A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
What this does demonstrate is that the Left does, actually, believe that the Other is eeeeevil! And they are scared to death of the Othered Class. At least she is. She poked and poked the bear and the bear followed her (at a respectable distance).
In time, all inter-class crime will become hate crimes, because hate crimes were designed by hateful people, and now their own hate is addressed. The circle goes all the way around.
"LOUISIANA — A new law goes into effect Monday that expands Louisiana’s hate crime statute to include the targeting of police officers, firefighters and EMS personnel, CNN reports."
"Sadly, Americans no longer have a concept of what true hatred is. Thanks to the twisted distortions of the Left, the very meaning of the word has been diluted from what it really is -- animating senseless murder and violence -- to political dissent. This is hatred -- gunning down men and women in cold blood -- not the act of disagreeing over moral views. Liberals fail to see the difference, instead recklessly labeling opponents "hateful" simply for believing differently than they do.
Hate is what motivates men like this to slaughter innocent people. It's what drives such a disrespect for humanity that men like Floyd Corkins can walk into FRC with the intent to kill as many people as possible. While the White House bemoans our culture of animosity, it continues to inflame it through policies that accelerate moral decline and family breakdown. But instead of recognizing the root cause of moral breakdown, it blames the violence on a familiar scapegoat: gun control.
As Americans, we must have the honesty to step back and examine the real issues, even if the President continues exploiting these tragedies to accomplish his ultimate goal: expanding government at the expense of personal freedom. "The real work of reducing violent crime is the work of rebuilding the family," FRC's Dr. Pat Fagan has said. Yet the President continues to seize on the moment to place blame where it does not belong. "[W]e do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun."
The reality is, someone who wants to inflict harm will find a way. Ask the amputees in Boston, or the Christians in Syria. Is ISIS using guns to behead its victims? No. The government can't make us safer until it recognizes that the problem isn't the instruments of violence -- but the environment of it. Stronger gun laws wouldn't have prevented the deaths of those nine people in South Carolina, any more than it would have stopped Floyd Corkins from walking into our lobby and shooting Leo Johnson. "The heart of the matter is not guns," Dr. Ben Carson told Fox News's Megyn Kelly yesterday. "The heart of the matter is the heart."
With the killer waving a racist flag from the Democrat South, it is hard for the Left to blame conservatives (although Mahr did just that). This killer is likely an Atheist, too, so religion can't be blamed (although Atheism will not be). No. Obama immediately blamed guns for the killing, and exercised the cynical Leftist policy of never wasting a crisis as an opportunity to increase government control, and reduce the rights of the people. Did Obama demand control of pressure cookers after the Boston Marathon Bombing? They "had no trouble getting their hands on a pressure cooker", did they?
The actual fact is that implements of destruction are everywhere; but implements of self-defense - even defense against tyrannical fools like Obama - are under attack. In a nation which is dominated by those intent upon demonizing the Other and pursuing the delegitimization of dissent, all the while fomenting class hatred and violence, the path toward a violent future is already laid and paved with the hate of the Left for everyone and everything which is not them and congruent with their intention to persecute the Other. That, then, is the heart of the matter.
First they came for Badcisheterosexuals; then they came for the Badspeak; then they came for the Badthink; then they came for the Badgenetic-gender; then they came for the Badgenetic-skincolor... When the self-created moral fundamentalists who make up their own moral principles become the tyrants, it's with the religious fervor of moral certainty. That certainty, being both "moral" and self-created, is unshakable in its determination to dominate everyone else.
"A Facebook page calling for the death of Israeli Jews does not violate the social network's "community standards," according to multiple messages sent by Facebook in response to user complaints.
The page in question, is named, "Death to zionst baby killer israeli jews." The page, which spells "Zionist" incorrectly, features an Image of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a vampire with blood dripping down his chin as he feasts on a child. It was started on July 25.
Individuals complaining about the page were greeted with the following message (screen captured below):"
When there is no obtaining morality, there are no limits. When the "mandated" vision is undefined “Change”, then what happens is indiscriminate behavior which will favor the “changers” and persecute the stabilizers.
The changers, i.e. Progressives, came into power fully armed with ideas of dealing with their enemies by using their Victimization list as the trigger. Their enemies are those who don’t believe as Progressives believe, to wit: that there are earth-bound messiahs whose only yet supreme moral position is to eradicate opposition to their aspirations of world-wide salvation:
one world + one thought process = universal happiness and flourishing.
If only the (immoral) opposition were eliminated, everyone would be morally happy.
Brought to the fore, then is the freshly opening view of the tactics being used by the Progressives in order to achieve their objectives. For example, the leader of the free world is now able to ignore all legislation with which he does not agree, and to issue presidential decrees which serve as legislation ex-congressio (to coin a much needed term). Abetted by the SCOTUS, the president is now nearly supreme in doing whatever he wishes to do, or not to do. And his vast executive organization is similarly enabled:
Under the U.S. president, his minions are able
(1) to define certain groups as terrorists; to ship weapons off to drug lords for their use in murdering both Mexicans and Americans;
(2) to use the full weight of the tax code to eliminate activity which might influence their re-election adversely;
(3) to give corporations to unions while stiffing actual investors, and then providing funds to the corporations to “pay back the loans”;
(4) to implement massive payouts to “black farmers” with no oversight;
(5) to use taxpayer cash to pay off bankers, environmental boondoggles, abortion providers, and election manipulators;
(6) to ignore pleas for help from diplomats under attack;
(7) to ignore border security with token changes while demanding citizenship for all who get into the country, forever.
Now it is revealed that the Justice Department has been instrumental in organizing demonstrations against George Zimmerman, who, at this moment, has not been convicted or exonerated of criminal activity in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. This is just one of the many racist actions implemented by the Justice Department. The president added to the racism when he declared that, if he’d had a son, he would look just like Trayvon, a seemingly deliberate poisoning of the well of fair justice, now tainted racially. It is highly likely that Trayvon was a pot smoking serial criminal, as shown in his email brags, but that information will not be accessible to the jury. And it will make no difference to the rioters, who are waiting in the wings to destroy whatever they come across as their own racial statement. Perhaps they will be funded or even led by the US Dept of Justice for whom there are no limits.
The 21st century has started off as one with no limits, certainly no moral limitations and obviously no legal limitations either as the Progressives in government show with their disdain for law, the constitution, and in fact anything which stands between themselves and power, such as a robust nation full of individualists, entrepreneurs, and liberty seekers (as opposed to groupthinks, anti-capitalists, and libertines). What Progressives need is a nation full of fully dependent sycophants, willing to trade liberty (and votes) for government doles.
In the illegal immigrant, Progressives have found the mother lode of such chronically sycophants. Accordingly there are no limits on what the Progressives will do, including not deporting them, and turning many of them loose on the streets, of course, as well as prohibiting individual states from doing so, but also struggling to legitimize them as future voters. The law is no limiting factor to Progressives, for whom all new labels redefine their obstacles: "illegal" becomes "undocumented"; "abortion" becomes "choice" and "women;s healthcare"; "criticism" becomes "racism"; "homosexual becomes "gay"; "morality" becomes "hate".
When the government has no limits, it is violation of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution – not that anyone cares, it appears. The people of the United States of America are no longer the moral, free people of character of yore; and as always, the people deserve the government which they allow to exist over them.
Government Cheese; the Rainmakers:
”Give a man a free house and he'll bust out the windows
Put his family on food stamps, now he's a big spender
no food on the table and the bills ain't paid
'Cause he spent it on cigarettes and P.G.A. They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please
They're feeding our people that Government Cheese
Give a man free food and he'll figure out a way
To steal more than he can eat 'cause he doesn't have to pay
Give a woman free kids and you'll find them in the dirt
Learning how to carry on the family line of work
It's the man in the White House, the man under the steeple
Passing out drugs to the American people
I don't believe in anything, nothing is free
They're feeding our people the Government Cheese
Decline and fall, fall down baby
Decline and fall, said fall way down now
Decline and fall, fall down little mama
Decline and fall, decline and fall
Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
And he'll climb in the back even though nobody's driving
Too ******* lazy to crawl out of the wreck
And he'll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
Going to hell in a handbag, can't you see
I ain't gonna eat no Government Cheese”
Chik fil A had a banner day yesterday, as customers stood in lines for hours during Chik fil A Appreciation Day. Chik fil A has a different opinion than the AtheoLeft, and that is driving the AtheoLeft to distraction, charging Chik fil A with general EEEvilness due to being out of the AtheoLeftist fold and control. Chik fil A's crime? Supporting the core male-female parent family. That support offends the sensibilities of the AtheoLeft and homosexuals who obviously do NOT support such a hideous concept, and deem it unconsionable and IMMORAL (regardless of their general lack of moral absolutes). The following is a video which surely will enrage AtheoLeftists (note to them - get your doctor's permission before viewing this video):
AtheoLeftists took to Twitter yesterday with their wishes for death and suffering for the EEEvil nonconformists who are not part of their own opinionated group. Some of these were accumulated on Twitchy for your perusal.
Also in the news is the intent to pursue the government interventionists who threatened Chik fil A and then recanted under pressure. They were likened to a mugger who gives back your wallet and watch when a bystander pulls a gun on him: the crime is not obliterated by backpedalling when you discover that you are caught out in the open. This part is great:
"Moreno categorically denied violating state law and accused the GOP of “political grandstanding.
The alderman also rescinded the threat he made last week to keep Chick-fil-A out of his ward."
Political Grandstanding. That's rich! It's as if there is no self-awareness for these folks.
Back when living in Oregon there was a big issue generated by the paradox generated by certain laws. The issue was the protection of the salmon which come up the rivers to spawn vs. the protection of the sea lions which hang around the coast. The sea lions learned to hang around the river outlets and take a bite out of passing salmon. There were enough salmon that the sea lions took just one bite and left that salmon to die while the sea lion looked for another one.
Well, you can’t interfere with the sea lions, they are protected. But you must save the salmon, they are protected. The paradox became palpable.
Here we have another law which demonstrates its basic irrationality. Because it sets up protected classes of people which get more protection than ordinary victims, what happens when a protected person attacks a protected person?
Now if anyone outside the protected class had done this crime, the additional punishment would be automatic, because it becomes a hate crime regardless of actual motivation. This was well established in the Matthew Shepard case, where the attackers didn’t even know that the victim was homosexual; it was a robbery gone bad. But in this case, the question arises, “can a person in Category Z hate another person in Category Z because of that person’s membership in Category Z”?
The ACLU staff attorney claims that Jews can be anti-Semitic, thereby proving that class hatred still applies, even within the class. So the paradox becomes even more bizarre, having to involve self-hatred as well as class hatred as motivators. Not that that has to be proved. All that needs to be proved is that the victim is in a protected class according to the prosecutors and the ACLU.
But wait. The lesbians charge that the homosexual man used “homophobic slurs” too. And it is the slur which is the crime, apparently. So maybe he deserves 10 years in lock down too?
And here’s the prosecutor’s actual stance:
” But Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said prosecutors will have no problem proving the women committed a hate crime, even if they are lesbians.
‘The defendants’ particular orientation or alleged orientations have no bearing on our ability to prosecute for allegedly targeting a person who they believe to be different from them,’ he said.”
That sounds like every person to me. So any assault is a hate crime, because every person is different from every other person. That sort of levels it out. Or is it every assault which is accompanied with objectionable language? If that is the case, then when you assault someone, be sure to compliment that person, especially on whatever categories they might belong to. It’ll save you an extra ten years in the can.
We went two counties over today to help form a human shield around a church where funeral was being held for a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan. The psycho-Phelps clan, aka the Westboro Church, out of some unfortunate town in Kansas, had promised to picket this funeral as they have done other military funerals. We went to be part of the human shield to keep the Phelpses from disrupting the funeral.
The town of Seymour, MO advertises a population of 1,605 on its city limits signs. There were probably double that lining the roads to the church, the drive up to the church and the entry to the church. Hundreds of flags, signs and motorcycles, which were silent long before the mourners arrived. As they arrived, the thousand(s) went silent, and remained silent for the duration of the funeral ceremony inside the church and the military ceremony outside.
It is an awe striking vision, thousands of absolutely silent people, standing in the freezing weather, forming a shield around a mourning church. The silence lasted the length of the service, roughly an hour. During that time, a single complaining child could be heard blocks away. Very occasional whispering between members of groups standing as shields. Mostly silence.
Before the ceremony, three Blackhawk choppers flew over in formation just above treetop level over the crowd. Incredible, the gut thumping that those machines produce when they are so close. They rose into the distance and were gone. The silence continued.
The Phelpses didn’t show, according to the two cops I spoke to afterward. I knew that they had also threatened to dirty up the funerals in Tucson, Arizona, at roughly the same time. However, they are even more cowardly than they were in the past; they also didn’t show up in our town 18 months ago, when our own slain soldier was buried.
The challenge to Westboro Baptist Church is just this: if you don’t like homosexuality, then go into the heart of San Francisco and pull your stupidity there – see what that gets you. This is not my idea, but was heard several times before the event today. I personally wish that the Phelps clan would just stay home, all eleven of them. And stay silent. Silence is awesome.
The Odyssey of Professor Gates gets nastier and more revealing with time. Professor Gates was arrested after breaking into his rented home and allegedly becoming hostile when confronted by officers. A white officer took him into custody, and Gates screamed "racism!", and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the officer. Obama said that the cops acted stupidly and went on to justify it with long references to black abuse by white officers.
However, other black officers were there and support the white officer's actions. And one black officer claimed to regret her vote for Obama.
Now these officers are taking heat from racist blacks for their support of the white officer. According to an AP report found on Yahoo, officer Sgt. Leon Lashley was there at the time, supported the arrest, and now is being called an "Uncle Tom". And the officer who recanted her vote for Obama is under attack from blacks for taking a position supporting a white, not the black.
Racism is alive and well within the black community. But do you suppose that such racial attacks will be pursued under Hate Crimes?
When logic goes awry it frequently generates a self-refutation in the manner of a self-contradiction, or paradox. The Hate Crimes legislation before the Senate will likely generate just such a paradox. Brought to mind by an article by Dr Reisman, the situation might develop something like this: one Gay becomes incensed at another Gay; they slap each other and call each other "Bitch!"(Note 1).
Both Gays are (a) protected, and (b) indulging in crimes of Hate. Does the level of protection outweigh the gravity of the Hatred? If the gravity of the Hatred is reduced in order to ensure protection, then it can also be reduced in other cases as well. But if the level of protection is reduced in order to preserve the gravity of Hatred, then the protection level can be reduced in subsequent cases.
Either way, it is a conundrum in which Gays lose.
This should be important to Gays, one would think, because Gay-on-Gay violence is very high on the list of health hazards for Gays, including Lesbians. But there is very little evidence of rationality in radical Gay assault on the laws of the land, or their hatred of the straight community - which, by the way, is not protected from Gay violence, unless they fall into one of the other protected categories.
And let's imagine a dispute between a disabled person and a Gay, where there are mutual insults and threats, maybe mutual slaps: who is more protected?
Hate Crimes laws are not really for the "protected" classes. They are a synthesis position in the ongoing trudge toward government assumption of power over thought.
Note (1). "Bitch" is sometimes treated as a curse word; it is not. It is the terminology used for a female dog. I have owned a number of bitches and loved them all. And I resent the theft of the term, and the term "Gay" for that matter, by the marketing arm of the homosexual movement. I have known people with the name Gay, some as first names, some as last names, and I feel for them. And all my bitches were sweethearts, not cranky like activist Gays.
Mark Steyn has experienced Thought Crimes from the inside. Steyn was subjected to the Canadian form of extra-judicial trial by tribunal to determine if his thoughts were punishable. The basics of Steyn's situation are located Here.
The Canadian tribunals have no legal process that gets in the way of their "administering justice" in the pursuit of protecting anyone from any material that might be offensive to them, even if they had to search high and low to find it. To be charged is to be convicted; the tribunals are 100% on that count. But Steyn's charges were ultimtely dismissed, possibly due to the high profile of Steyn and the reflection on tribunals brought about by the massive publicity Steyn's trial produced.
Steyn knows what it means when one's thoughts are charged with criminality, and what it means when an adjudicator says that "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” —Canadian “Human Rights” Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?” Freedom of speech is sacrificed to the new freedom from being annoyed.
In the USA it is possible now to conceive of the FCC assuming tribunal-like functions as it regulates the internet, phone conversations, radio and TV opinionations. Or perhaps "bad thoughts" will become a federal felony to be added to local sentences.
Now Steyn addresses statism in an address at Hilldale College. He outlines the five stages of progressive socialism (that's what "progressive" means, btw). It's worth the time it takes to read it.
Senators Kennedy and Leahy have piled on a funding and implementation bill for the Hate Crimes bill (H.R. 1913) that is screaming through Congress. The bill creates extra protection for certain favored classes by declaring certain thoughts to be onerous and illegal. Specifically left out of special protection are classes of people that are currently out of favor with the Left, including pastors, seniors, pregnant women, and veterans.
The bill covers many types of sexual behavior that would now be given special elevated status, including
"pedophiles and other bizarre sexual orientations, as well as drag queens, transgenders, lesbians and gay men [elevated] to the level of protection of that already given to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities in the law"
, according to Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition.
It is clear that this is part of the continuing secular devaluation of previously held standards, values and virtues that defined America. The relativist secular/Atheist ethic will not be locked into this, however; should the funds stop flowing from the sexually deviant community, the secular government will turn on them in a flash. In a relativist culture without virtues, loyalty is not a virtue.
Rep. Linda Sanchez has floated the following bill, H.R.1966, under the aegis of cyberbullying. It matters not that cyberbullying is rarely, if ever, an interstate commerce issue, the feds have taken it on as a specific hate crime. And not just a crime that adults practice on children. Anyone and everyone is covered.
Here is the full text of the provision paragraph:
SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.
(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
`(b) As used in this section--
`(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and
`(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`881. Cyberbullying.'.
[emphasis added].
It will be presumed that the internet is "interstate commerce" from the git-go, and therefore that any email or blog will be subject to this new hate crime law. Even Leftist bloggers see the danger in this.
It will also be presumed that testimony from the "victim" is sufficient proof of "emotional distress".
This is a blatant misuse of the powers of Congress toward the elimination of unwanted speech from unwanted quarters. It is clear that much internet speech would cause the thin-skinned Obama considerable "emotional distress". The good news is that the punishment is only two years in prison plus bankruptcy for each offense.
It is a direct violation of the First Amendment. But that will not in any way influence the statists to reject this bill. Because it will be touted as "for the children", the statists will rally behind this. I expect its quick passage and implementation.
In the first article, Peter Hitchens at the Mail demonstrates how regulation in the name of politically correct victimhood results in anarchy. It works like this: In the UK it has become de rigeur to consider criminals as not responsible for their actions - they are victims of their upbringing, of society, of discrimination, of whatever. So, being victims, they are not responsible for the crimes they commit against regular citizens.
In fact, regular citizens who defend themselves against these criminals are seen as actually victimizing the criminals even further, which results in punishment of the non-criminal for the crime of self-defense. Since regular citizens know that the criminals will get no punishment, they endeavor to punish the perpetrators themselves. The punishment gets more violent as the liberal government and its police force attack - not the perps - but the property owners.
As a result, UK property owners are now much more likely to perform a "summary execution" in the knowledge that it is the only justice available.
The second article, by blogger John Hopkins, expresses the need for conservatives to play the same dirty, below the belt games that the Left plays. For example the MSM jihad against Sarah Palin's family could have been called racism (husband Trig, and the children are of a minority). And Leftist commentators should have their family history, tax history, sex lives etc all outed for public examination. The full rule book of Saul Alinski would be applied to the Left, just as the Left applies it to the Right.
The intent of the Alinski approach is to gain power through EVERY avenue available, no matter how unfair. Distortions are sustained through the MSM; Speakers are throttled by shout-downs; the masses are indoctrinated by full control of the conversation using techniques of bullying and fear of financially damaging lawsuits.
Using these techniques requires funding and support; the Left has the ACLU and Soros. The Right, not so much.
Further, the use of these techniques means the abandonment of the ethic of fairness. In fact it means the abandonment of all Judeo-Christian values, and this is the real reason that the Right - so far - has not lapsed into full anarchy and toe to toe war.
But as the first article shows, there are conditions of abandonment and despair that do create the conditions in normal humans that make the inconceivable conceivable, and even actionable. The results are not civil, because they are caused by non-civil conditions. But they obviously can and do happen. It amounts to war, and because the only ethic is to win, it would be obscenely vicious. Statists are nothing if (a) not determined, and (b) enabled by a fully relativist ethic.
Final comment: When a raging bull charges out of the pen and down the road toward town, there is only one rational solution; guess what it is.
The U.S. House of Representatives has just passed the Hate Crimes Bill, making certain (presumed) thoughts at certain times illegal and punishable by extra severity. This passage occurred only days after the bill was released from committee. Obviously regulating thought is not a problem for this Democratic Congress.
So it should have no problem in voting to regulate the internet. According to Senator Jay Rockefeller, the internet is the number one hazard to America's security. He opines,
"It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet".
Spreading fear of a "cyber-Katrina" (a term invented by Sen. Olympia Snowe), the Left is pushing for federal control of the internet through Rockefeller's "Cybersecurity Act of 2009", (Senate Bills 773 and 778) which gives the feds the ability to, among other things, shut the internet down. Unwarranted hysteria is always useful in creating more government control (think Anthropogenic Global Warming).
Buried within the 51 page "working document" are some interesting issues. First is the designated power to designate and control private software configuration. Then there is the creation and control of a national software protocol. Glaringly, the following is designated: develop the technology to
"determine origin of a message transmitted over the internet".
And then this:
Sec. 18 (2): "may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network".
Moreover, the bill is designed to accredit and accommodate non-profit operators (think Acorn or its minions).
Obama has charged in to battle against the internet from a different flank. His nominee for "regulatory czar" to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, advocates a "fairness doctrine" for the internet. According to Brad o'Leary and WND, Sunstein believes the internet is anti-democratic:
"Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."
Sunstein does favor internet filters for certain email, including language containing certain emotional aspects including anger. Such email would be rejected with theoretical override capabilities.
According to The American Conservative Union, Sunstein is also a radical animal rights activist, believing in strict gun control, making hunting illegal, giving animals the right to bring lawsuits via a human representative, and extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, research and agriculture.
This is not too radical for Obama who already has two avowed communists on his payroll.
Think that this won't lead to complete filters on the internet? Consider that Australia has done just that, following in the footsteps of the Peoples Republic of Red China. The internet is indeed a threat; it threatens those who fear the harsh light of truth. Those are the ones who wish to throttle the communications paths. The first thing that all revolutionaries do is to seize state control of all avenues of communication. The MSM is already seized; talk radio and the internet are next.
Congress is in a mad rush to punish its predecessors and conservatives in general. It is preparing show trials for the offense of waterboarding terrorists, and is looking for ways to put Bush and Cheney on trial for the war in Iraq. It is looking for ways to silence the radio talk shows, clamp down on the internet, and finance the leftist classical media. It is trying to kill the flow of ammunition, and to outlaw as many more guns as it can.
Now the Hate Crimes bill of 2009 is out of the House Judiciary Committee and on its way to a vote of the general House of Representatives. Text of the bill is here. My attempts to find the reference for the definition of the word "hate" failed; but one source did mention "intimidation" as an issue.
While the early text refers to "bodily injury" using specific weapons in what appears to be an exclusive offense, it appears to also apply to "attempts to cause" and in later text refers to "economic damage" to the victim.
Further, the determination of the mental state of the perpetrator is handed off to prosecutors or "any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General" for the purpose of defining the perpetrator's mental state:
"such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant".
Still further, the feds can act when they believe that the locals have not satisfied the federal intent.
And further yet, the definition of the weapons includes, "or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce", i.e. "any" object that has travelled across state lines or internationally, apparently at any time in its existence.
Committee members allowed that, yes, the law could result in the imprisonment of religious leaders. Conceivably then, a threat might be perceived in the preaching from a Bible (the weapon), perceived as inciting "radicals" to do bodily harm to non-believers or gays or whoever. Thus the perception allegedly received by the alleged victim holds total sway over the actual occurrence, which in actuality might have been completely benign.
If the validity of the actual occurrence is not the basis for justice, then there is no justice under this proposed law; it is an invitation for persecution by allegation of personal offendedness, a legalization of internal outrage as the definition of a crime regardless of whether the outrage is legitimate.
Protection from outrage is not possible; so persecution of the hated must substitute. Justice misapplied can become persecution, and it undoubtedly will if H.R. 1913 becomes law.
Bill Moyers has long been one of the "I'm Lefter than you are" kind of commentators. My favorite Moyers interview is the one with Dawkins, where Moyers launched creampuffs and marshmallows at his (obvious) hero.
Now, over at Post Darwinist, Denyse O'Leary draws our atttention to Moyers next career, that of pop-genticist. In a discussion with one Barack Obama, Moyers gets Biblical, points to the violence of the Old Testament, and concludes,
"So God-soaked violence became genetically coded."
The implications of this were not lost on the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. But Moyers of course denied that he meant what he said.
Here are some of the implications, according to Denyse:
The specific contribution of pop culture Darwinism to this episode is the notion that "God-soaked violence" is "genetically coded." If so:
1. No one is responsible for their violent behaviour, so both sides are off the hook and we can all quit blaming anyone.
2. Violent conflicts are probably irresolvable. (You may as well try to teach non-violence to grizzly bears.)
3. It wouldn't make any difference what Deuteronomy says because people are genetically coded for violence. So even God is off the hook. (Dawkins, check your mail.)
4. Deuteronomy is not a legend, as some claim, but can be invoked as a source of historical information, including information about genetics.
Denyse goes on to point out that a) genes have physical characteristics, and no-one has identified a "violence" gene; b) the use of gratuitous and fatuous evolutionary statements reflect badly on the thought processes of the issuer; and c) pop-Darwinism is way easier to concoct than is actual irrefutable fact.
To which I might add, not only is it easier to concoct, it is easier to create a worldview from the concoction. For this reason it is not just not science, it is anti-rational and it is dangerous.
In fact, this is a case where the supposed genetic link was concocted purely out of a worldview: Atheist anti-Semitism, the barely suppressed rage of American Leftists.
Fortunately I suspect that Moyers is not a cultural molder or intellectual driver in any sense. I think Moyers mostly preaches to the choir, which already hates the same things that he does.
