CRW: Stand Up For Hate Crimes
First some background by way of the Boston Globe:
In Montgomery County, Maryland, yesterday, the president of the Citizens for Responsible Whatever sent out an urgent message to tell people to call their Senators and oppose the bill.
Here's what Ruth Jacobs, writing from a notmyshower.com email address, said:
Don't you wonder why the CRW is so adamant about supporting hate crimes?
This newsletter has "talking points." Here's what you are supposed to say when you call your Senator. He or she will pick up the phone in their Capitol Hill office, and you will say to them:
Usually they mumble something like, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," but this time they are forced into a corner, and there is no ambiguity about their position. The Citizens for Responsible Whatever, who are the same people who campaigned against comprehensive sex ed in Montgomery County and then changed a word in their name and campaigned against equal rights for transgender people, have made a statement as clear as can be: they demand the right to commit hate crimes without federal prosecution.
WASHINGTON - Legislation to extend federal hate crimes protections to gays and the disabled reached the Senate floor yesterday with the best prospects in years to become law.
The measure, which also makes it easier for federal prosecutors to get involved in hate crimes cases, passed the House in a similar version in April and enjoys solid support in the Senate.
And for the first time since Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts first introduced the bill in 1997, pro-bill Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House.
President Obama, unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, backs the legislation. Attorney General Eric Holder has urged Congress to act so the government can prosecute cases of violence based on gender and sexual orientation. Outlook improves for hate crimes bill
In Montgomery County, Maryland, yesterday, the president of the Citizens for Responsible Whatever sent out an urgent message to tell people to call their Senators and oppose the bill.
Here's what Ruth Jacobs, writing from a notmyshower.com email address, said:
Harry Reid is smuggling the controversial Hate Crimes bill through the Senate -- this week! He is bypassing the regular process and attaching Hate Crimes as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill which Congress must pass in order to fund our military.
Please call Harry Reid and your senators right now and tell them you oppose the Hate Crimes amendment that is being rushed through the Senate this week. We can stop this end run, but only if enough concerned Americans sound the alarm!
LETS SHUT DOWN HARRY REID'S PHONES THIS WEEK!
Don't you wonder why the CRW is so adamant about supporting hate crimes?
This newsletter has "talking points." Here's what you are supposed to say when you call your Senator. He or she will pick up the phone in their Capitol Hill office, and you will say to them:
1. I am very disappointed that the Senate is fast-tracking the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913) by attaching it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
2. This Hate Crimes bill is so controversial that it must be considered as a stand-alone bill, not rushed as an amendment.
3. I oppose the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and urge you to oppose it as well. It is an attack on faith and family while granting special rights based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," terms which are not even clearly defined in the bill.
Usually they mumble something like, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," but this time they are forced into a corner, and there is no ambiguity about their position. The Citizens for Responsible Whatever, who are the same people who campaigned against comprehensive sex ed in Montgomery County and then changed a word in their name and campaigned against equal rights for transgender people, have made a statement as clear as can be: they demand the right to commit hate crimes without federal prosecution.
posted by JimK at 10:17 AM
81 Comments:
The usual bile and hatred from this thoroughly discredited group of malcontents! What a shame that they have to live their lives so obsessed about human differences and filled with such venemous bigotry. They will poison the very ground they will be buried in. They make a mockery of the very religion they proclaim to be adherents of!
To quote the inimitable Maude: "God will get you for this!"
Diogenes
"they demand the right to commit hate crimes without federal prosecution"
this is utrue and you know it, Jim
all crimes of violence can be prosecuted without assessing extra penalties due to the motivation
if someone kills me because they don't like my haircut, they should be prosecuted to the same extent as if they killed someone because they are homosexual
the purpose of this is to intimidate those who denounce homosexuality by making them a automatic suspect any time violence is committed against homosexuals
the purpose of this is to intimidate those who denounce homosexuality by making them a automatic suspect any time violence is committed against homosexuals
That's silly. Of course people who say they hate gays will be suspected when violence is committed against a gay person. This law doesn't change that.
There is no reason for the CRW to "urgently" oppose this bill besides the wish to protect people who commit certain hate crimes. They are the only ones affected.
JimK
The right to discriminate is freedom!
denouncing homosexuality and "hating" gays is not the same thing
hate crimes single out certain members of our society for more protection than others
homosexuality doesn't deserve special protection
the point is to endorse the view that homosexuals are victimized
And are you saying that homosexuals are not victimized?
Boy, Jim, you conveniently left out huge, important parts of CRG's e-mail.
No I didn't, but nice try. Here's the entire text of the email. As you can see, I left out some politicians' phone numbers and some fundraising and organizing stuff.
JimK
*** ENTIRE EMAIL *****
URGENT CALL NOW!!!!!!
Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government
WORKING FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY
URGENT CALL NOW!!!!!! Please Forward To Friends!!!!! JULY 2009
Greetings!
Harry Reid is smuggling the controversial Hate Crimes bill through the Senate -- this week! He is bypassing the regular process and attaching Hate Crimes as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill which Congress must pass in order to fund our military.
Please call Harry Reid and your senators right now and tell them you oppose the Hate Crimes amendment that is being rushed through the Senate this week. We can stop this end run, but only if enough concerned Americans sound the alarm!
LETS SHUT DOWN HARRY REID'S PHONES THIS WEEK!
Reid's Majority Leader office: 202-224-5556
Reid's D.C. Senate office: 202-224-3542
ALSO, CALL YOUR SENATORS and tell them you OBJECT to the fast-tracking of the anti-faith Hate Crimes bill:
Sen. Mikulski 202-224-4654
Sen. Cardin 202-224-4524
Talking Points:
1. I am very disappointed that the Senate is fast-tracking the Hate
Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913) by attaching it as
an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
2. This Hate Crimes bill is so controversial that it must be
considered as a stand-alone bill, not rushed as an amendment.
3. I oppose the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and urge you to oppose
it as well. It is an attack on faith and family while granting
special rights based on "sexual orientation" and "gender
identity," terms which are not even clearly defined in the bill.
Please... take action today*!
Want To Learn More? See Links Below:
Family Research Council
Liberty Council*
Townhall.com
NO TIME ? DONATE ON LINE! - Contributions in any amount are always welcome and can help us be a success. If you prefer to mail your donation send checks to "MCRG, PO Box 84055, Gaithersburg, MD 20883-4052"
Upcoming Events
Give Us Your IDEAS - Email us at info@notmyshower.com
DEFEATING DEFECTIVE AND DANGEROUS LEGISLATION TAKES WORK
THE MOST DIFFICULT PART IS TAKING THE FIRST STEPS. THANKS FOR HELPING US MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government
NOTMYSHOWER.COM
PO Box 84055
Gaithersburg, MD 20883-4052
Ruth Jacobs 301 641-4678
The CRW never learns... Sadly.
But they give us, the SANE people of the world, something to chuckle about.
Pura vida
Hey, idiot-drick, there's always a motive when someone commits violence against another.
Why is dislike of homosexuality worse than all other motives and deserving of extra penalties?
It's already illegal to kick your arse. Why is it worse to do so if you're gay?
Are you a hothouse flower deserving of special protection?
The length of the sentence doesn't change much. Hates crime legislation is just a way for politicians to pander to gay voters.
This is not the entire CRG e-mail. There's a significant part of it that talks about ex-gays. I don't care if you post it. I'm just pointing it out.
Maybe you intended to include something like that, but it didn't go through. I just copied and pasted the whole message from top to bottom.
JimK
Oh -- I'm sorry. I got the CRG e-mail but confused part of it with another e-mail about the hate crimes legislation. There are lots of groups sending e-mails about this legislation.
Thank you for straightening that out.
JimK
Jim -- I should have apologized more to you. My snippy and inaccurate comment about the e-mail was unwarranted.
Anon, we're big kids here, you don't have to apologize.
And anyway, if you apologized every time you were wrong, we'd run out of server space!
JimK
CONgress opposite of PROgress !
If "hate bill"-obsessed Congress can't protect Christians from "gays" as much as it wants to protect "gays" from Christians, will Congress be surprised if it can't protect itself from most everyone? It's little wonder that liberals want to make America gun-less! If "hate bills" are forced on captive Americans, they'll still find ways to sneakily continue to "plant" Biblical messages everywhere. By doing so they'll hasten God's judgment on their oppressors as revealed in Proverbs 19:1. (See a related item titled "David Letterman's Hate, Etc." on web engines.) Since Congress can't seem to legislate "morality," it's making up for it by legislating "immorality"!
Thanks for that eye-opening piece of wisdom, Anon.
that was a different than usual anon, Jim
they may have had anything to apologize for before
may not have had, that is
Andrea-not anon
The showernuts strike again. Ruth Jacobs is a sad excuse for a human being, much less a doctor. I am sure Harry Reid is going to listen to their nonsense.
What I don't get is two things:
1. If the folks on the other side feel that hate crimes legislation is wrong then why aren't they pushing to do away with existing hate crimes legislation in the cases of race, religion, and national origin?
2. If existing hate crimes legislation is not an attack on speech, then how can the additions be seen as an attack on speech?
"Ruth Jacobs is a sad excuse for a human being, much less a doctor."
talk about the clapper calling the bell a ding-dong!
Alvin,
can't speak for everyone but I agree that all hates crimes legislation is unconstitutional
I'm another anon who believes that all hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional.
It's much easier to stop a piece of legislation than to undo what's already been done. However, I'd be writing to my legislator to support a piece of legislation that does away with all hate crime laws. There's nothing right about them.
Okay, you Anons, I can see that you might not like hate-crime laws, but I would be curious to know what you think the "unconstitutional" part it is. Two of you seem to agree, so tell us, what's the angle supposed to be? Does the Constitution grant the freedom to abuse the weak and outnumbered?
JimK
Jim -- Here's a link to a good article which discusses the constitutionality of hate crimes legislation. This type of legislation allows for too many shades of gray, too much interpretation and too many gradations to make me feel comfortable.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7291/Hate-Crime.html
In theory, I'm not entirely pleased with the concept of hate crimes legislation. I can see the argument that it penalizes the same crimes against some people more than against others.
But this is my understanding of the effect of Federal hate crimes laws: they enable the US government to investigate bias crimes (i.e. crimes that intimidate a specific community) when local police forces do not. I am quite certain that in some areas in this country, local police forces are less interested in investigating, and local prosecutors less interested in purusing, crimes against certain people, even if, perhaps especially if, those crimes are motivated by bias.
Thus, federal hate crimes laws, as I understand them, enable federal authorities to investigate and prosecute bias crimes that would not otherwise be.
This I see as necessary, and justifying such laws.
If I am misunderstanding the specifics of this legislation, someone (Bea or Jim, perhaps) let me know.
rrjr
Anon, that article uses the word "unconstitutional" a couple of times, but it doesn't seem to say what part of the Constitution a hate crime statute would violate. Take a typical example, say someone painted a swastika on a Jewish family's home. Is that the same crime, to you, as someone who paints the name of their school on an overpass? Is the crime really defacement of property, or is it something more? I don't see that the Constitution tells us we can't distinguish between those two behaviors. You might like to believe that the offense exists in the application of paint to a surface that doesn't belong to you, but most people would understand the swastika to be something more than graffiti. I don't know why you'd want to call your Senator to retain the right to paint swastika's on people's doors.
JimK
"Anon, that article uses the word "unconstitutional" a couple of times, but it doesn't seem to say what part of the Constitution a hate crime statute would violate."
I'm not the anon who posted but I think it would violate freedom of speech, equal protection under the law and, perhaps, the jurisdiction of states.
"Take a typical example, say someone painted a swastika on a Jewish family's home. Is that the same crime, to you, as someone who paints the name of their school on an overpass?"
Depending on the circumstances, it may be that the swastika could be considered a threat of violence and prosecutable.
And, of course, the act of swastika-painting would hopefully have negative social consequences
for the perpetrator.
"Is the crime really defacement of property, or is it something more? I don't see that the Constitution tells us we can't distinguish between those two behaviors. You might like to believe that the offense exists in the application of paint to a surface that doesn't belong to you, but most people would understand the swastika to be something more than graffiti."
We can distinguish between them, we just should not do so in a legal sense. A swastika is definitely more offensive than standard graffiti. Just like calling someone a "dirty Jew" is more than calling them a "jerk" but not a crime.
"I don't know why you'd want to call your Senator to retain the right to paint swastika's on people's doors."
See, Jim, you're being disingenuous again. No one is discussing retaining a right to paint anything on people's doors without their permission. No right currently exists and no one is suggesting creating it.
There was a scandal this week concerning the Supreme Court, though it didn't concern the nomination of its newest member.
The New York Times Magazine printed a candid interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, including this portion:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."
Of pro-lifers, she declares, "They're fighting a losing battle" -- which must come as discouraging news to litigants in future abortion cases that come before the high court.
Given this context, can it be argued that Ginsburg -- referring to "populations that we don't want to have too many of" -- was merely summarizing the views of others and describing the attitudes of the country when Roe v. Wade was decided? It can be argued -- but it is not bloody likely. Who, in Ginsburg's statement, is the "we"? And who, in 1973, was arguing for the eugenic purposes of abortion?
It is more likely that Ginsburg is describing the attitude of some of her own social class -- that abortion is economically important to a "woman of means" and useful in reducing the number of social undesirables.
At the very least, Ginsburg displays a disturbing insensitivity to Supreme Court history. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who wrote the 1927 decision approving forced sterilization for Carrie Buck -- a 17-year-old single mother judged to be feebleminded and morally delinquent. "It is better for all the world," ruled Holmes, "if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." Such elitism has been discredited; it is not extinct.
The entire Ginsburg interview is a reminder of the risks of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Immune from criticism, surrounded by plump cushions of deference, the temperament of a justice can become exaggerated over time. For Ginsburg, complex arguments are now "so obvious" and "can never be otherwise" -- and opposition is fated to failure. Such statements, made during Ginsburg's own nomination hearing, would have been disqualifying. Now she doesn't give a damn.
Her timing, however, is instructive. Ginsburg made her remarks as Sonia Sotomayor is emphasizing her poor and minority roots. In the past, Sotomayor has argued that her background as a Latina brings special insight and empathy -- a humanizing, bottom-up perspective on life and law. This is true in life, where her Puerto Rican experience offers many lessons. It should not be true in applying the law, where the goal is objectivity -- as Sotomayor herself has now backtracked to acknowledge.
But there is another view of the disadvantaged found on the left. Instead of especially valuing the experience of the disadvantaged, some hope that public policy can thin their ranks. This is no longer pursued through the eugenic decrees that Holmes admired but through the advocacy of Medicaid abortions.
It is estimated that the Hyde Amendment limiting Medicaid abortions has saved 1 million lives since its passage in 1976 -- some, no doubt, became criminals and some, perhaps, lawyers and judges. It is a defining question for modern liberalism: Are these men and women "populations that we don't want to have too many of" or are they citizens worthy of justice and capable of contribution?
I am not going to delete that hijack attempt but will if it happens again. Back to the topic, Anon, maybe you can explain how the hate crime bill threatens someone's freedom of speech.
Say some guys decide to beat up some gay people. They are walking down the street, come across two guys holding hands, and beat them to within an inch of their lives.
You can argue that the perpetrators would be prosecuted already for assault and battery, and a case could be made for that, I suppose. But I do not see how their freedom of speech has been threatened -- maybe they did not speak at all. And of course you know the federal law being proposed specifically says that no one can be prosecuted for their speech "unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of violence," to quote the AP.
I just don't see the Constitutional angle here, which TTF Anons have argued is a problem.
JimK
Hate crimes are terrorist acts, aimed not solely at the victim but at a community. That is why they were first legislated after the assassination of Dr. King, and are being expanded today. For the most part the legislation acts, as Robert points out, to empower the Feds to collect data and then to act when localities do not. It is also a powerful educational tool.
Funny that someone from the right suddenly seems concerned about civil rights for minorities. Where were you when Bush/Cheney gutted the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ?
Back to the subject at hand, which is the CRWs support against hate crimes protections.
Robert, here's the link to our federal hate crimes law, which has not been found unconstitutional since 1969 when it was enacted. The full text of the law can be found at the link. Here's the summary:
The portion of Section 245 of Title 18 which is primarily enforced by the Criminal Section makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following:
A student at or applicant for admission to a public school or public college
A participant in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by a state or local government
An applicant for private or state employment; a private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in a labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through an employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall
A juror or prospective juror in state court
A traveler or user of a facility of interstate commerce or common carrier
A patron of a public accommodation or place of exhibition or entertainment, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas or stadiums.
This statute also prohibits wilful interference, by force or threat of force, with a person because he/she is or was participating in, or aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Will you look at that, it covers public accommodations.
Hate crimes laws are intended to protect the Civil Rights of US Citizens. The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is the office that Bush/Cheney purged of career attorneys and reshaped from an office fighting for minorities' civil rights into an office fighting reverse discrimination and promoting religion. Listen to the Abrams video at the link immediately above and learn that unlike previous administrations, Bush/Cheney's DOJ did not file a single voting rights case during their term, except one to allege discrimination against white voters in Mississippi, not one. How bad does anyone think reverse discrimination is in Mississippi compared to discrimination against blacks?
While those on the right want to eliminate these protections for minorities, they actually want to expand religious exemption laws.
Jim -- I'm the anon who posted the link to the constitutioinal rights articles. Hate crimes are completely unnecessary to carry out completely fair criminal justice in this country, and unnecessarily can lead to putting a chill on free speech. There is absolutely no reason for hate laws and, in fact, they're unfair to other people. If my daughter was attacked because she had a ribbon in her hair, and someone else's daughter was attacked because of her race --- why should the latter attacker get a stiffer sentence?
When I was a kid, a few others in school used to hurl racial slurs at me. I wasn't mad or upset, because they were attacking something that I knew had nothing to do with me directly. However, I did find it slightly bewildering.
One day, I questioned my mother about it, and she said that those children have the right to say those things, even though, as polite people, they shouldn't. She said that my grandparents brought us to this country because this is the place where people are allowed to express their views, even if we don't agree with them. This is also the same country that allows me the freedom to decide that I might not want to play with those children. However, she never forbade me to play with them, never went to the school to complain and never called their parents. She explained that they didn't know any better and recommended that I should just let it go. And you know what? I never held any bad feelings toward them, continued to play with them, and after a few years, I had to struggle to remember which kids had said it. Though I think those kids were impolite -- to this day, I'd defend their right to think their thoughts, and to express them to me.
There was also a girl in school once who didn't like me for very personal reasons. This was a wild, scrappy girl who used to come in with hickey necklaces around her neck on a regular basis. Her dislike of me was much more hurtful, since I knew it was personal. She'd call me names like "bitch." And you know what? Being called "bitch" by this girl was far more hurtful than being called the racial slur by the other kids.
Now, what if those first group of kids had physically attacked me, simply because of my ethnic background? And the second girl I mentioned had physically attacked me because of her personal dislike of me (which she threatened to do but never did)?
My recommendation would be that they both get the same, exact punishment. A mean person who doesn't like your race or sex is just as mean as a person who doesn't like your shoes. A rapist who rapes you because of your race is just as nasty as a rapist who rapes you because you happened to be in a secluded spot. A killer who stabs you because he thinks you're gay is just as vile as a killer who stabs you because he thinks you're rich.
Sure, Anon, I understand, to you painting a swastika on a Jewish family's house is exactly the same crime as painting the name of your high school on an overpass, that's fine, I get you, it's all graffiti. But how is a hate crime law unconstitutional? That's what I'm asking.
Here again, you said such a law can "unnecessarily can lead to putting a chill on free speech." But how?
I don't have any problem with people having differences of opinion about the necessity of hate-crime laws, that's all open for debate, but our Anons seem to think such laws are unconstitutional somehow, and I'm trying to figure that one out.
JimK
It's unconstitutional because it is punishing people for what they said not what they did and because it's protecting certain people more than other against the same crime.
I think Dana is incorrect about this:
"Hate crimes are terrorist acts, aimed not solely at the victim but at a community."
These types of crimes are usually perpetrated by insecure losers who use these motives as an excuse not as a coordinated effort to intimidate a group.
Jim asked about the scenario where a gay is beat up but no one says anything.
It's a little scary, when you think about it, to start prosecuting people based on what you think their motives are.
"Bush/Cheney's DOJ did not file a single voting rights case during their term,"
Maybe there wasn't a legitimate case. I'm not aware of any Southern states where minorities voting rights are currently being interfered with.
Anon, the law specifically prohibits prosecuting anyone for their speech.
And as far as "prosecuting people based on what you think their motives are," I'm sure hate-crime prosecutions will require the same kind of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that other prosecutions require.
These laws have existed since the 1960s. I'm curious, why did you decide to complain just now?
JimK
I can see Dana's point about attack on communities.
I also think Hate Crimes is one of the easiest things for our Congress to pass, much as an anti-harassment policy was easy for the Fairfax School Board to approve, but not a nondiscrimination policy.
What are still more important to me (and much more important than marriage) are trans-inclusive ENDA and the so-called DADT policies.
"Anon, the law specifically prohibits prosecuting anyone for their speech."
Actually, the law only prohibits it for speech alone.
When you punish speech plus an act more than the same act alone, you're punishing speech.
It's just simple logic.
"And as far as "prosecuting people based on what you think their motives are," I'm sure hate-crime prosecutions will require the same kind of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that other prosecutions require."
Well, that's left up to the jury but it's hard to see how anything other than speech would constitute adequate proof of hate.
"These laws have existed since the 1960s. I'm curious, why did you decide to complain just now?"
I think I've consistently given my opinion whenever it came up.
You brought the topic up.
I think Dana is incorrect...
Oh brother, once again you offer the worthles "I think, therefore it is" argument.
...prosecuting people based on what you think their motives are.
So what you "think" about Dana is gospel, but what prosecutors "think" motivate crimes is suspect. Yes, we see your internal logic there.
<eye roll>
I'm not aware of any...
More Anon logic, "I'm not aware of any, therefore there aren't any."
Why limit yourself to the Southern states looking for such cases? In 2004, Ohio probably had the most difficulty allowing registered voters to vote.
"The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count."
Read and learn about other voting irregularities during the 2004 election:
During the 2004 United States presidential election, concerns were raised about various aspects of the voting process, including whether voting had been made accessible to all those entitled to vote, whether ineligible voters were registered, whether voters were registered multiple times, and whether the votes cast had been correctly counted.
Bush's DOJ was much more interested in prosecuting Democrats to help get Republicans elected than in prosecuting cases of disenfranchised voters. In fact, the Bush adminstration used trumped up charges of failing to prosecute enough of voter fraud cases against Democrats in order to fire of many US US Attorneys. The DOJ's conduct in these prosecutions is also one reason Karl Rove is still being called to testfy before the House Judiciary Committee.
In 2005 in Wisconsin, Bush's DOJ went after Georgia Thompson because she worked for the Democratic Governor there, Jim Doyle. Doyle was one Democratic Governor the architect hoped to defeat in 2006. In spite of Thompson's conviction and the use of it in GOP ads against him, Governor Doyle went on to win reelection in 2006. Georgia Thompson was released from prison on April 5, 2007, the day the appeal of her bogus prosecution was reviewed by appeals court judges, which is nearly unprecedented.
This post has been removed by the author.
"I think Dana is incorrect...
Oh brother, once again you offer the worthles "I think, therefore it is" argument.
...prosecuting people based on what you think their motives are.
So what you "think" about Dana is gospel, but what prosecutors "think" motivate crimes is suspect. Yes, we see your internal logic there.
(eye roll)"
Actually, in the exchange with Dana, Dana told us what she "thinks" and told you what I "think". As far as I know, there are no studies about what motivates attacks on gays and Dana didn't mention any. People who commit violence against gays are generally not trying to terrorize all gay people but trying to make sure no one thinks they're gay, including themselves.
I think Dana's wrong but she's entitled to her opinion.
The police, on the other hand, are required to base their actions on evidence and not their intuition.
The fact that you don't recognize the different nature of the situations, introduces any new readers to your creepy mentality.
"I'm not aware of any...
More Anon logic, "I'm not aware of any, therefore there aren't any."
Why limit yourself to the Southern states looking for such cases?"
You're the one who brought up some supposed discrimination in Mississippi. That's why I mentioned the South.
You acted like there should be voting rights cases but my point is that the cognizant agency found no such evidence.
Try not to get too worked up, Anon-B.
We don't want your head to blow up.
But you should get it examined.
If only she would get she head examined.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin let everyone know on Twitter that she is just 10 days from throwing off the reins of elected office to go rogue.
Referencing her announcement to step down as governor on July 26, she posted this tweet Friday: "elected is replaceable;Ak WILL progress! + side benefit=10 dys til less politically correct twitters fly frm my fingertps outside State site"
Palin loves Twitter and has used it as a tool to go around the mainstream media and broaden her support among conservatives in the lower 48. To me, today's tweet is more evidence that she plans to run for president in 2012.
She also asked her 99,115 followers to switch to her personal Twitter account once she is out of office: "I'll stay in touch w/whomever wants via personal twtr site;launch July 26;"
Palin's obvious excitement about speaking out on political issues -- unfettered -- as a private citizen and her encouragement of people to follow her after she resigns are part of the groundwork for a future campaign.
She is teasing us with her plans for an outspoken Palin version 2.0 in the very near future. Earlier this week, she quoted Aristotle: "Criticism is something easily avoided by saying nothing, doing nothing, being nothing."
Palin is one of the most outspoken and seemingly uncensored conservative elected officials in the country, and we can only imagine what she plans for her "less politically correct twitters" once the yoke has been thrown off.
Ten days and counting: Politics watchers wait with bated breath for the thoughts that will fly from her fingertips. The summer political sizzle is about to get a whole lot hotter.
Bad anonymous said "Hate crimes are completely unnecessary to carry out completely fair criminal justice in this country, and unnecessarily can lead to putting a chill on free speech.".
As long as certain groups are targeted for violence merely because of who they are there is a need for hate crimes laws. As to them putting a "chill" on free speech, the facts show this is not at all the case:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/16/11298#comments
"The federal hate crime law already protects against crimes motivated by hatred of religious groups, but that didn’t keep neo-Nazis from winning the right to march in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois (with the ACLU’s help, I might add). The current hate crime law also protects against crimes motivated by racial hatred, but that didn’t stop the KKK from marching and shouting slogans in Cleveland (again with the ACLU’s help). Hate groups have rallied at state houses in Minnesota, Nebraska and South Carolina, In fact, White Supremacist groups have held nearly a hundred rallies, demonstrations and meetings across America in this year alone — and the existing hate crime law at both the state and federal level have deterred none of it. And yes, they’ve even protested gay pride parades as well, something that they have in common with more than a few conservative Christian groups.
Extremist hate groups are also free to practice their hate speech, including when they do so under the guise of religious belief. There are some three dozen racist Christian Identity groups active in America right now. Some even operate radio broadcasts and “prison ministries.” One such pastor, James Wickstrom, argued that Jews should be beaten, thrown into a wood chipper, and “give them the holocaust they rightly deserve.” This, even though current hate crime laws already protect on the basis of religion.".
Clearly the idea that hate crimes laws put a "chill" on free speech is utterly laughable.
it's such jolly good fun when Priya stops to provide us with some words of wisdom from the great land of Chill
oh yeah, chillax, Priya
It's hilarious that the anonymote calls Bea creepy.
Anon and Little Anon don't like facts, Priya. When you show them facts, they either respond with personal attacks or spin, because they and their party are stuck circling the drain.
And yes, Robert, that's because the Anons think anyone who is not exactly like them is by definition "creepy."
Here are some more facts for interested Vigilance readers.
In this week's Time Magazine, Sarah Palin outright lied when she said said: "...our administration is so stymied and paralyzed because of a political game that has been chosen to be played by critics who have discovered loopholes in the ethics reform that I championed that allows them to continually, continually bombard the state with frivolous ethics-violation charges, with lawsuits, with these fishing expeditions. We win the lawsuits, we win the ethics charges, we win all that...
She did NOT "win the ethics charges," she's lying. In fact she repaid the State of Alaska $8,000 for travel expenses she charged the state for her kids. If she thinks paying to settle a "frivolous" ethics charge that was filed by one of her very own Alaska State GOP members, Andee McLeod, is "winning," she's a fool or a liar, or both.
Alaskan Andee McLeod's "frivolous" ethics charge about Palin claiming per diem payments to work at home has yet to be settled. And Ethics Charge #18 just got filed by Ms. McLeod too, demanding that Palin return her Governor's salary she collected when she took a leave of absence from the Governor's job to go on the campaign trail with McCain.
Mudflats.net reports
Ethics Complaint #18 Filed Against Sarah Palin
...Signed and completed official travel documents show that upon being summoned by the McCain campaign on August 27th Sarah Palin wrote “Conclusion of state business” for that day and flew off to places unknown. After her failed bid, similar documents state “Return to duty status”. However, payroll documents show Palin continued to receive her $125,000 governor’s salary and benefited by using state funded staff on the campaign for ‘state business’ while knowing she was off duty...
Maybe that's why Alaska is experiencing its first ever algae bloom. Sarah wasn't there to defend Alaska from the invading aliens!
Wink
Sarah Palin seems to think the treasury of Alaska is hers to do with as she pleases.
Will Palin pay back what she wrongly took from her beloved Alaska, namely per diem and salary, just like she paid back her kids' travel expenses?
Stay tuned!
It seems that "editorial" Palin wrote for the WaPo the other day contained some "distorted" facts, AKA lies.
She gets more like the Bush/Cheney Big Oil Enablers every day! Anon must be so proud of her!
Today's WaPo published a letter to the editor called, Sarah Palin's Misguided Energy Policies
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's attack on President Obama's climate plan ["The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End," op-ed, July 14] distorted the proposal's economic impact and ignored the economic and ecological damage associated with global warming.
The United States Climate Action Partnership -- a coalition of some of the country's largest energy companies, manufacturers and environmental groups -- supports the pending legislation because the costs of failing to address climate change far outweigh the costs of moving to a clean-energy economy.
Ms. Palin should understand this: Research from the University of Alaska at Anchorage predicts that melting permafrost in Alaska will cost the state more than $3.6 billion in infrastructure damage over the next two decades, while scholars at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks have found that warmer ocean temperatures are increasing disease in the state's economically important salmon fisheries.
The "inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security" need not point us toward increased fossil fuel exploration, as Palin said it should.
A recent report by the Center for American Progress and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst projects that Mr. Obama's stimulus package and the Waxman-Markey energy bill now being considered by the Senate would create 1.7 million green jobs annually, enabling the United States to lead the world in clean-energy development.
Long-term prosperity will come from tackling the threat of climate change, not ignoring it.
WHITNEY ANGELL LEONARD
Junior Fellow for Energy and Climate
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Washington
Good luck cleaning up that algae bloom, Governor. Anon must be so proud of her!
JIm -- Hate crimes legislation leads to people being silenced, for fear of being linked unfairly to a "hate crime." If, for instance, someone vandalized the property of a member of one of the groups that you routinely belittle and taunt on this blog with words that you routinely use, then it would be very logical for the police to check the attacker's association with your blog. It could be discovered that the attacker was very influenced by your words, and thus you would be implicated in the crime. And I think that would be grossly unfair, as you are free, under the protection of our First Amendment, to say what you are saying. You are speaking your mind, while the other person who vandalized is breaking the law.
I'm proud of Sarah Palin. By the way...she has been cleared of every ethics complaint that has been investigated thus far.
"Ms. Palin should understand this: Research from the University of Alaska at Anchorage predicts that melting permafrost in Alaska will cost the state more than $3.6 billion in infrastructure damage over the next two decades,"
Would that include the bridge to nowhere that Sarah stopped?
Key word this in cut and paste from a "Junior Fellow for Energy and Climate", that is someone whose job it is to be alarmist about these things, is "predict".
Weather really is unpredictable. For example, global temperatures have fallen and hurricane activty has decreased since Al Gore's alarmist movie a few years back.
Anon-B, for example, predicted John Kerry would be elected President in 2004. She's so bitter she making wild charges about voter irregularities in Ohio that year.
"The "inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security" need not point us toward increased fossil fuel exploration, as Palin said it should."
Regardless of what else happens we will need fossil fuel for the forseeable future and depending on other unfriendly countries for it threatens our security.
score
Palin 1
Anon-B 0
This blog would never be seen by anyone other than you as the basis for a hate crime. What a laugh riot you are sometimes! Go check out GODHATESFAGS.com, the website of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, to remind yourself what a website that fosters hate crimes looks like.
By the way...she has been cleared of every ethics complaint that has been investigated thus far.
Yes, that's true, but deceptive because it's also true that every ethics complaint filed against Palin has not been investigated yet. In fact, there's one ethics complaint that wasn't investigated at all because it was settled when Palin coughed up $8,000+ to cover some travel expenses for her kids. And every ethics complaint has not been fully investigated yet. They keep being filed. Currently three more are pending. Stay tuned.
Read and learn what the Alaska Daily News reported in October, 2008, about the Palins' finances:
The Palins' total income last year was split almost evenly between Sarah Palin's white-collar job and her husband's blue-collar work. Sarah Palin's salary as governor was $125,000; Todd Palin took in $46,790 as a part-time oil production operator for BP Alaska in Prudhoe Bay, plus $46,265 in commercial fishing income and $10,500 in Iron Dog snowmachine race winnings. These figures do not include nearly $17,000 [minus $8000+ Palin reimbursed to the State Treasury] in per diem payments Palin received for 312 nights spent in her own home since she was elected governor; she also has received $43,490 [reimbursement amount to the State of Alaska, if any, TBA] to cover travel costs for her husband and children.
About a week ago, the Alaska Daily News confirmed these facts in A closer look at Palin finances as she steps down
By RACHEL D'ORO / Associated Press Writer
Published: July 9th, 2009
...The ethics grievances are still piling up, with the latest filed this week against the former GOP vice presidential candidate. Sixteen ethics complaints have been filed. Three are still pending, the others have all been dismissed - although one was resolved when Palin agreed to reimburse the state more than $8,000 for the costs associated with nine trips taken with her children...
I'm proud of Sarah Palin.
Is it her willingness, when pressed by an ethics complaint to reimburse the State of Alaska for money she tooked but wasn't entitled to that makes you proud?
I stand by my words about Sarah Palin until I'm proven otherwise. I'm very proud of her.
Let me rephrase that so it makes sense:
I'm very proud of Sarah Palin. And, until some evidence comes to light which shows that I should feel otherwise, I will stand by my good words about her. I
Bea -- I was giving a hypothetical about Teach the Facts and hate crimes. Good try trying to twist my words.
global temperatures have fallen and hurricane activty has decreased since Al Gore's alarmist movie a few years back.
And for the 120 years before Gore's movie came out, average global temperatures rose. Once again, some facts for the spin artist: Click to see NASA's graph of "Global Land-Ocean Temperature Anomoly" from 1880 through 2008 and read their explanation:
Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis of worldwide temperature measurements, but it was still in the top ten warmest years since the start of record-keeping in 1880. Given the range of uncertainty in the measurements, the GISS team concluded that 2008 was somewhere between the seventh and the tenth warmest year on record. (The 10 warmest years have all occurred within the 12-year period from 1997-2008.)
The graph shows the long-term trend in surface temperatures since 1880. The annual average temperatures are shown in light orange, and the jaggedness of the line indicates how much the average global surface temperature varies from year to year. Because climate is so variable form year to year, it can be easier to spot long-term trends through multi-year averages. The dark red line shows the five-year running average, which is an average of five years of annual temperatures centered on a given year. Even this five-year average shows that climate has ups and downs, but the long-term increase in global average surface temperatures is obvious.
Continuous global warming since the Industrial Revolution is obvious to all but those who are spinning round and round the drain and only seem able to focus on the years since Al Gore's movie came out.
Tell us Anon, what is it about the release of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, that makes you think only data from then on counts? Is the release date of that movie Day 1 for the environment for you?
Key word this in cut and paste from a "Junior Fellow for Energy and Climate"
I found the key phrase in Ms. Leonard's title to be Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Burning oil doesn't only cause environmental degradation, it also leads to wars, some of them are even preemptive. Converting to renewable energy sources by erecting wind turbines and retrofitting buildings with solar panels, green roofs, etc., all of them built right here in the USA, would not lead to either war or environmental degradation. The Bible calls on us to protect God's green earth and promote peace. Renewable sources of fuel will help us meet both goals.
Golly, it's good to know Governor Quitter gets your vote. (I'm not running for anything.) In fact, Queen Esther Palin gets my vote too! I hope she wins the 2012 GOP primary!
Palin in 2012!!
"This blog would never be seen by anyone other than you as the basis for a hate crime. What a laugh riot you are sometimes! Go check out GODHATESFAGS.com, the website of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, to remind yourself what a website that fosters hate crimes looks like."
This tiresome attempt to associate everyone who does not favor the gay agenda with WBC is a typical Beaism.
WBC picketed Jerry Falwell's funeral and said he was going to hell.
You made many derogatory comments about Falwell when he was alive.
Why shouldn't you be associated with WBC, under your mangled mentality?
Don't folks realize there is nothing in the hate crimes legislation that identifies one group over another. Everyone has a sexual orientation, race/ethnicty and a gender identity. It is clear way too many folks assume sexual orientation means only gay or lesbian, that gender only means female, etc. Attacking someone because they are straight would be just as much a crime as attacking them if they were LGBTQQ or I. A Hisapanic man attacking a White person because she is White is just as illegal under this legislation as a White man attacking an Hispanic because he is Hispanic.
Explain to me how the proposed law gives one group preferential treatment in this legislation?
this oughta scare the bejeebies outta Anon-B:
"Surprising the inside-the-Beltway crowd, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin raised $732,867 in the first half of 2009.
SarahPAC, her Washington, D.C.-area fundraising organization, has proven to be organized and effective, despite reports to the contrary.
The FEC filing was for Jan. 1-June 15, 2009.
Palin's fundraising so far this year is significant because it proves to the political establishment that she has the ability to raise money from the lower 48 to launch a national campaign."
party!
The filing is also important to show that SarahPAC, which was established in January, is up and running with campaign professionals in D.C. who can manage her future political goals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071702093.html?sid=ST2009071702964
Thank goodness.
America finally starting to wake up.
Perhaps the democrats trying to ram through a health care bill that makes counseling for your parents every 5 years on end of life options mandatory if you want to keep getting your Social security payments FINALLY got those asleep at the wheel to understand what a radical this president is. Not to mention a liar.
And the Post even. I will have to call and thank them for their piece. I had completely dismissed them as a bunch of left wing loonies.
To the anon who said that everyone is covered under hate crimes legislation...I think that in theory, you are correct. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Look at Sotomayor's comments on the Latino woman making better decisions than a man. If the anti-discrimination laws and theories worked for everyone then Sotomayor would never have gotten this far in the confirmation process.
Thank goodness.
America finally starting to wake up.
Right, and now Obama's approval rating is a mere majority of 57%. And look who is doing the fear-mongering in that opinion piece!
The reality is that the mess Bush/Cheney left this economy in IS something for all of us to worry about and fix, unless of course you are a dittohead, jeering from the sideline and hoping for failure. Bush/Cheney had their way (or the highway) with the economy and left this huge mess of job losses, bank closures, mortgage foreclosures, stock markets falling, etc., for Team Obama to clean up.
On the BTB on NARTH Nonsense thread July 09, 2009, at 7:02 PM, just as the Stock Market averages were bottoming out of a four week decline (move your mouse to find July 9, 2009), Anon said:
And as more and more people begin to view this as Barack Obama's economy, we can expect more and more people to turn a critical eye toward the President, at least while the economy continues its downturn.
So who do you think they're going to "turn a critical eye toward" now that the little four week decline has been made up in one week?
On July 16, 2009, Obama unflinchingly took possession of the economy as his own when he told residents of Warren, Michigan:
"I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, 'Well, this is Obama's economy,'" the president said in a pointed deviation from his prepared text. "That's fine. Give it to me!"...
..."My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and harp and gripe," he said Tuesday, his sleeves rolled up, barely disguising his targets as congressional Republicans.
Yet you're strangely quiet about the stock market upturn of last week. Maybe you didn't like the stock market's performance last week, since you and the Head Dittohead both want Obama to fail. The WSJonline.com reported last week Earnings Uptick Lifts Confidence: Stock Market Soars for the Week as Early Corporate Reports Handily Beat Estimates:
The first wave of quarterly corporate earnings reports arrived stronger than expected, soothing investor fears of another economic crisis and helping push the Dow Jones Industrial Average to its strongest weekly gain since March.
The Dow ended the week up 7.3% at 8743.94, taking just five days to recover almost all the 7.4% decline of the previous four weeks, as investors took heart from blowout earnings by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and positive comments from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Intel Corp...
You and Rush and all your like-minded people should be happy the economy is erasing recent losses and lifting confidence, yet you don't mention it. As more of the stimulus money is spent, more jobs will be created, and more people will be able to express their resurgent confidence.
Yes we can!
Oh yeah, and before I forget to add what I've added so many times before:
Palin in 2012!!
It'll be fun to beat her, again.
WBC picketed Jerry Falwell's funeral and said he was going to hell.
You made many derogatory comments about Falwell when he was alive.
Why shouldn't you be associated with WBC, under your mangled mentality?
You have to ask? How blind are you? First, how many funerals have I picketed at to gain publicity for any cause, hateful or otherwise? Zero. Second, did I ever try to deny Falwell any of his rights like he tried to do to LGBT people? No. Third, how many "derogatory" comments about Falwell you claim I made included wishing for his death? None. Fourth, how many times did I stand in front of Liberty University holding signs reading "God Hates Haters" or "Death to Falwell and his Supporters?" Never.
And if you think "derogatory" comments are comparable to Phelps' comments, you are the one with "mangled mentality." "Expressing a low opinion" of a public figure is a quite bit milder than what Phelps' group does. The WBC espouses death to America, death to our soldiers, death to gays, death to Jews, death to people who've had abortions, and death to just about everyone else but themselves. And Phelps' church members repeatedly torment grief-stricken families at the gravesides of their dead sons, daughters, spouses, and parents, etc., who served in our military. That's not "derogatory," that's despicable.
So let's see some of these so-called "derogatory" statements you claim I made that you consider to be comparable to what the WSB says, spinmeister. Prove your point and direct Vigilance readers to a Vigilance blog thread with them, otherwise we'll all know you're just making things up, again.
Anonymous said...
To the anon who said that everyone is covered under hate crimes legislation...I think that in theory, you are correct. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Look at Sotomayor's comments on the Latino woman making better decisions than a man. If the anti-discrimination laws and theories worked for everyone then Sotomayor would never have gotten this far in the confirmation process.
Please explain your logic and how it relates to the actual bill which prohibits descrimation based on sexual orientation or race. I don't see the connection. If you are referring to affirmative (AA) action, you are wrong. AA dictates that two candidates being equal in qualifications, note the word "equal," then AA allows you to pick the minority candidate. It does not say you can pick the inferior candidate, but rather, if they are equal in qualifications. By the way, this would hold true for a white candidate applying to a traditional African American college or university.
"So let's see some of these so-called "derogatory" statements you claim I made that you consider to be comparable to what the WSB says, spinmeister. Prove your point and direct Vigilance readers to a Vigilance blog thread with them, otherwise we'll all know you're just making things up, again."
Oh, I think everyone understands my point just fine.
JIm -- In the July 19, 2:51 post on this thread, something went wrong. I posted the first paragraph, but the second paragraph, which begins with "Please explain your logic...." does NOT belong with my post.
Also, I didn't start my post with "Anonymous said..." I simply started mine with "To the anon who said..."
Can this be fixed? I don't like the fact that our posts can be juxtaposed and that other people can add to my post....I wonder what went wrong?
Also, I didn't start my post with "Anonymous said..." I simply started mine with "To the anon who said..."
When you post your comment in blogger, you have to select an option for your name. When you select "Anonymous" as your name, blogger starts your post with "Anonymous said..."
I wonder what went wrong?
If you select the PREVIEW option before you PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT, you will see what your post will look like once published. It's good to check to make sure you've deleted things you changed your mind about saying by hitting PREVEIW before you hit PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT.
Oh, I think everyone understands my point just fine.
There you go again. You "think" therefore it is.
< eye roll >
Thanks, Bea. But, as you'll see, there are TWO "Anonymous said" phrases on that post. One is in the correct spot, where the blogger's name is supposed to automatically be placed, BUT the other is one that someone typed in. I did not type that in.
Also, still trying to figure out how that second paragraph, which is NOT mine, got placed into my blog. It's all scrambled....
Jim -- could you maybe just delete that whole post?
Someone said: 'Please explain your logic and how it relates to the actual bill which prohibits descrimation based on sexual orientation or race. I don't see the connection."
I was talking in generalities about our societal views, which spills over into how judges, juries and others in power would translate hate crimes laws and anti discrimination laws. In theory, discriminating against a white man is racial and gender discrimination. In practice...it's very unlikely that a white male would get any relief under the laws. Which brings us to another point about Sotomayor -- she had no interest in even giving the white firefighters the courtesy of an explanation about why she ruled against them. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled differently.
"Oh, I think everyone understands my point just fine.
There you go again. You "think" therefore it is.
< eye roll >"
Actually, I've exchanged comments with others here and my conclusion is based on the observation that no one here is as big an imbecile as you.
Of course, and it's true I haven't hired a researcher to back this up, but I'm pretty sure you understood the original point I made too.
Now, don't have a seizure and roll your eyes up in your head.
Anon, regarding the July 19, 2:51 comment, nobody can edit your comment once it's been posted. You may have hit "Publish Your Comment" before you intended to. As I recall, you have not always been so kind to people who submit a comment twice or amend theirs after they have been published.
I get every comment in my email, and I only received your original post in the form it is shown here. If it was deleted and replaced with an edited version by someone else I would have both versions, and I don't.
JimK
Jim -- I have never, ever said a negative word about someone posting a comment twice. In fact, I once posted a comment twice because I thought it didn't take the first time. I understand how that happens and wouldn't pan someone for doing it. Also, I never knew, until you just told me, that it's possible to amend your comments. Thus, I have never complained about that. I have noticed, in the past, that someone can remove their own comment, but I never knew how to do so (I still don't). You have to be confusing me with someone else! In general, I don't think it's right for blogs to give someone the ability to go back and edit, as it renders everyone else's posts after the fact rather senseless. However, I didn't know that this capability was available on this blog.
Also, Jim....please re-read the post I'm talking about. It is written by someone who completely disagreed with something I said. It's not something I would have written. I don't know anything about affirmative action and that person seemed knowledgeable about it.
Something has to be wrong on your technical end, Jim.
Anon, I said "amend," not "edit." Sometimes somebody writes something and then thinks of something later and posts a second comment, amending the first.
If you have a real Blogger account, I think you can delete your own comments, I have seen people do it. In that case, you could delete your words and then post a second comment, hoping that nobody read it the first time and will tease you about changing it. I don't know if you can do that with an Anonymous comment, or one with the "Name/URL" option. You could try!
If I am confusing you with someone else, that would be because you both use the name "Anonymous." It is very easy to establish a Google account and use it to comment, it can be a fake name but a consistent one, and then we will be able to tell you apart from the other anonymous commenters. On the Internet, you all look the same.
Oh, hey, Anon, I just looked further into this and can show you what happened. Your comment was published at 10:08 AM. The 2:51 PM comment quoted yours, but there are no italics or quotes to indicate that -- that's why it says "Anonymous said" at the start, because it was quoted.
JimK
Jim - OHHHHH!!! WHEW!!! Thanks for clearing that up!!!
The dog ate my comment!
The first things a man ate and drank on the moon were a Communion wafer and a thimbleful of wine.
Buzz Aldrin was a Presbyterian church elder at the time.
The pastor of Webster Presbyterian in suburban Houston near the Johnson Space Center gave him a home Communion kit to take to the moon.
It contained the wafer, a tiny vial of wine and a thumb-sized silver chalice.
The dog ate my original video of the moon landing!
I would assume, that if Aldrin ate that wafer and drank that wine as a Presbyterian elder, he did it "in Remembrance of me", rather than considering the body and blood of christ, an essential distinction between Calvinistic and Catholic doctrines. Vicious wars were fought over this.
Post a Comment
<< Home