football team beat a hispanic boy within an inch of his life for trying to kiss a white girl. General consensus: those boys were dangerous criminals who deserve a long sentence, but they were isolated lunatics and it is not a reason to ignore Katy as a living option (note: the family was reported to host KKK meetings and hurl racial insults at passing families. One woman was afraid to drive down the street). Katy is safe for your family, despite the long commute. In Acres Homes, a socioeconomically varied area of Houston near the cities core, two bodies were recently found behind a club. The immediate reaction to this was: do NOT move to Acres Homes — it is a war zone where, no matter how high your fence is, some lunatic will break into your home and murder your entire family for crack money.
In a sense, I agree with this. In Katy, despite the fact that dangerous felons lived next door, life is safer as a rule. Burglaries and robberies are lower, every statistic you can use to measure crime shows it to be safer than Acres Homes.
Krista
Perry, you like the term, huh? Duly noted…SugarTits.
Tom in Texas
Vida:
I think I worded my point poorly. I believe that there are mitigating circumstances — self defense or defense of a loved one. I also think that motivation can be used to predict future actions, such as pedophilia or DWIs. However, I do not believe that one incident is enough to suggest a pattern. I do not believe that racial/religous hate crimes have any higher a reocurrence rate than any of the aforementioned examples. If a 16 year old boy from a home with a KKK father assaults a black boy on the street and hurls racial insults as he kills him, I honestly believe that he is just as (un)likely to recover as a 16 year old who drinks a 12 pack and kills a mother of 4 driving home. If either boy does so again, it is evidence of a pattern that allows them to continue criminal and illegal behavior, and they should receive maximum penalty.
Tom in Texas
Fixed.
Darrell
It’s my understanding that hate crime laws can only help imprison citizens who engage in criminal actions, not just thoughts. Can you substantiate that claim of yours? Or did you just pull it out of your ass to support your position out of desperation and ignorance?
Cyrus
I see a difference. For one thing, I’d refer again to manslaughter vs. first degree murder. I realize “it’s always been this way” is generally a poor argument, but there are reasons it’s always been that way. Reasons that also apply to hate crimes. First degree murder gets punished more severely because like manslaughter it deprives a family of their loved one (and a business of an employee and the government of a taxpayer and is an insult to human dignity, etc.), but it also is a clear and very negative demonstration of the murderer’s dangerous nature, and is often connected to other crimes somehow or other, and more.
Take all that, and add to it an implicit insult and explicit threat to all the people who share whatever the hated trait is. Which, by the way, is something Tom in Texas shouldn’t have ignored. The property value damage caused by hate crime vs. other crime? The frequency of unrelated types of crime? Ummm, wtf? How about the fact that if you’re Hispanic, you just got told that the culprits were normal and accepted in Katy until it’s too late, but you aren’t?
Just to be clear, I agree with this. My first comment about hate crimes was hypothetical or a response to the opinions of others; from what I’ve heard, it doesn’t apply to Gibson’s case.
VidaLoca
Tom in Texas —
You raise good examples of pedophilia and DWI as predictors of future behavior. I also take your point about juvenile status as a mitigating factor. However, anybody that commits vehicular homicide DWI, of any age, is looking at a longish period of jail time and rightly so: hopefully to undergo treatment/rehabilitation, but also because as a society we don’t want to put up with that kind of behavior and want to bring extreme sanctions down on people who break that rule.
It seems just as reasonable to me to bring extreme sanctions down on people who commit hate crimes, especially in light of the fact that DWI homicide could be looked upon as an accident (the offender didn’t mean to run into the family) whereas the hate crime — your beating example — was clearly intentional and done with malice aforethought.
Rusty Shackleford
Gibson is U.S. born/Australian raised, not Scottish.
Darrell
But that analogy doesn’t hold up in comparison to hate crimes, because in whether the crime is perpetrated based on racial prejudice or as initiation to joining a gang, both are INTENTIONAL acts of violence.
The distinction between manslaughter and first degree murder is that manslaughter is either NOT intentional or it was provoked (and therefore at least somewhat justified). Big difference. Care to try again?
Darrell
But there is malice and forethought to beating someone as a gang initiation or to steal their money. So if ‘malice and forethought’ are your key elements, they aren’t limited to just hate crimes, are they?
Jim Allen
Click on the link and check the banner, Rusty.
Tom in Texas
A gang murder IS a hate crime by its very definition. They are killing someone based on the color of their shirt.
Perry Como
David Irving. That’s the kind of road you can go down when you start regulating thoughts. But hey, as long as we can comprimise our principles and put people behind bars, everything is okay. Right, statist?
Tom in Texas
Vida: I didn’t mean to imply that either hypothetical offender deserved a short sentence. The boy who assaulted a black and the boy who killed a family would and should both receive long sentences. Based on the results of their actions. Not the cause.
RSA
This is completely wrong. The distinction has to do with malice and premeditation, both of which are states of mind.
Tim F.
Heh heh.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
No, they aren’t — IOW you can have malice in a situation that couldn’t be called a hate crime, but I don’t see how you could have a hate crime that didn’t involve malice.
I think the point would have been clearer if I had extended it to specify ideologically-driven malice aforethought.
Tom in Texas
Cyrus, the explicit threat posed is identical no matter the motivation. A drug addict who robs homes to support himself poses just as much of a threat (if not more, since the threat crosses all racial lines) to neighbors than one who assaults neighbors for their skin color.
RSA
I think that we also have to distinguish between abstract and personal malice. I’d guess, based on what I’ve heard of some hate groups, that there’s really nothing personal in their attacks: the victims are representatives of a group, rather than individuals. It sounds pretty strange to me.
Punchy
Here’s betting that Gibson’s court defense will be “dee–plomatic eee-mmunity”….
Andrei
We finally get the answer why the propietors of this blog refuse to do anything abut the Darrell situation it appears.
Tom in Texas
All victims are representatives of a group. A poor person robs someone because they look rich (ie worth robbing). It doesn’t matter whether they are white, black or brown — all that matters is their perceived wealth. A racist assaults someone based on the color of their skin. It doesn’t matter whether they are rich, poor, or middle class — all that matters is their perceived skin color.
Perry Como
I think a large part of the motivation behind hate crimes legislation is to prevent the group behavior that allowed things like Nazis to do what they did. By making the sentences much more severe for offenders, the government is trying to curb the formation and actions of hate groups. Individual criminals work from a different dynamic than hate groups do.
Krista
Indeed.
But they usually are.
Tom in Texas
But this dynamic works in both cases. By aggressively prosecuting crimes committed in the inner city, police discourage future criminals from acting there. A “hate group” is no different than a gang or even the individual criminals in a crime ridden ward. And the solution is the same. Prosecute the crimes.
VidaLoca
Tom in Texas,
Right, I didn’t understand you to imply that the offenders deserved short sentences in either case.
If I’m not mistaken, though, DWI vehicular homicide will get you a longer prison term than v.h. done sober (I’m pretty sure it will in Wisconsin where I’m from, and I suspect in other states as well). Why? — because as a society we’ve decided we want to come down extra hard on people who engage in this behavior, even though the accident and resulting injury/death are almost certainly unintentional. Given that, what’s wrong with coming down extra hard on someone who set out to cause injury/death to someone else, based on the perpetrator’s rabid, crazy ideology?
We entertain mitigating factors in considering punishment for crimes — what’s illogical about treating ideology as an anti-mitigating factor?
RSA
Um, no, except in a vacuous sense. If Joe Bob shoots Jim in a case of road rage because Jim has cut him off, Jim is clearly an individual victim.
The Other Steve
I have to echo Perry’s comments here. Quite clearly the ideology which promotes and encourages the assault upon someone for their skin color is much more dangerous than the assault of a random individual for money to buy drugs. This is not to excuse the drug abuser, but rather to point out the danger of the group-think ideology which brought us the Klan, Nazis etc which did far more collective damage on this earth than even the most hideous of crimes committed by drug users.
Clearly it is in the interest of society to curb that.
That being said, like any law, the boundaries can be pushed too far, and I don’t see Gibson getting pulled over for DUI a hate crime because of his anti-semitic remarks. Although, his beligerant attitude likely landed him a few other charges in addition to the DUI. Still, I don’t understand why a discussion of hate crime even came up in this context.
Tom in Texas
Because in the DWI cases two crimes are committed. DWI and vehicular manslaughter. DWI is recognized as an individual crime, which makes it easier to use it as evidence for harsher sentencing. Hating black people is not a crime in and of itself, and it can’t be used as an antimitigating factor any more than hating rich people or another group.
Tom in Texas
RSA;
Jim was a part of a group — the group that cuts people off on freeways (there’s a case where I understand the criminal’s motivation!). Joe Bob clearly is a threat to shoot the next guy who cuts him off, right?
Perry Como
I’d be curious to see if hate crime legislation has curbed the number and/or actions of hate groups in the US.
demimondian
Hmm. Hey, Perry, I support hate crimes laws, not because they lead to longer prison terms, but because I consider crimes motivated by hate to be, observationally, apparently more likely to be repeated than other crimes. That’s consistent with considering a hate crime an aggravating factor.
Does that make me a loathesome statist, too?
The Other Steve
Good question.
Zifnab
Still, we have variable sentence lengths for a reason. A criminal caught mugging a young businessman in an alley will most likely be charged differently than a cirminal caught mugging a little old lady coming home with her heart medicine. Likewise, a guy who beats a poker buddy over the back of the head with a baseball bat for cheating at cards will be charged differently than a guy who beats a poker buddy over the back of the head with a baseball bat for being colored and having the presumption to sit down at the table.
But because the charges are left to the prosecutor, just as the sentence is left to the judge/jury, hate crimes legislation, as I’ve seen it used, isn’t a tool designed to bring justice so much as to bring in the vote. High profile cases leave the media asking “Will this constitute a hate crime?” and politicians run on tickets either pushing or snubbing it. I would like to know what effect hate crimes laws actually have on hate crimes.
The Other Steve
Hey… Cindy Sheehan just bougth land down in Crawford!
Perry Como
No. Darrell disagrees with the motive of hate crime legislation, yet he is “hesistant to criticize hate crime legislation” because he likes the results. His is an unprincipled position.
You agree with the motives of hate crime legislation and that’s fine. It’s the Machiavellian dynamic of Darrell’s argument that makes him a statist.
Tom in Texas
My question is: Is a racist more likely to commit a future crime than a drug addict? Until I see evidence that this is so, I will continue to believe that the way to discourage future criminal acts is to aggresively curtail cuurent ones, no matter the cause. I believe that a white man who drags a man behind his pickup because he’s black is no different than a black man who drives by a house because the victim wore red. In both cases, the root cause of the criminal act can be explored: home life, peer groups, the neighborhood they are in and the attitude towards cleansing it. In neither should we impose extra sentencing or withhold sentencing we would already impose.
Perry Como
I should add that it’s fine to disagree with hate crime legislation too. Tom has perfectly reasonable arguments.
What I take issue with is the ends justify the means reasoning people like Darrell profess. It’s the same logic that justifies torture, using the NSA to spy on law abiding Americans, or indefinitely detaining US citizens without access to a lawyer or the courts. It is authoritarian through and through.
Zifnab
Haha. That South Park ep was honestly the first thing I thought of when I read this.
Steve
Andrew Sullivan gets my nomination for PoTD:
RSA
I should have given a better example. My point was that if, say, Joe Bob commits murder in revenge for someone run down his wife in a car accident, I don’t think it adds anything to say that he’s a danger to the class of people who have killed his wife.
Zifnab
Couldn’t have said it better.
Rusty Shackleford
D’oh!
Zifnab
And then I read something like this:
and have to reconsider my position.
John D.
I just have to wonder about this:
In the current forensic science climate, what would possess people to deliberately leave a DNA sample to link them with a crime? Every time I think I’ve found the baseline stupidity of humanity, I find I’ve set the bar still too high.
Perry Como
Zifnab Says:
Funny thing about preaching hate. Some people will take your ideas to heart.
chopper
what we typically call ‘hate crimes’ are those that have an extra factor outside of the direct circumstances of the crime itself. that extra factor is an attempt to influence a specific community by a subtextual threat; when you burn a swastika onto a jewish family’s lawn, it isn’t mere property damage. it’s a notice to them and all the other jewish families around that “you’re not safe here”. when you beat up a gay dude shouting ‘got hates fags, asshole’ you’re also putting the gay community in the area on notice; ‘we’ll pound the dogshit out of you fags too’.
so there’s an extra dimension to the crime.
i personally have no problem with harsher sentences in these cases, as long as it’s applied correctly and equally.
Slide.
I may disagree with chopper on Israel but he is dead on with his post. Certain hate crimes have an impact on people beyond the immediate victim of the crime (burning cross on lawn) and should be prosecuted as such. Just calling an individual a racially charged name is not a hate crime in my book. As far as Mel Gibson goes, the revealtion to the entire world that he is a slimy anti-semite is more punishment than any government could impose. Can’t wait for him to be on his promotional tour for his new movie.
chriskoz
I think there may be a civil rights aspect to this that is going un-addressed.
Often, “hate crimes” are committed by those who would prefer not to have to live, work, associate, or even see the targets of their crimes. And there is often an implicit attempt to chase off or suppress the target group. (Sometimes, it’s very overt that is the goal) This seems to impinge on the civil rights of the target group.
The guy mugging someone in an ally or shooting someone over road rage is not being motivated by the same goals and is likely NOT trying to make a statement to others in that same group. (“Those who travel through alleys” and “those who make me mad on the road”) Hell, I some cases that would work against the goal of the criminal. (If I chase off all the folks in my ally… who am I gonna mug for money)
Is that a sufficient distinction to warrant hate crime legislation? I admit, I’m not sure. But, it sure does seem to me to be the point where the crimes diverge. And something that all too often gets left out of these dicussions.
chriskoz
Yea… what chopper and slide said too.
Darrell
Perry criticizes my “unprincipled” position with regards to hate crimes, yet he defends and excuses the legislation with two of his posts. I guess ‘having it both ways’ is a “principled” position in his book.
Perry Como
Cite? Oh, you can’t. I’ve explained what I think some of the reasoning behind hate crimes legislation is, but I’ve shown why I have reservations about such legislation. You, being the good statist you are, have adopted a position that the ends justify the means. Much like your support of torture, NSA wiretapping and now hate crimes legislation.
Strong. Smart.
VidaLoca
Tom —
You make an interesting point w/r/t DWI. I’d still argue that while “hating [any group] is not a crime in an of itself”, we’ve justifiably made acting on that hatred in a way that materially harms a member of that group a separate crime, precisely to create a basis for harsher sentencing.
Just to be clear: I’m talking about harmful actions (not emotions, ideas, or even speech) and I’m talking about sanctions for acts that have been committed as oppsed to those that may be committed.
chopper
what goes on in someone’s head can indeed change the definition of a crime. malice of forethought and all that.
the thing is, the extra factor i (for example) am talking about is not the one in the criminal’s head, i.e. “hatin’ on black people”.
the extra factor is the effect the crime has on the community, namely one of harassment and/or intimidation. it isn’t merely one crime, but also a form of harassment of a group of people on top of the crime.
thing is, i like the idea of merely using these as ‘aggrivating circumstances’ in a regular case as it allows their application to be tailored to the specific situation. not every hate crime is the same in every place, obviously.
the problem with that is, you’ll have places where it should be applied and isn’t, by biased prosecutors. in a similar manner that a lot of KKK assholes got off in the 50’s and 60’s.
i’m still torn on hate crimes laws for that reason, because i’m not sure of the effectiveness of applying them so broadly. however, at least at the state level they’re more ‘local’ than something nationwide.
Cyrus
I had a long paragraph prepared explaining how second-degree murder is a good example, but you know, the best example is the most obvious, where just intending to commit certain crimes, as long as you’re doing so seriously and would follow through and all that, is itself a crime. The difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter is also a better example than between manslaughter and murder.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean “threat” as in, the random chance that you or I could have been the victim of a crime that has already happened instead of the person who actually was. I meant, most racially-motivated violence is at least partly intended to put other members of the targeted race in their place. To threaten them with an example of what happens if they get out of line. To prevent them from getting “uppity”.
In fact, the entry on assault/battery from the Web site I referenced before is a good example of this. The threat of physical injury “to put another in fear of immediate harm” is itself a crime, whether or not the crime is carried out. A burning cross or a spraypainted swastika is a threat generally intended for more people than just those on whose property they appear, and so are crimes more serious than just vandalism, so… well, I only half-read the last few comments, but I see I’m not the first to go in this direction.
fwiffo
Did anybody else read “sugar tits” and think “mmm, that sounds like a great new breakfast cereal!”
chopper
(singing): can’t get enough of that Sugar Tits…
chopper
and now he’s entering rehab.
the bottle made him say it?
Punchy
Or:
the name of a stripper
a brand of breast implants
something the Jerky Boys would say
something in a hotel room that would cost money
Paul L.
I know how Mel could get a pass from you guys about his remarks.
Convert to Islam.
Quote of the Day
“He is sick to his empty core with Jew hatred”
“Considering a Hollywood that has forgiven Roman Polanski’s rape of an underage girl, I find it difficult to get very worked up about this. It’s a pity to be sure, but hardly a thing of great significance.”
Richard 23
Exactly! Hey, WTF?
Is that poop I see floating in the punchbowl?
Or is it a dead jackalope?
chopper
are you saying islam is poop?
John S.
Brought to you by the schmuck who thinks that Qana was an elaborate hoax…
Zifnab
That’s one thing I miss in Hollywood and on the national political scene. Where’s all the national islam-bashing? What happened to some nutjobs cooking up conspiracy theories about secret cross-country Muslim bombing plots? Or about Muslims trying to take over the world? Or how Muslims control the media?
Why don’t we ever hear about some drunken public figure vomitting on a cop’s shoes while he accuses said cop of working for Osama Bin Ladin? I demand equal opportunity racism!
SeesThroughIt
Well, now I do!
But really, my first reaction was, “He totally garbled the Jerky Boys. It’s ‘sizzle chest,’ not ‘sugar tits.'”
Tom in Texas
Again though, so is gang crime. It is hugely motivated by an attempt to get those who you don’t like out of your neighborhood. They threaten families, girlfriends, and absolutely hold their comminuties in the same grip of fear as do white supremacists.
The Other Steve
Tom in Texas,
Could you respond to the point chopper made, about burning a Swastika into the lawn of a Jewish family.
Is it truly your contention that the crime is nothing more than property damage?
We have stiffer penalties for crimes committed by gang, etc.
So why is it your contention that the same cannot be done with acts of terror committed by KKK, neo-Nazis, etc?
I simply do not find your arguments, especially comparisons to gang related crime to be compelling.
Tom in Texas
Steve;
I think chopper’s swastika example is obviously more than just damaging property. I think tagging a home or building is the same thing. Both are marking territory — intimidating those they want out of their neighborhood into leaving. The primary goal of a gang and a hate crime is intimidation.
I don’t have a problem with treating Aryan groups as gangs and punishing their members as such. By joining these groups, they show their willingness to commit these crimes. But isolated crimes whose motivation is racial or hate based rather than economic shouldn’t be treated any differently.
chopper
well, as TOS states, gang activity adds an extra dimension as well, in a very similar manner as a hate crime.
and many states have laws on the books similar to hate crime laws regarding gang activity. the concept is the same, they’re just different laws because they’re applied to different sets of circumstances.
The Other Steve
The point being, the laws we have on the books which make stiffer penalties towards gangs, organized crime and such are there because of the effect those groups have on the society. Shooting someone is one thing, shooting someone in the name of organized crime is part of a bigger picture.
Even if you aren’t a card carrying member of the KKK, a racial or hate based crime has the same effect as if you were.
Up until this thread I was of a similar opinion to you with regards to Hate Crime laws, but the arguments having been made on the opposition side have not been compelling. It just seems interesting that some people are more than happy to institute stiffer penalties towards gang related crime, presumably because gang members are minorities. But similar crimes committed by hateful whites should not be given stiffer punishment, because that wouldn’t be fair?
I think there is an undercurrent to this discussion which is not being acknowledged.
demimondian
You know, TOS, I don’t agree with you about this:
Most people are afraid (reasonably) of laws that they think can reach out and touch them, particularly when that out-reach is unjust. I doubt that many of the commenters here are particularly worried about RICO, but I equally doubt that any one of us can’t think of at least one stray hateful thought that’s flitted through our minds during an argument.
So we fear hate crimes laws, but not gang-violence laws. That’s understandable, and, in an environment where the press tries very hard to focus on the potential failures of the laws, probably even rational. It isn’t bigotry, just a lack of information.
The Other Steve
Agreed.
But isn’t the same true of gang-related laws? You don’t think prosecutors are likely to accuse some kid of being a member of a gang just to get a harsher sentence?
No, I agree that we fear laws which might affect us unjustly, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t bigotry involved in the selection of which laws we support or not.
demimondian
As a matter of fact, yes, I do. That’s why I said:
If you can’t imagine being snagged under a gang-crimes law, then you can look at it rationally. It’s a lot harder to look rationally at something like a hate-crimes law if you think you’re a possible target.
I’m particularly thinking about this in the context of my sister-in-law, who’s a theraputic social worker with the child protection agency of one of the states. She does a lot of things, among them file, and sometimes execute, “child separation orders”: that’s bureaucratese for “taking children away from their parents”. She’s got a job that strikes fear into the hearts of parents everywhere.
People joke that they don’t dare tell her they spank their children. That irritates her — she has no interest in taking kids away unless there really is no alternative that has any chance of keeping them alive. The parents who joke to her are joking about having spanked their kid when he tried to run out into the street, not the ones who withold food, or break bones, or don’t come home for a week straight. They have nothing to fear — but they don’t know that, and the papers in her state play up the threat of removal all the time, so they fear her, and oppose support for removing kids who are in genuine danger.
See the parallel? Hate crimes legislation is something that seems scary, just because the ordinary run of life feels like it ought to bring each of us into its realm. That’s scary. Most of us can’t imagine working for an organized criminal gang, and so RICO simply doesn’t affect us. Once people start to think of hate crimes laws as applying to the situations to which they do apply (the Matthew Shepherd murder), they stop fearing them, and start be rational about them.
Tom in Texas
This is completely unfair. Don’t presume why I think the KKK is nothing more than a gang and should be treated as such.
Which would be why I want to treat people who shoot a minority acting alone differently than one who joins a gang and vows to kill them as a way of life. But you would already know that if you would read my post instead of presuming what I think.
Bullshit. An isolated loner scrawling obscenities on a school door is not the same as an organized community resistance running families out of town.
Look, I understand your point that racially motivated crime has an enourmously chilling effect on the community. People are afraid for their lives and afraid to speak out. How you can’t see that the same thing happens to neighborhoods in the inner city every day is beyond me. Unlike me, maybe you live in the suburbs, far away from any other minorities. I don’t presume to know you well enough.
Tom in Texas
Since you agreed with me concerning hate crimes before this thread, maybe you could enlighten me as to what turned you around, Steve? Is it your realization that I, and by extension others against the legislation, are racists? Is it the completely unfounded assumption that racists are more likely to commit future crimes than someone addicted to dangerous narcotics? It appears you believe quite strongly that racial crime has a dangerous effect on a neighborhood, where as normal crime… not so much. Maybe this explains it. I tend to believe that crime, whatever its motivation, ruins communities and needs to be eradicated. But then again I’m racist.
Darrell
Presumably you are a race baiting asshole who unnecessarily injects racism into a debate where none existed.
Tom, I don’t agree with you on much, but you’ve nailed TOS correctly here. When he has no argument, no logic, and no facts to support his position, he starts throwing out strawmen.. in this case unfairly inserting racism. It’s the kind of person he is. I’m glad you can recognize it too
Darrell
You know, for all the shit Mel Gibson has deservedly taken over his comments, it’s no different than some/many of the leftists who regularly post here.
Nutcutter and DougJ have both accused Israel of “murdering” children for “political purposes”, while twisting their justification like pretzels trying to explain away why the children killed in the Afghanistan war were not ‘murdered’, but merely collateral damage. In the context of discussing Israel’s conflict with Lebanon, “Pb” actually suggested that Israel was behind 9/11, telling us there were “dancing Israelis” watching the WTC towers fall. That is seriously fucked up conspiracy mongering. To tell the truth, I think many people would prefer Mel Gibson’s nonsense compared to what some of you lefties post right here on BJ.
Tom in Texas
Awesome. Now it’s on. Darrell’s got my back. Houston vs the World!!
John S.
Says the guy who is notorious for quoting things so far out of context that it changes the entire meaning of what was actually stated. Sort of like some other conservatives do.
Link it or shut the fuck up. You have ZERO credibility here.
You telling the truth? That’s a rare event, indeed. Too bad you just floated another one of your straight from the ass whoppers where you – who is SO far out of the mainstream it is funny – try to tell everyone what the majority really thinks.
chopper
i’d like to see some proof that Pb posted such an assertion.
Darrell
The audio clip on Powerline matches word for word with the text on Think Progress, so unless Powerline changed their original posting, Think Progress appears to be wrong in their accusation of “edited” audio clip.
Give me a minute, I’ll dig them up. I believe Andrew responded several times to the “dancing Israelis” accusation.
tBone
DougJ’s actual quote:
Darrell + Original Context = Oil + Water
Perry Como
Darrell Says:
Darrell, why are you claiming that Mel Gibson challenged the 6 million number?
Darrell
Right here. “Pb” posted
Darrell
tBone, the Israelis are not “murdering” children for any political purposes, they are DEFENDING themselves against attack.
Darrell
Interesting how both Nutcutter and DougJ say Israelis are “murdering children” for political purposes, yet all those children killed in Afghanistan, a war they both say they supported.. the Afghan children killed are merely collateral damage.
Must having something to do with those dancing Israelis. Again, what leftists post right here on BJ about Israel is more extreme than anything I’ve heard come from Mel Gibson
tBone
Not going down that road with you, Darrell. Sorry. Just wanted to point out that your cherry-picking of DougJ’s comment gave an inaccurate and unfair characterization of what he actually said.
I notice that you’re not quibbling with the “FDR murdered children for political purposes” part, though. Why do you hate America?
Darrell
I’ll bet you were dancing with those Israelis who were celebrating the WTC attack.
tBone
You’re the one who thinks FDR killed and ate babies for political purposes, Darrell. Don’t make me out as the America-hater here.
Tom in Texas
TOS:
Please cite where I EVER suggested we not punish whites the exact same way we punish the same crime committed by blacks. You are the one attempting to mete out unequal punishments. Not I.
Incidentally, whether or not you think the KKK is a gang, inside a prison wall white supremacist gangs are essential to survival. By sentencing a 16 year old to decades in prison you are guaranteeing his entrance into such a gang, and you are compounding the problem. Congratulations.
Darrell
What happened to John S.? He accused me of lying and challenged me to back up my claim while making a false accusation himself. I cited proof of my assertion while discrediting his false claim. Funny how those leftists screaming “liar” are themselves the ones usually caught lying.
Perry Como
Well, the report is conflicting. The men were Israelis, but the conflict is over whether they were “celebrating”, “acting strangely”, or “dancing”.
A report on the issue:
Tom in Texas
Come to think of it, wasn’t at least one of the Jasper killers a member of an Aryan prison gang?
I’ve got a great idea. Let’s arrest kids for being racially insensitive and force them into a situation where their very survival means allying themselves with dangerous lunatics predisposed to murder.
Darrell
Ah yes, and another leftist whackjob emerges to give credence to the “Israel was behind 9/11” assertion. How fair and balanced of you to leave out this little ‘detail’ from the article Perry
tBone
The audio clip on Powerline cuts out right after this:
The full exchange, included on Think Progress, is:
So Think Progress appears to be right.
chopper
and that’s “proof” that PB suggested that Israel was “behind 9/11” how?
pointing out some chumps dancing in the streets is not in any way, shape or form “suggest[ing] that Israel was behind 9/11”.
in short, you’re a dishonest assclown.
demimondian
Hey, Tom in Texas, it could be worse. On the previous thread, both Darrell and Par had my back. So there — I got you beat.
Sucker.
Darrell
Of course chopper, Pb pointing out those “dancing Israelis” filming and ‘celebrating’ the fall of the WTC towers.. he meant nothing at all by it. Talk about dishonest. At least Andrew had enough integrity to call him out for his whackjob assertion
Darrell
tBone copies and pastes from the Think Progress site and declares them to be right. Try listening to the actual audio file on Powerline, not what Think Progress tells you to believe, and get back to us.
tBone
Uh, yeah, I did listen to it, oh Mendacious One. It cut out right after he said “No, I happen to be-”
Exactly like Think Progress said.
Perry Como
I left out 90% of the article, jackass. btw, on 9/11/2001 the local news (here in Northern New Jersey where I watched the towers fall from my window) originally reported the five men were Middle Eastern. The reports were still conflicting over the dancing/acting strangely/celebrating issue.
Now, can you point out where I said “Israel was behind 9/11”? No. You can’t. You are a lying, statist piece of shit.
tBone
C’mon, Darrell. Where does the audio cut out in that clip? Listen to the actual audio file on Powerline, not what the voices in your head tell you to believe, and get back to us.
Perry Como
I’m still wondering why Darrell claimed that “the “6 million” number being chanllenged.. came from Mel Gibson”.
Darrell
Dingall first states his position clearly. In context, verbatim from the Powerline audio, which matches word for word with the text on Think Progress
Having explained clearly that he doesn’t take sides “for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel”, what fucking difference does it make that the audio cut when it did? The reporter asks is he’s against Hezbollah AFTER Dingall spelled out his position that he’s not against them, but he’s not for them either. In context, and all on the Powerline audio
The audio was not “edited” as Think Progress falsely claimed, and they are dishonest as hell for claiming that Dingall was taken out of context, when the audio made his position and context crystal clear. Again, the audio clip was not “edited” as Think Progress alleges. They flat out lied about that, and of course leftist jackasses like you and John S. defend their dishonesty
tBone
Darrell obviously suffers from GDS. There’s simply no other way you can interpret that remark.
Darrell
I clearly stated upthread, in a post in which I echoed an observation from “Zifnab”, that Mel Gibson’s father, not Mel Gibson made those statements.
Perry, why don’t crawl back under your Isreali conspiracy on 9/11 rock?
tBone
You’re right, Darrell. We’re dishonest Leftist jackasses. But at least we don’t smear poor Mel Gibson and claim that he’s a Holocaust denier like you, when you said:
Darrell
No other way to interpret my remark that is, if you’re a dishonest as hell jackass like you. Sweet irony that you would falsely accuse others of quoting out of context when you’re doing exactly that to me now.
chopper
i’m not saying he meant nothing at all by it, dumbass. what i’m asking is, how is it a suggestion that “israel was behind 9/11”? if i point to a picture of some iraqis dancing in the streets after 9/11, does that mean i’m automatically suggesting that hussein was behind the whole thing?
okay. “darrell is a dishonest assclown.” jesus, you’re an idiot.
tBone
Look, Darrell, you said these words:
It doesn’t matter what you said before or after those words, just like it doesn’t matter what Dingell said before or after “No.”
Darrell
I’d like you leftist whackjobs to tell us who else was dancing with those Israelis celebrating the collapse of the WTC? C’mon, wasn’t Karl Rove spotted doing a Jewish ‘hora’ dance, arm-in-arm with those dastardly Jews?
tBone
Darrell is an anti-Semite.
Perry Como
First you’d have to point me to that rock. You can start by citing anywhere I’ve said that Israel was involved in 9/11. But since you are a lying statist (is there any other kind?), you can’t point it out.
Darrell
Let’s see, Powerline uses in-context unedited quote = evil liars. tBone and Perry selectively quote me out of context to deliberately change the meaning = no problems
Got it. Reality based community. Smart.Strong.
Darrell
Well, you defended and excused the ‘suspicious’ dancing Israelis theory used to try and link Israel with the WTC attacks on 9/11.
Perry Como
tBone Says:
From Darrell’s anti-Semitic greatest hits: “Jews are in fact stupid and naive to the extreme”
tBone
Powerline:
You’re right! Only an unhinged Leftist could think that was selectively edited to create a misleading impression! You’ve convinced me, Context King.
You still haven’t explained why you think FDR captured, killed, cooked, and ate babies for political purposes, though. America-hater.
chopper
i’d like you rightist assclowns to tell us all how pointing out some israelis dancing to the destruction means you’re accusing israel of doing the job?
i mean, i know that right-wing reasoning pretty much defies all reasonable logic (“more deaths in iraq means we’re ‘turning the corner'”, etc) but humor me here and show me the logic. seriously, its the end of the workday and i want to be entertained.
Perry Como
Darrell Says:
I pointed to an article that recounted the story. Is it your contention that the incident never happened? It was all over the news here on 9/11. So if pointing out a fact is defending and excusing, well, you got me. No room for facts in Darrell-world.
btw, aren’t you late for lunch drinks with Mel Gibson? You guys should share stories about those “dastardly Jews.”
Pooh
1. Steal underpants
2. ????
3. PROFIT!
Darrell
In his post, he linked to an article suggesting that those Israelis “knew” about 9/11, and that Israel was glad 9/11 occurred. Keep on defending the indefensible chopper. Oh, and keep on calling me names without daring to criticize your fellow leftist Pb.. you know, the one who actually promoted those hateful smears. That says it all about who you are.
tBone
Even more of Darrell’s anti-Semitic ranting:
chopper
dude, if some chumps danced while the towers burned, then some chumps danced while the towers burned. doesn’t matter who or from what country, culture or religion they’re from. if it happened, it happened. saying ‘well, yes, that did in fact happen’ if it did in fact happen doesn’t mean you’re accusing israel of doing the job.
hell, there are some americans who probably danced in the streets when it happened, figuring it was a sign of the upcoming ‘rapture’. does finding and pointing that out mean i’m saying that the bush administration was behind the whole thing?
Darrell
Asshole, in the context of discussing the current Israeli/Lebanese conflict, one of your fellow leftist whackjobs brings up a “Israelis were in on 9/11” conspiracy theory, complete with linked article suggesting those Israelis “knew” about 9/11 and were happy it happened. That is what you are defending. And as of this post, you have yet to utter a word of criticism about it, while insulting me for pointing it out. How ‘reality based’ of you.
Perry Como
tBone Says:
Darrell also said this:
Darrell, do you have any evidence that Israel was behind 9/11? Any evidence that Israel was glad 9/11 occurred? What is your problem with Israel? Why do you hate Jews so much?
Darrell
Well, there were those dancing Israelis you told us about Perry.
Perry Como
That would mean that those specific Israelis may have been celebrating the destruction of the WTC. The eye witness reports were conflicting, so it’s hard to tell. There were also photographs of the guys taken with the burning buildings in the background, but that “evidence” only points to some insensitive jackasses.
Anything more specific? I’m curious about your conspiracy theory.
chopper
so now its ‘israel knew about 9/11′, huh. whatever happened to ‘israel being behind 9/11′? you know, performing the deed? training or paying the hijackers? that whole thing you’re accusing him of saying?
jesus, darrell, let me know when you move the goalposts yet again.
you. dishonest. lying. prick. bastard.
tBone
Keep your whackjob conspiracy theories to yourself, Darrell. We’re tired of your rampant anti-Semitism.
chopper
you still haven’t pointed out where he said that israel was behind 9/11, you dishonest asswipe.
oh, and BTW, from the story he linked to, the one you’re saying shows that he’s suggesting that israel was ‘behind 9/11’..
you. dishonest. lying. prick. bastard.
Faux News
No, he is the “Sugar Tits” of Balloon Juice.
:-)
Darrell
Yeah that’s the way, you piece of shit.. Call me the names, not the one who floated the conspiracy theory smear. At least Andrew had the integrity to call Pb on the smear. You’re too much of a scumbag to do the same.
Darrell
I think chopper was spotted dancing with those Isrealis while the WTC collapsed. chopper and Karl Rove both.
Darrell
Perry, tell us some more about your bitterness toward Israel. Yesterday you gave us some insight as to how you’re still so bitter at Israel over them trading with South Africa during sanctions.
Perry Como
I know I keep asking, and you never provide because you can’t, but…cite? I don’t think I’ve ever read about, let alone discussed, Israel trading with South Africa.
Or is this just some more Darrell-manure?
chopper
well, you are a dishonest, lying piece of human garbage.
so i guess that proves that i was the one who pulled off the 9/11 attacks, according to your ineffable logic. you get loopier by the day.
Darrell
My apologies Perry. Krista and ppgaz posted that you are the same person as “GOPforme”. Was that false information?
Perry Como
I can assure you I’m not GOP4Me. He is a much better writer than I am.
Darrell
If you’re going to continue to call me names, I’ll continue to make you look like an idiot. All you had to do was read the fucking thread I linked to. As if Pb’s post I linked to wasn’t enough, he spells it later. Zifnab addresses him after his initial “dancing Israelis” post:
To which, Pb responds and clarifies
and he then links to another Israel conspiracy article. As I stated upthread, the shit leftists post right here on BJ about Israel is as bad or worse then anything Mel Gibson said.
chopper, it’s still worth pointing out that you’ve directed all your insults toward me, without a word toward your fellow whackjob promoting the hateful smears on Israel. You know why that is? Because you’re a lowlife sack of shit, and you know it. that’s why
tBone
That’s his secret for growing strong, sleek jackalopes that facts can’t cling to.
tBone
I love it when Darrell gets the vapors because a lowlife scumbag dishonest Leftist vermin kook whackjob calls him names. Oh, the humanity!
Darrell
You can ‘assure’ me of that, huh? I wonder why Krista and ppgaz have said that you and GOP4me were the same person? They claim to have worked with you on the Scrutator website and spoken with you directly by email (and phone?). In fact, they said your name is Oliver. Is that a lie too?
demimondian
Jesus, tBone, can’t you get it right? Those aren’t strong, sleek jacklopes, they’re Strong. Sleek. Serious. Jackalopes(TM).
Got it? Strong. Sleek. Serious.
Perry Como
I missed when Krista and ppgaz said I was GOP4Me. My name isn’t Oliver, so they must be confused.
tBone
My apologies. I forgot that anything grown with the assistance of Darrell-Poo Brand Jackalope Fertilizer automatically rates capital letters.
tBone
Wait, I’m confused too. I thought I was you. So who am I?
Darrell
In addition to the “Israel was in on 9/11” conspiracy theories floated by some leftists on BJ, others say Israel’s response was “murder” and “sociopathic”. Yesterday GOP4me ridiculed the very possibility that Qana was in anyway staged, despite a number of inconsistencies with the events reported there. Much better to blame Israel first, sort out facts later. See Jenin for the same knee jerk blame-Israel-first-get-facts-later tendency
Perry Como
I thought you were DougJ this week. Crap. We got the Whackjob Leftist Bots confused again.
tBone
We need to label those things better.
Anyway, I see Darrell is continuing his anti-Semitic bile:
Why does Darrell hate Jews?
Darrell
Re. Qana – Hezbollah terrorists would never stage an atrocity to make Israel look bad. They are too honorable for that.. and besides, Israelis are known child murderers who, if not directly responsible for 9/11, knew about it and didn’t tell us.
Perry Como
Yeah, Darrell is starting to go off the deep end. Darrell, do you really think we should:
?
That’s a little presumptive, isn’t it?
Perry Como
Darrell Says:
Darrell, you need help.
Darrell
The jews made me do it. Well, them and Diebold
chopper
man, darrell, you’re really reaching. not unexpected from a piece of human garbage like you. like i said, point out where he says israel is behind 9/11. oh wait, you can’t. of course, you level that accusation at all sorts of people, cause that’s what moronic assholes like you do; you make up garbage.
the best part is how you state unequivocally that Pb is actively asserting that israel was ‘behind 9/11’ because he cited a story that explicitly states that israel wasn’t behind 9/11.
it’s almost comedy!
but oh, you’re all pissed off because i’m ragging on you. oh, poor darrell, someone’s pointing out what a dishonest shit he is. man, won’t the vile leftists lay off darrell? why do they have to keep pointing out that he’s a lying sack of garbage? why can’t a lying sack of garbage catch a break?
Steve
Unbelievable.
I’m a fan of Israel, but it strikes me that they must have seriously erred somewhere along the way when their biggest cheerleaders are people like Darrell.
Perry Como
The Jews control EEPROMs now too? I’m investing in tin foil producers. Darrell is going to cause a run on the market.
chopper
this is the point where Dishonest Darrell changes the argument yet again after completely failing to prove the original accusation. seriously, do you rent yourself out to the NFL whenever goalposts need to be moved? cause you got talent.
demimondian
No, no, no. The Jews have cornered the market on switches that allow you to run the machine from a keychain drive.
Pooh
Hey when do I get to be DougJ?
Krista, make Perry stop hogging the DougJ all the time, I want to play too and it’s my turn.
tBone
You kids, pipe down back there! If you keep this up, NONE of you are going to play DougJ. Don’t make me stop this blog and get out or you’ll regret it.
demimondian
Hey! That’s my line. I’m the demi here, thank you, and I’m capable of doing my job myself, thank you.
(I thought we were going to start sharing the moderate whackjob evil clown role next week, weren’t we? Or I did miss the memo?)
chopper
that would explain how much trouble i had with my EE senior design project.
Krista
Poop.
Yep. That WAS false information. I don’t recall ever saying such a thing. If you’d be a sweetie and provide a quote, though…why don’t I just sit over here and not hold my breath?
Perry, let Pooh play DougJ. It’s his turn. If you can’t play nice and share, I won’t let you play scs this weekend.
John S.
I decided to sit back and watch you implode, like you always do when challenged.
Nutcutter
Okay.
Ha’aretz:
Why the massive civlian deaths despite all the lies about “great care” being taken to avoid them? The lies about “pinpoint” targeting?
Now you know.
Nothing like some facts to clear up some cognitive dissonance, eh?
Ed – the quote’s a repost but when you are hunting the wascally Dawwel, you have to go where the prey is.
Nutcutter
I’ve been busy today … is anyone really floating that Israel-911 theory?
I’m here to tell you … I’ve done the research, and that story is pure bullshit. A dirty lie.
tBone
My blind is set up in the rafters of Sam’s Club, right above the Cheetohs pallet.
Nutcutter
I thought I was Oliver?
As for DougJ, he is me. I write his character on Fridays. I don’t know who has him the other days.
Nutcutter
The part of Perry Como is actually written by Paul Anka.
demimondian
ppg…you do realize that Ha’aretz is an *opposition* paper, right? Ha’aretz feels about the current government about how dKos would feel about a centrist Republican government. (I know — you were in high school during the last of those, I was a boy, and Markos hadn’t even been born yet. You’ll have to imagine, OK?)
What your example shows is that Labour has its own wing. I wouldn’t take that to reflect government policy at all.
demimondian
It was *you* who put that tranquilizer dart in my butt last week?
Nutcutter
Right. I suppose you’ll argue that all correct news and opinion about Israel will come from the non-ooposition?
I mean, that’s the way it works here. All the real facts come from Fox News and the 700 Club.
But to the content of my blurb: As I have been saying for some days, there is only one explanation for the huge disconnect between the baloney coming from IDF and Olmert, and the facts on the ground: The official story is just a lie. It isn’t congruent with the facts, it doesn’t make any sense at all. The explanation from Haaretz fits the facts and makes sense. Call me crazy, I’m inclined to give the Haartez version credence at this point.
“Pinpoint” targeting, my baby-smooth ass.
Of course, you can always sign up for the Darrell version of this thing. The fact that it looks, sounds and scans like regurgitation of rightwing talking points … well, I wouldn’t let that get in your way. It’s probably just a coincidence.
demimondian
Not at all. The phrase you highlighted, though, is interpretation, not fact, and it should be read carefully. You need to consider the source to judge its reliability
Oh, and please: spare me the Rovianism, OK? We’re *both* too old for it. Save it for Darrell.
Krista
Spanked!
Nutcutter
Oh, right. Any American should know, now, that the best source of information is government press releases.
Okay, that’s good enough for you. Not for me. I have eyes and ears, and I know bullshit when I see it.
The official line coming out of Israel the last three weeks has been pure bullshit, every line, every sentence, every paragraph. Every interview. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Rhetoric and misdirection. “Right to defend.”
You know what? “We have a right ….” isn’t a set of facts that explain the facts coming in from the ground. It’s a speech. Nothing but fucking speeches and the hideous preachments of people like Shimon Peres and his spam-bot pronouncements about “tehhhrawr.”
You know what? I don’t need that old bullshit artist to tell me what tehhhhrawr is. I know what tehhhhhhhrawr is. I also know that “pinpoint targeting” that is taking “great care to avoid civilian deaths” doesn’t kill almost entirely civilians, and attack people in their sleep and in cars running away every fucking day.
So cut the crap, man.
tBone
Look, get off my case, all right? It was just a little peppering. I’m sure you barely felt it, especially once the ketamine kicked in.
Besides, I thought you were a quail. And your orange vest blended in with the Cheetohs bags behind you. It could have happened to anyone.
demimondian
Look, a jackalope! It’s Smooth. Serious. Sincere.
Darrell, have you stolen PPG’s account again? You naughty boy.
demimondian
Hey, man, it’s cool; no problem. It’s just that I’m worried about all those letters I had my attorney send to Dick Cheney about it…
Nutcutter
Give it up, man. You’re defending a pile of shit here.
The entire world can see what is going on, and it’s butt ugly.
I admire your loyalty, but you are defending something that is dishonest, rotten, morally bankrupt, devastating to US interests, inconsistent with any rational view of prospects for peace in the middle east, and of course … you are defending people who have been murdering children in their sleep and in cars running away from them, while pretending to be trying to be “careful” and “concerned.”
I gotta tell you, I can’t even imagine what your motive must be.
Nutcutter
You know on second read that is just so completely fucking dishonest, I gotta call you out.
Your retort to my earlier post is that I quoted an “opposition” news source? That’s your fucking retort?
And when called on that, you are going to do the “jackalope thing?”
Are you spoofing now? Because you are acting like a complete idiot here. And if you are spoofing, it’s about the shittiest spoof we’ve seen here to date. Even Par can do better than you are doing.
Christ. What is the matter with you.
Nutcutter
Oh demi, I think I just sent you the information you need.
Welcome, and all that.
demimondian
An opposition news source making broad and inflammatory statements about government policy is not one I trust. If someone writing on the front page of Kos said that the current Iraq war was a plan to slaughter all Iraqi citizens, would it clearly be true? Not at all. It mihgt be, but, then again, it might just be partisan baiting.
The Other Steve
demimondian,
Ahh, I see your point now. Yes, good point.
Perry Como
Since TOS brought this back to the issue about hate crimes…
One of my hesitations about hate crime laws stems from laws like RICO. Mission creep. Overzealous prosecutors/government/whatever using “the tools they have available” to prosecute people. It’s the same problem I have with the drug war, mandatory minimums, and the Patriot Act (used to bust into strip clubs, natch).
I’d be more comfortable with laws that prosecute specific hate crimes — like burning a swastika in someone’s lawn — rather than laws that are a pile on — like someone said “kike” while he beat a Jewish person up.
The former has a bright line. The latter is too fuzzy and may be too prone to abuse.
The Other Steve
An addict commits a crime out of desperation.
A racist commits a crime because they planned it.
How can you insist with any rational logic that the claim is an unfounded assumption?
If anything, I would have to say that the motivation behind what we tend to call a ‘hate crime’ immediately moves the crime committed into a first degree category.
Perhaps we can at least agree to that?
The Other Steve
Umm… Hate Crime legislation does not mean arresting people for being insensitive.
You seem to be talking about something different than the rest of us.
The Other Steve
I have to agree. When Darrell and his buddies started floating around conspiracy theories that there was no bombing of an apartment building because the UN only found 30 bodies instead of the 50 reported… You gotta question their grasp of reality.
Nutcutter
Blair Pimps Values Scam
The headline is mine, of course.
I think that I have had about enough of this phony baloney “values” bullshit. Values are the stuff of bathos, and manipulation. Fuck people like Blair, Olmert and Bush and their “values” scams.
I think it’s time to judge people by their actions, and not their words.
There’s a reason why the old expression is “Words are cheap” and not “Actions are cheap.” It’s because words are cheap.
And this “values” shit … whether it’s Bush’s bitch Tony Blair, or Pat robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or Bush himself … is just crass manipulation. I don’t need these smarmy turds to tell what is right and wrong and good and bad.
The Other Steve
Agreed. I think there is a compelling argument to be made there.
The problem with laws which are specific, is the Tom Delay’s of the world will burn the Cross of St. George in the front yard and then claim they are being unfairly accused because it wasn’t a Swastika.
I don’t have an easy answer, but I agree with your initial point of scope creep.
demimondian
Perry…I understand your concern. The only answer I have is that conspiracy laws area lot more open-ended, and, although abused occasionally, are not abused often. I do consider racial/ethnic/etc animus to be an aggravating factor in an objective crime, and my answer to tough questions iuke that has always been to depend on judicial evolution to temper the rules. It seems to work better than most other choices.
Nutcutter
TNR.
Two and a half more years of this bullshit.
I’m opening a Rapture bookstore.
Perry Como
One problem is detaching the emotions from the crime. In the case of burning a symbol into someone’s lawn the motivation is typically[0] clear. And it is a tough issue. If we can establish a bright line, I’d be much more comfortable. But given the propensity of the government to abuse its power, I’m reticent in advocating hate crime laws.
[0] – this caveat is added because of asshat law enforcement that now treat senior pranks at a high school as a serious threat to national security and shit
Perry Como
I’ll admit that I don’t know if hate crime laws have been abused. I also don’t know if they’ve been effective (anyone have any studies on this?). What they strike me as is another law that has a great potential for abuse.
That’s fine until you get to issues like mandatory minimums. Now you have a wheel chair bound guy that suffers from MS serving 25 years, no parole, for trying to alleviate his pain.
I’d prefer clear cut lines in something like hate crime laws. Mission creep has already taken away too many of our rights.
Perry Como
re: conspiracy laws, see RICO. It has been abused. Alot.
demimondian
Really? Other than the action against Operation Rescue (which I believe reflects a clear defect in the law, and which was overturned on appeal), I honestly don’t recall any clear abuses. I haven’t studied RICO in detail, though, so I could well be wrong.
What examples do you have in mind?
Perry Como
Oddly enough, anti-abortion and anti-pornography demonstrators. Two positions that I’m at polar opposites with, but the groups that engage in those protests have had RICO lawsuits filed against them. Maybe that’s more of the law of unintended consequences.
There’s some Federal abuse that I’m not recalling at the moment. RICO has taken a back burner in my neurons thanks to the War on Concepts.
demimondian
The anti-abortion case is the OR case, I think, which was eveentually overturned. That was a defect in the law (in my opinion), in which private citizens could bring actions when the government had refused. Provisions like *that* are invitations to abuse, in my opinion. I understand the idea of free-market justice…I just think it’s, well, stoopid.
I don’t know thw anti-pornography cases, so I can’t comment on those. There’s been one recently involving interstate commerce for some pretty nasty stuff…out of Wisconsin, maybe? I though that one was thrown out, though, so I can’t place the cases your talking about.
Perry Como
I’ll recant that. A cursory search on Google (’cause MSN sucks ;) doesn’t ring any bells. It’s the unintended (civil) consequences I had a problem with. I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it, etc. Us crazy constitution huggers.
Perry Como
I need to look them up. And wtf is up with the smiley. Grr. bbiab
demimondian
MSN may suck, but it is more likely to return your desired result on the front page than Goog is. I take every possible opportunity to remind the Googlers of my acquaintance of that pleasant fact. ;)
Seriously, I don’t like self-help laws, either. OTOH, I’ve got to acknowledge that they played a key role in the successful prosecutions of many civil rights cases.
Perry Como
Northeast Women’s Center v. McMonagle
Walden Book Co. Inc. et al v. American Family Association of Florida
The former may be the Operation Rescue. Many more cases have been filed, requiring alot of money to answer, fight and dismiss. The fact they have been dismissed points to judicial temperance. So my RICO point has been debunked.
See, internetotron conversations can be productive.
demimondian
Yeah, the former is OR. I’ll look at the latter tomorrow; it’s too late here in the demi-bunker for me to chase stuff today.
Yeah, those intertubes (Thnx, Sen Bridge-To-Nowhere!) can be useful sometimes, eh?
Steve
I think you guys sorted out that the civil/criminal issue was the source of the confusion. Civil RICO has been so abused I’m not sure you could even get a legitimate claim in the courthouse door any more.
The law of criminal conspiracy is basically what it’s been for centuries: evil intentions + agreement + overt act = crime. Note that if there’s no conspiracy, if it’s just you, the threshold to be charged with “attempted” something-or-another is much stricter than the overt act requirement is when two or more people are involved. To put it more simply, if you’re the only one involved then you have to go a long way towards actually committing the crime before you can be charged with anything. Evil thoughts, writing it down in your diary, etc., that’s not a crime.
Perry Como
Yeah, I was conflating the them. RICO is a jackalope. Drug laws…
Nutcutter
Ha’aretz. The truth slowly comes out. Civilian deaths are due to the cause that has been obvious since day one: Careless targeting. It’s being called the “close enough for government work” defense.
CEFGW is a PR tactic taught at the Don Rumsfeld School of Warfare.
And the bald-faced “human shield” lie is also unraveling.
If Israel has been shooting at combatants using civilians as shields (in the air war), why have all the casualties been shields?
Where are the “shields” in a car carrying a fleeing family?
ats
Meanwhile. off the radar screen, the zealots are stealing all the best land in the West Bank. as the separation wall work rushes along.
But Mel Gibson, now he has our complete attention.
I never thought I’d be wishing good luck to Karen Hughes, but Sisyphus has nothing on her.