and I just looked up in time to see where one of the kids got busted because he socked black kid. Of course, he was instantly charged by the FBI for a hate crime.
Several years I spoke with an FBI agent and he told me that hate crimes were a pain in the ass because you had to prove to a jury what was in a man's heart.
The whole thing leaves me annoyed. It clearly says to me that one group of people is more precious than another.
An assault is an assault just like a murder is a murder. It's really that simple. It really doesn't matter what color the victim is. In fact, when you get right down to it victims and perps HAVE no color. It is simply a case of one human being wronging another.
Dr. King once said there is one race and that's the human race. I look at it that way.
Just because something crosses racial lines doesn't mean a damned thing to me. What does mean something to me is that if there is a crime that the victim and the perpetrator get their day in court.
Personally I think that the hate crime legislation was passed to appease the NAACP andother groups. I wish that the government had enough moxie to tell these whiners to go to hell. I have said that for a large part the NAACP has pretty much outlived their usefulness. It seems that all they do these days is proclaim that that they're different.
Bull$hit! We're supposed to be all the same. There's one race and that's the human race.
Another thing I don't like about hate crime legislation is that it really isn't applied fairly. Run the numbers and see how many minorities are charged with hate crimes.
One thing we have to realize that we ae going to continue to have problems things crossing racial lines as long as we let it. Repealing the hate crime laws would actually go a lot further in relieving racial tensions.
It would tell everyone that minorities are not going to be treated as special little snowflakes. Instead they are going to be treated the same way everyone else is.
Instead of dragging race into things, the NAACP should be pushing race OUT of things. Dragging race into things just serves to tell everyone how different we are rather than what we have in common.
Personally, I would consider getting some kind of 'protection' like that to be an insult. It would mean to me that the government thought I couldn't take care of myself without their help.
When you think about it that's what fair play is all about.
To find out why the blog is pink just cut and paste this:
http://piccoloshash.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-feminine-side-blog-stays-pink.html NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED IN THE WRITING OF TODAY'S ESSAY
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This has everything to do with the difference between the two basic moralities: the goal-oriented and the rights-oriented.
ReplyDeleteSocieties throughout history have had a goal-oriented morality. For example, punishment for crime was about protecting society, and whether the criminal had become criminal because of “oppression” was irrelevant. He was a criminal, period, so he must go. And families are a good arrangement because they are efficient – they help society move forward.
Not so today. Now, we have the rights-oriented morality and thus the designation of crimes as "hate crimes" or (I suppose) "not-hate crimes", depending on who committed the crime, who they committed it against, why they did it...and if the victim got their feelings hurt over the whole thing.