Recent Updates Page 2 RSS Hide threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • You are Known by the Company You Keep

    Tom 9:18 pm on September 20, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply

    Charlie Tremendous Jones is famous for (many things, one of which is) saying that who you will be in five years is driven by the books you read and the people with whom you associate. The truth to that statement has been proven over and over again; those who doubt it are cheating themselves. Read the right material to feed your mind and give your subconscious something to chew on, and then associate with those who can mentor you and spurn you on to greater dreams and goals. It is a simple formula for success.

    What many fail to realize about this simple fact of human nature, however, is that this system of subliminal influence is constantly at work – no matter what you are reading or with whom you are associating. Like we say about computers – GIGO; Garbage in – Garbage out. One blogger has asked a very prescient question: How many Marxists, Communists, Domestic Terrorists and raving racialists does the President get to associate with before reasonable people can assume that the president on some level shares their particular vision of America?

    The associates of Candidate Obama were scrutinized carefully by only a few and it is clear that the White House Czars have not been vetted at all. The appointment of Van Johnson, an admitted “’rowdy Black nationalist’” and ‘communist’ who was also a co-founder of the communist revolutionary organization STORM: Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement” is just the latest of these. Some have written books where they openly admit that natural selection must he helped with various forms of euthanasia – be it abortion, denying medical treatment to the elderly, or other radical idea that compassionate people just don’t share. They try very hard to make moral issues into political issues and then deny morality completely. Everything becomes political and to create their distorted view of the “perfect society” (which you must realize denies that there is any God at all other than their own humanism), they assume that a central political bureau (call it a death squad, or any of the other already existent federal agencies) to make the decisions for all of us since we are simply incapable of making correct moral… oh excuse, the correct political decision.

    It seems the entire world knows about the association with Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, ACORN, and all of the early communist mentors to young Obama as revealed in his two “autobiographies.” It is simply not plausible to believe that these people had no effect on him, even if he did not want them to. Take a look at Congress. Have you ever seen such a batch of group-thinkers? They associate with each other. They sink to the lowest common denominator.

    So think seriously about the books you read and the people with whom you associate. Choose the best. If you want some book suggestions – ask. Find a quality mentor. Hang out with the right group. Feed your mind with the right food. It will respond with the right thoughts. It can’t help itself.

    And of course the corollary is an absolute truth as well. The reason the president surrounds himself with radical leftists like Van Jones is because he is in fundamental agreement with their view of the proper world order. I can’t speak for you, but I am not.

     
  • The Whole Foods Solution

    Tom 2:48 pm on September 17, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply

    Have you read the op-ed piece that John Mackey, chairman of whole Foods, put in the Wall Street Journal on August 12? He’s gotten a lot of grief for telling the truth (truth-tellers often do!) with some ignoramuses spouting off about how they will boycott his stores since it is “their” money and they will spend it where they want. I say ignoramus with the utmost respect since they appear oblivious to the irony of their position. First of all, Whole Foods is the epitome of the liberal left establishment. Their parking lot is full of cars with Obama stickers. Fair trade products; two aisles of vitamins and supplements; “total” recycling programs; natural foods. You name it – if it helps the environment or liberal causes, they are on it. So withholding your money from his stores will negatively affect like-minded liberal employees first. Smart move. Second, these nimrods fail to realize that their complaint against Mackey is EXACTLY the same complaint that conservatives have against the health plan being pushed by Obamamaniacs – spending someone else’s money on a project they don’t want. After all, isn’t it your tax dollars that they are planning to spend (and the tax dollars of your children, and their children, and their children, and their children,…….)?
    In the Wall Street Journal piece, Mackey makes some very sane suggestions. He promotes:

    •?Removing the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible insurance plans and health savings accounts. The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
    Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
    •?Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
    •?Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
    •?Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
    •?Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
    •?Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
    •?Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
    •?Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by medicare, Medicaid, or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

    I would add one more. When you visit a medical facility, they have 48 hours after your discharge to give you a complete bill for every service you received while there. Not 15 different bills from people you are not sure even saw you. If it’s not on that bill, you don’t owe it. But that’s just a personal issue.
    So once again, someone who has been there, who has run a company, who has wrestled with health insurance issues on a national scale has come forward with very sane suggestions that are FAR SHORT of any socialized medicine plan. Don’t most rational people believe that working on issues with targeted solutions is a much better approach than a complete destruction of the current set-up with questionable viability of the new solution? Mackey was right. Mackey is right. We should not boycott his stores; we should support them.

    And disagreeing with the liberal solution does not make us racists, radicals, or Nazi’s. It makes us sane rational people.

     
  • The Sucker's Choice

    Tom 9:27 am on September 16, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply

    There is so much to say about the speech last week to the joint session of Congress. And while Joe Wilson was inappropriate, I can certainly understand the frustration of listening to liars lie to the point that you just HAVE to call them on it. Much has been written already, so I won’t restate it here. I just want to make one point. Obama’s constant and completely inappropriate use of the Sucker’s Choice ploy.

    In the midst of the speech last week he said, “Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing.” He has repeated that phrase often. Earlier this week he said, “I will not accept that we simply do nothing.” NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT WE DO NOTHING. Read the book Crucial Conversations and see what I mean. He puts that straw man up there as if the Republicans are saying that we should do nothing. Are you aware that there are SEVERAL bills pending that have been proposed by the Republican side of the aisle? Take a look at HR 3400 was introduced on 7/30/09. Yet Obama outright lied (as the SC congressman pointed out in the middle of his speech on the issue of illegal immigrants getting free health care) when he said earlier this week that the Republicans have not submitted any proposals. The man is a pathological liar! I am certain that if he were put to a lie detector test regarding the lies he has told, he would pass. He actually believes what he is saying. He is so narcissistic that he knows he is anointed.

    He is correct that doing nothing is inappropriate. But we are not faced with a choice of either/or. There are more than two solutions on the table. And doing nothing is NOT one of them. He poses it as if he is a huckster sales man – “Do you want the blue one or the green one?” Who said I wanted one at all? And blue or green are not the only choices.

    Yes – we need to reform health care. It’s been in need of reform for some time. There are disincentives to the insurance companies; there is a lack of competition across state lines; having 51 different regulatory bodies for one industry makes no sense; the billing process is a fraud; and doctors are going broke from malicious tort lawyers getting rich. Just to name a few. The choice is NOT, as Obama suggests in his continuing campaign of fear mongering, simply between doing nothing and having a full government takeover. There are many, many other options. But the ruling party has issued its edict – agree with us or be a Nazi (as Nancy Pelosi has called the protestors). Once again, those are not the only two choices. Things aren’t always black or white. There are many shades of grey.

     
  • Miscellaneous

    Tom 9:14 am on September 16, 2009 | 1 Permalink | Reply

    I’ve been collecting information on a variety of topics and written most or parts of about a dozen postings. In typical fashion I am having difficulty considering them “finished” and so I am sitting on them. That is one trait of mine that I really need to work on! So what I am going to do today to start is to give you a list of sites to check out. We’ll see if I get any others posted today. You will find each one enlightening and not very rant-ful. Feel free to comment on any of them here.

     For a really excellent analysis of the coverage given by the three major networks on conservative vs. liberal authors (gee…guess who wins!) take a look at:

    http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2009/20090908115345.aspx

     For a really interesting analysis of the “47 million uninsured” using the government’s own census data, which conclusively shows that the government and Obama are lying, and they know they are lying, they just hope not too many people catch on (the media certainly isn’t going to bring it to anyone’s attention!) take a look at:

    http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1449

     For a good review of the misrepresentations made by Obama relative to the two congressional bills dealing with health care reform look here:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/11/correcting-misinformation-about-obamacare/

    and here:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/12/morning-bell-obamacare-pep-rally-fact-check/

     I found a kindred spirit here and you might enjoy her blog as well:

    http://angryfemaleelephant.com/Blog/

     This next one was enlightening and rather short, so I am copying it here for your enjoyment as well. Anyone take debate class in high school or college? There really is an art to how you present your material, and Obama is pretty good at it, but anything taken to an extreme is just BS and eventually it becomes obvious to everyone.

    it ain’t the message

    Associated Press:
    …Obama is altering his message…
    …White House is retooling its message…
    …highlighting the upside of health overhaul…

    Translation: “It walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck.  And beginning today, we’re gonna start calling it a chicken, because calling it a goose hasn’t been working.”

    This is the same statist crap that it was yesterday – the same nonsense that it always is:  Politicians have decided what they want to take from you, and now they’re just experimenting with different ways of selling it.

    Think about it.  The White House could be announcing how Obama is rethinking certain elements of his plan in response to public outrage; how he’s going back to the drawing board to address America’s concerns that the healthcare legislation currently working its way through Congress is too intrusive, too expensive.

    But no, they’re not gonna actually change anything.  After all, the parts you dislike the most are the centerpiece of this legislation.  Instead, what we hear is how Obama’s going to start rationalizing it a different way.   

    Obama already knows what he wants to do to you, and now it’s just a matter of coming up with a way of stripping your freedom that doesn’t sound like stripping your freedom.  I’d like to think that’s an impossible task, but then again we did vote for this idiot.

    http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/08/it-aint-the-message.html

     Here is a good posting about the five biggest myths being pushed by the left – all of which are false, at least as applied to the right. They are actually using an Alinsky tactic of blaming the opponent of doing exactly what they are doing!

    http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/13/5-liberal-myths-about-health-care-reform/

     And this is the best saved for last – I just LOVED this – Obama getting a taste of his own medicine. Very original and very insightful!

    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/08/open_thread_346.html

     

    So there you have it – eight sites to peruse and enjoy. And then come back here and make some comments about them.

     
  • Remembering 9/11

    Tom 8:54 am on September 11, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply

    This is a part of Project 2996 – a project designed to recruit 2996 bloggers to post a blog about one of the 9/11 victims. I am proud to participate in this worthwhile project.

    I fully expect that at some point in our future we will, as a nation, realize the impact of the events of 9/11. As the government report told us, just because we did not believe that we were at war, there was an entity out there that has been at war with us for many years. It is naive to think that they have just “given up” or that sitting down and talking to them peacefully will change their hearts. As hawkish or dovish as you might be personally, there does come a time when we must fight to protect the freedoms that others wish to take from us. Sadly we can lose them just as easily, perhaps more easily, by letting them drift away slowly rather than be taken away by force and violence. When the time comes to fight for those freedoms, and violence becomes necessary for our protection, count me in.

    There were 2996 victims killed in the war of 9/11. Today we have been selected to honor one of them. Today we honor the memory of Joon Koo Kang. He was 34 on that fateful day and was working as a systems analyst for Cantor Fitzgerald – a global financial services company that lost a great number of its employees and senior executives that day. In fact, they occupied the 101, 103, 104, and 105 floors of WTC 1 and had about 1000 employees housed there. There is no telling just what he was doing. It was a normal business day in World Trade Tower 1. People on the 104th floor were making coffee, booting up their computers, catching up with co-workers, looking at their schedules and to-do lists, and taking care of the myriad tasks we all tend to each morning.

    Joon’s wife, Dohee, met him when she came to New York in 1994 as a college student. Although she returned to Korea, he followed her to Seoul and proposed to her the day she graduated in a very unique way.

    “He gave me a thousand origami cranes, and said when he missed me, he would make a crane,” his wife once said. “He also showed me a photo album of me growing up. I don’t know how he got the pictures. At the end of the album, there was a card, which said, ‘Will you marry me?’ ”

    They settled in Riverdale, NJ where they had a very normal suburban life. He left behind two daughters, Ariel, who was 4 at the time, and Diane, who was 2. According to reports at the time, he used to take them to swimming pools and parks and read them the Bible every night. “I told my little ones that Daddy is in heaven. Then my older girl asked me, ‘Could I call him?’ ” Mrs. Kang said. “I said no. If you wanted to see Daddy, you had to pray.”  The younger one will probably have no direct memories of her father, and even the older one will strain to recall his love. Clearly taken too soon for his family and for us all.

    I never knew Joon or any of the other 2995 victims. I confess to a curiosity of why anyone would work in a building that tall. I’m not a big fan of heights, but we do what we must when earning a living. I am guessing, obviously, but I think I would have been a better person for having known him. There may never have been an opportunity to meet, but he was clearly a strong family man. Because of the actions of some radicals who have been at war with us for so many years, I will never get the chance to know him.

    How long should we remember this day? Some suggest that excessive mourning is just too fatiguing. Perhaps. And clearly there are days that we never forget such as Pearl Harbor and D-Day, while there are others that fade as a remembrance of a specific day such as the sinking of the Maine and the fall of the Alamo. What we must remember is that we are still at war, even if we want to deny it. Our enemies will use that denial to their advantage, and it is just stupid to give your enemies any advantage whatsoever. Until the jihadists are defeated entirely, the war continues and unlike Viet Nam, we must fight it to win. Remembering the awful attack on our home soil by these vile creatures should serve to cement our resolve against them. It is not a remembrance of terror – it is a tribute to the unwavering courage of the American people. The grieving has ended for most of us, but certainly not the families who lost loved ones. They live with the loss every day. And as a society we feel that loss even if we can’t define it. So it remains a day of remembrance for most of us. Let us not forget that there are those who seek to destroy our freedoms and way of life. Remember that.

    Some of the victims, both in the towers and on the planes, grabbed their final seconds and called loved ones – most just to say “I love you.” Some reached a voice; others just a machine. But they said what was important. What will you do today that captures those final seconds? Who will you call just to say, “I love you?”

    On this day of remembrance, we look to the short life of Joon Koo Kang. May he not be forgotten and even in death may he inspire us to be the best we can be. We can still make a difference in this world. May none of the victims have died in vain. Think about what you can do today, and every day for the rest of your life, to capture the good traits and disciplines of those who have gone before us, such as Joon.

     
  • Border Searches

    Tom 2:55 pm on August 28, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply

    The following article appeared in the Denver Business Journal on-line edition today at
    http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/08/24/daily65.html?ed=2009-08-28&ana=e_du_pap:

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said Thursday it is developing new guidelines for searches of computers and other electronic devices at border crossings. That includes the use of high-tech data collection and surveillance equipment to scan laptops and other devices.
    The federal announcement comes a day after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against DHS in U.S. District Court in New York claiming such searches violate privacy and constitutional rights.
    DHS officials said the searches are necessary to combat terrorists, drug traffickers, intellectual property thieves and child pornographers entering the U.S. with illegal or dangerous information.
    “Searches of electronic media, permitted by law and carried out at borders and ports of entry, are vital to detecting information that poses serious harm to the United States, including terrorist plans, or constitutes criminal activity — such as possession of child pornography and trademark or copyright infringement,” DHS said in a statement.

    Hmmm….”searches of electronic media permitted by law”…..and just which searches are permitted by law? My guess is that there is nothing even remotely resembling a search warrant. Could they download your entire hard drive? What about company proprietary or sensitive information? What if you are working on an international merger and word leaks out and affects the stock market? It will be interesting to see what they come up with in “developing new guidelines.” And this from an agency that has no idea how to keep illegals (terrorits or not) out of the country.
    This whole area bothers me. Maybe I really am a Libertarian!

     
  • PCBs and the Hudson River

    Tom 12:33 pm on August 28, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply

    Articles started appearing in mid August about the halting of dredging in the Hudson River to clean up PCBs because the dredging was stirring up the sediment, causing the PCBs to float downstream and contaminate the river. You can read it here (Feds halt dredging as PCB levels rise: Action taken after federal drinking water safety standards exceeded Times Union (MCT), 8 August 2009,) or in the Wall Street Journal on August 10, 2009.

    Why does this matter? Well it links to something I read in 2001. If you aren’t aware, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) were used prior to 1977 as an insulating fluid in electrical devices such as transformers. While PCBs were regulated, it was very possible in the 70’s to have a permit to discharge limited amounts into waterways. General Electric had such a permit and was discharging PCBs into the Hudson River. A study in 1975 reflected that the fish in the Hudson River had negligible levels in their systems.

    In 1975, in response to a New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) investigation into PCBs, a settlement was reached between the state and GE that resulted in the payment to a river clean-up fund, research on PCBs, and GE’s agreement to stop using them. All very proper and legal. The agreement also required the state, if it needed additional funds for any cleanup, to get them from someplace other than GE.

    Subsequent studies funded by GE and others, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself demonstrated that PCBs do not cause cancer. Their use was actually dictated by fire and building codes. To not use them was to break the law. They were safe and did not catch fire or explode as prior insulating materials had done.

    For further background, a few words about the Superfund Law. This was a law passed by Congress that essentially attributes guilt and levies fines unilaterally, and many years later allows the parties to challenge those penalties – if the entities still exist. The policy behind it suggests that getting contaminated sites cleaned up is paramount to anything else. So the fact that people who only contributed less than one percent to the contamination can be tagged for 100% of the clean-up; the fact that many of the participants in the contamination are mom-and-pops who do not have the resources or wherewithal to fight their massive government; and the fact that many of the declared cleanup sites are not really that big of a threat in the first place all become irrelevant. It’s the law! Some argue today that health care costs are adversely impacting small businesses, which is true. No one ever wants to look at the statistics that suggest that Superfund has put far more small businesses out of business and their employees out of work than all the health insurance issues combined. And that is also true. The Superfund law penalizes the good citizens who come forward, and if it catches the scofflaws who do not come forward (again, if they even still exist) the EPA can issue orders of unlimited scope and duration coupled with treble damages (meaning you take the actual damages and multiply that arbitrarily by three) and daily fines. The EPA holds god-like powers since it can dictate the life or death of businesses and sources of livelihood for millions of people.

    And the clean-up standards that tell you when the work is “done?” That is whatever EPA decides it should be and they reserve their right to change their mind even after the initial clean-up is done.

    So back to the Hudson River. In 2000 the EPA said that the Hudson was safe for swimming, boating, wading, and a source of drinking water. And it was. Wildlife was flourishing and several species that had dwindled in population were seeing a resurgence. Fishing was still banned, but that didn’t seem to bother the wildlife that ate the fish. No surprise I’m sure, but the EPA didn’t stop there. Based on its own calculations, if a person ate a half pound of Hudson River fish every week for 40 years, there was a 1 in 1000 chance that they would experience an increase in cancer. Think about that. One fish meal a week for four decades, and you “might” increase your risk of cancer by .001%. There is greater risk in getting behind the wheel of your car in NY city traffic, or breathing the NY city air. Eating canned tuna can put more harmful mercury into your system than all the fish in the Hudson River. And there was still no evidence that the increase in cancer rate had anything whatsoever to do with PCBs. The best studies actually showed a lower incidence of cancer among those who worked directly and daily with PCBs. Between 1977 and 2000 the PCB levels in the fish and the water fell 90%.

    Nonetheless the EPA said that GE had to move 8 billion pounds (yes that’s with a “b”) of sediment to get at what is about 100,000 pounds of non-cancer-causing PCB’s. The operation would require dredging 24/6 (Sunday off!)  for six months of the year, involve about 50 boats and barges, and require miles and miles of pipeline to carry the PCB-laden sediment to shore. The EPA proposed building drying plants along the river to dry this mud and haul it away using tens of thousands of trucks for further processing and disposal, (thus creating a NEW environmental problem that would have to be solved) but only after further destroying the riverbank and surrounding community to build roads to handle these trucks. Some 2 billion pounds of sand and gravel would be put back in its place, and over 1 million aquatic plants (destroyed in the dredging process) would then have to be replanted by divers. And all of this completely ignores the down-stream effect of disturbing the encased sediment and the loss of the oxygen-producing plants during the process.

    As one writer pointed out, imagine a commercial company proposing to dredge the Hudson for something that was actually useful by tearing up the banks, destroying the ecosystem, knocking down trees and widening roads for access, and disrupting the idyllic lifestyle of those who live and work along that part of the river. There would be a huge outcry and the EPA itself would never approve such an environmental impact statement. It is so ludicrous on its face that such an environmental disaster would be considered plausible.

    Yet, that is exactly what the EPA ordered GE to do. And guess what? This month the dredging was halted because it is creating an environmental nightmare. The sediment is flowing downstream, the PCB levels are on the rise, the drinking water has become unsafe, and millions of dollars are being spent to create this disaster. Millions more will be spent in fixing the damage that never should have been allowed to occur in the first place. To the EPA, however, this is of no consequence because it is not their money. It is easy to be ridiculous spendthrifts when you are spending someone else’s money. Sound familiar? Yeah, it’s the wealth transfer mode the rest of the government has joined, healthcare being only the tip of that iceberg.

     If the remaining PCB sources were better controlled and capped, the levels in the fish and water would continue to drop naturally without any ecological disruption. When you play the role of God, however, as the EPA does relentlessly, you are not held responsible for your bad decisions. Your desire to punish the successful knows no bounds.

    There are some bells we just can’t un-ring. The fact that PCBs legally got into the water is unfortunate, but of really little consequence. The solution essentially kills the baby to cure the cold. It is ridiculous. It is downright stupid. And it is your tax dollars at work senselessly draining valuable corporate resources.

     
  • Do They Even READ The Constitution at Harvard?

    Tom 9:59 pm on August 6, 2009 | 2 Permalink | Reply

    From Tuesday’s White House blog entry:

    There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

    So let me get this straight. People exercising their constitutional rights are to be reported to the white house???? If this weren’t real it would be funny.

     
    • Joe McGrenra 6:28 am on August 14, 2009 Permalink

      Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

    • Brett 10:21 am on September 2, 2009 Permalink

      I think that the next step is that any dissenters are issued a caduceus that can conveniently be sewn onto all of their clothing, thereby making them easily indentified and re-programmed….

  • Hate Crimes

    Tom 5:13 pm on July 26, 2009 | 3 Permalink | Reply

    A friend sent me a video about a friend of hers who was attacked viciously because the person hated Lesbians. I’ve asked for the full link so I can repost it here, but it got me thinking about hate crimes and how people are being prosecuted for their thoughts. I wrote the following comment to her:
    What happened was a terrible crime and no one should EVER be subjected to such treatment- even more so at the hands of a deranged person who also hates Christians since he has so grossly misrepresented what they believe. I hope he fries for a very long time.

    But I confess to having great difficulty with the concept of “hate crimes.” EVERY crime is a hate crime, or done in such total disregard for the consequences that it exhibits a lack of caring equal to hate. When you try to punish hate crimes, what you are really punishing is thought. I believe that establishing hate crimes as an additional category of crime underlying the basic crime – in this case felonious assault and battery – puts us on a very slippery slope. What will the “thought police” want to punish next? As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Civil Rights laws can’t make the white man love me, but they can keep him from lynching me, and I consider that pretty good progress.” We cannot, should not, and should never even TRY to stifle thought. Each time we do we accept another limit on our God-given freedoms. I find that unacceptable.

     

    What do you think?

     
    • Tom 2:44 pm on July 27, 2009 Permalink

      Here’s the link for the video about the attack.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tGpnspl80
      Again – the underlying crime is deplorable. But I just can’t get on board thought crime legislation.

    • susan schwartz 7:51 pm on July 28, 2009 Permalink

      Tom,

      I understand and align with your view on the need to avoid empowering “thought police”, however I disagree your basic thesis. Every crime is not a crime of hate. Breaking and entering into a house is not necessarily a product of hate. A fight in a bar is not always the result of hate for the other party, it can often be an impulsive reaction to an imagined slight, fueled by too much alcohol. Our society has long deemed motive as an indicator of the level of punishment. Premeditated murder has much stronger sentences than manslaughter. In both cases someone is killed, but the thought behind the murder differs.

      Again, our society has decided that crimes fueled by hate deserve more severe punishment than those of emotion. The government makes a decision on the apparent motive, and a jury of ones peers (I know it is rarely made up of ones peers) determines if the evidence fits the charge. In this simple case, this act of violence was not premeditated, nor was it enacted for any other reason than fear and hate of something different. Let the punishment fit the standard of the law.

    • Chuck Woodside 6:50 pm on July 29, 2009 Permalink

      I think that having the Government define hate crimes puts us on a slippery slope leading to more loss of freedom for every citizen

  • 'Soldier' Badge is Banned

    Tom 10:55 am on July 14, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply

    The following article was found at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2469328/Soldier-badge-is-banned.html.

     I find particularly interesting that while the patriotic symbol is banned for being offensive, gays are allowed to use the rainbow symbol that is very offensive to Christians who, of course by definition, are “intolerant.” Funny how “tolerance” is defined as accepting anti-Christian and anti-patriotic symbols, while Christian and patriotic symbols are just “offensive.”

     ’Soldier’ badge is banned

    By MIKE SULLIVAN Published: 08 Jun 2009

    ARMED cops patrolling Heathrow Airport have been banned from wearing tiny Union Jack badges in support of British troops. Top brass claimed the tie-pin badges – which cost £1 with proceeds going to the Help for Heroes charity – were OFFENSIVE. But one officer asked: “How can the Union Jack be offensive? “This ruling is even more absurd coming this weekend on the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings. “We must be the only country ashamed to display our national flag.”

    Pride

    About 100 officers in the Metropolitan force’s SO18 Aviation branch, which patrols Heathrow, bought the inch-square badges. Seventy per cent of them served in the Forces and many have children fighting in Afghanistan. Another cop said: “We’re wearing the badges with pride. Most importantly, they are to show support for our soldiers at war.

     ”Nobody has put out orders to remove rainbow symbols that gay and lesbian officers wear. Why discriminate against us?” A statement from the Met said: “The dress code states only approved corporate badging may be used.”

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
esc
cancel