Though it would be well to remember that Bush’s remarks were misleading at best, and outright lies at the worst. He claims that the Byrd perps were given the death penalty.
Two were. One was not. And the governor summarily refused the Byrd family’s pleas to make the existing hate crimes law more specific.
MR
I don’t know, Esprix. I wasn’t in Texas.
I would like to think that this is so bad that even those that are generally bigoted were horrifed.
It is possible that some white people were afraid of retaliation by the black community, like LA. I don’t know.
Was the black community cowed? I don’t know?
Were the bigots bragging? I don’t know?
My overall impression of the incident actually made me feel pretty good about society (I know that sounds weird.)
I think the general sentiment was that these actions were so bad it went beyond race.
I think you put a cause, and a purpose behind this act to call it one of terrorism, and I don’t think it desrves that much.
I also don’t understand how a hate crimes task force could have helped any of this.
Maeglin:
I don’t understand how they were misleading or lies. I think that within the facts of the case justice was accomplished well and swiftly.
Maeglin said:
“And the governor summarily refused the Byrd family’s pleas to make the existing hate crimes law more specific.”
From this you are implying…?
What exactly is a summary refusal in this case?
Are you suggesting that victims’ families should have lawmaking ability?
I really don’t understand. You may like or not like Bush, but I think that this one particular incident was handled very well.
So what? I find liver and onions disquieting, but I don’t go around discriminating against people who eat it.
But we can make it uncomfortable for people who insist on defending their right to be small-minded bigots.
I would not date a smoker because they taste nasty when you kiss them. (I dated one once.) I would hire a smoker as long as he agreed not to smoke in the workplace.
Recreational nonabusive use of some drugs (marijuana, LSD, certain other hallucingens) would not keep me from dating someone. I would hire a drug user as long as his drug use did not interfere with his work. Unfortunately, in most cases drug use does interfere with work – but I would make the decision based on performance and not on the mere fact that drugs were being used.
I would readily date a 500 pound person, with or without acne, if I found myself attracted to her (or him), which for me is as much an intellectual exercise as a physical one. I have no problem with unusually large people as long as they pay proper attention to personal hygiene (a common but by no means universal problem for persons of unusual girth).
I would not date a bigot because I could not find a bigot intellectually attractive. I would not hire a bigot because I think a bigot would be likely to make unreasonable, irrational decisions which might adversely affect my business.
I would readily hire a Satanist as long as he promised not to sacrifice any virgins in the office without their prior consent. I’ve known a couple of Satanists and while I never dated any of them I would not have been particularly uncomfortable with the idea.
I would not hire a pedophile who was not reformed. I would consider hiring a reformed pedophile (assuming, of course, that such a person exists, which is questionable). I would not even consider dating a pedophile.
What about you? Would you date or hire any of these people? Why or why not?
Scylla
Bush said that the perpetrators were all given the death penalty.
Two out of three of them are on death row. One was sentenced to imprisonment.
Where is your confusion?
Bush never claimed that the murder was not a hate crime. Therefore the Texas hate crimes statute ought to have inflicted the maximum penalty on all of the perpetrators. It didn’t. The family believed that the law was not specific enough, so they asked the governor to reword the language to conform to the constutionally-approved Winsconsin law.
If Bush had taken any time to consider this amendment I would not have used the word “summary.” Byrd’s sister, FWIW, even claimed that the governor was excessively rude to her.
I understand your wanting to take issue with my word choice. It does have partisan ring to it. But in my opinion, the above issue is much more important.
Sure, why not? Megan’s family in New Jersey evidently did.
Regards,
MR
As a matter of fact, yes. While this minority is rarely discriminated against directly (and in fact does most of the unreasonable discriminating), a significant public policy which benefits all people, including the white Christian male minority, by generally increasing the faith of all people in the ability of the government to fairly and justly govern. When a substantial portion of the population has no faith in the government, crime, civil unrest, and eventually revolution inevitably will follow. Not having crime, civil unrest, and revolution benefits everyone, including the white Christian male minority.
The Office of Civil Rights and the courts have determined that the use of “location” as a basis to deny loans and insurance has been and is used to as a proxy for discrimination on the basis of race. A bank can effectively transfer the risk of loss on a loan due to damage or destruction to the lender by requiring the lender to obtain and maintain casualty insurance on the property, and in fact all lenders do so. As such, location is not a relevant criteron in making loan risk decisions. As such, the use of location as grounds to deny a loan is, presumptively, discrimination on the basis of race, and rightfully so, and therefore illegal.
Discrimination in insurance based on “location” must be based on objective criteria such as local crime rates. Insurers may not arbitrarily designate neighborhoods as “high risk” or “low risk”. The use of arbitrary designations is, again, presumptively discrimination on the basis of race.
I doubt either of these would be illegal now if they had not been used in the past by bigots who saw them as clever ways to get away with being bigots. If you don’t like these rules, blame the white male Christian bigots who made it necessary to make them illegal – not the government for rightfully condemning such immoral behavior.
You appear to believe that it’s ok to discriminate as long as you come up with a sufficiently cleverly disgused proxy to hide the act. Guess what: we see through that straight to your evil heart, and we punish you for it, whether you like it or not.
Maeglin:
I am by no means an expert in the case, but it is my understanding (and feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken,) that there were actually reasons behind the court’s decision not to give the third person involved the death penalty.
With a mandatory maximum penalty this discretion would not have been available.
I thought Bush said “those responsible” had been given the death penalty. That’s how I took it anyway, and I think that’s how it was meant.
And no, I don’t think that being a victim should give you the power to make law. There’s an issue of impartiality here that should be obviously apparent.
That the victim’s family remains unsatisfied can only be expected. I can’t fault them for it, nor can I expect it to be catered to.
I will again say that in this particular instance I thought things were handled very well.
**
How do you think every woman feels when someone is raped in their town by an unknown person? There are other crimes that inspire fear in a broad segment of the population.
**
I wonder if a lot of black people in the community were afraid after the criminals were caught.
**
No. The only valid consideration is the harm caused to the victim. In this case the victim was one James Byrd, Jr. And you and I don’t have a right to feel safe.
Why weren’t they charged with terrorism?
Marc
Lissener:
You said:
“…the cultural accident of Straight-White-Male privilege…”
I am going to have to reluctantly take minor issue with that.
My accomplishments, and those of my family are demonstrably not an accident. Being straight white and male had nothing to do with it. I had a Grandfather die in World War II. My father was raised by a working Widow in The Bronx. My father was a combat decorated Recon Marine in Vietnam, and my other grandfather was orphaned at 12, but nevertheless retired as Chief of Narcotics for the NYC NYPD.
Several generations of very hard work, and sacrifice have resulted in any “privilege” I now enjoy.
Is this true of everyone? I dunno, but I don’t like the generalization overly much. though I agree with the spirit of what you said.
The key word is equal opportunity. If my family were a different color, I doubt it would have turned out the same.
Mr. Zambezi does raise a legitimate point. Reverse discrimination can occur, inequities can slide the other way, and sometimes they do in an attempt to fix these problems. These need to be recognized and addressed as quickly as they become apparent, or the process works for no one.
Mr. Zambezi:
I have seen several people terminated in my office over the past ten years. In each case a written warning was provided of the behavior that was going to lead to termination. A probationary period followed during which the opportunity was given to remedy the situation. After one week they received a status report on how they were doing, and they were again terminated in writing a week later if their was know improvement. A handicapped person was fired in this manner, as well as several women. One woman attempted to bring a charge of sexual harassment against the manager which was very quickly dismissed.
I have owned rental properties in the past, and it is a myth that it is more difficult to evict a minority (unless you don’t have cause.)
Scylla. Regarding your post at the top of the page, I was not talking about group health insurance. And dont’ lecture me on the law of large numbers. The way you describe it, underwriting principles must be ignored so that all of society is benefitted by insurance. it doesn’t work that way.
Lissener: I was not and would not try to make the point that criminal law is an unnecessary infringement on the rights of others. I was talking about quotas, mandatedd minority loans, mandated tuition grants and the like. I was NOT talking about hate crime.
Now Kelly said
I should have been clearer. I meant the risk of the loan going into default and the property value falling. I was not talking about physical hazards.
so, let’s say you have to personally loan someone money for a house. One is in the ghetto and one is in a nice neighborhood. Which would you loan your money to? Forcing a financial institution to ignore its underwriting or risk management practices because of the race of the customer is absurd at best and financially ruinous at worst.
tehh use of arbitrary anything is a bad business practicce. I know a lot of underwriters and finance guys. None would do this. But I am sure some have been sued for it because a few bad risks got turned down.
No, you see straight through to my pragmatic egalitarian heart. I have to run a department. I can’t run it as well when I am told who to hire and who I can’t fire.
Imagine I have a black and white candidate. They are dead equal in every way. I know that if I hire the white and he screws up I can fire him. If the same happens with the black, I have to worry about lawsuits. A pragmatic decision would be to hire the white. It nmakes more business sense. Call it evil if you like.
Look, we get hammered with lawsuits claiming discrimination all the time. Every business does. 99% are BS and they cost us a fortune. Whatever the intent of “special rights” they have a very ugly and costly side that seems to get left out of these heady debates.
Scylla, you are saying that since you have other “privileges” than those conferred by our culture upon SWMs, therefore SWM privilege does not exist.
My description of SWM privilege as a cultural accident is in no way incompatible with other privileges and accomplishments that SWMs may also have.
I don’t understand your objection. If a taxidriver chose you as a fare over a black man, would that be because of your grandfather’s accomplishments? Is the possibility that a landlord might choose you as a tenant over an “out” Lesbian a result of your father’s war decorations?
I think we need to take a cue from KellyM.
This discussion has become a fragmented comparison what “us” gets versus what “them” gets, when it would be far more helpful to step back a bit and see that “us” and “them” are all part of a larger society. The question then becomes “What will help the society as a whole work more smoothly, thereby conferring privilege upon all its members?”
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the answer to that question is the better the balance and flow within and between groups, the better place the society as a whole is for those who live in it–you, Mr.Zambezi, and me, and every individual you may not choose to invite to tea but whose active, productive participation in your society benefits you.
Do you really think a society fragmented into resentful factions of Haves and Have-nots is the ideal society?
You miss my point entirely. People not at risk, who have benefitted from society’s opportunities have a moral and pragmatic responsibility to carry their share of the burden to ensure that those opportunities are available to all.
Walmart wants underprivileged people to do well. If they make money, they can spend it at Walmart. Walmart’s earnings go up. Everybody’s happy.
If society is more successful as a whole, everybody is more successful. You have an interest in equality of opportunity. Fortunately for me, somebody said it better.
"No man is an island entire of itself.
Every man is a piece of the continent
a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less
as well as if a promontory were
as well as if a manner of thine friends
or thine own were.
Every man’s death diminishes me
because I am involved in mankind.
Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls.
It tolls for thee."
Spot on, lissener! I am with you 100%.
I have found that singling out certain protected classes has made white folks angrier…covertly angrier. Because of the threat of lawsuits, most managers are loathe to hire protected people. But they have learned the fine art of documentation.
Trust me, you can’t nail a good manager for discrimination. I prefer to say “we are all equal.” Than “we are are equal, but you poor little folks need extra help because so many people hate your guts.” The message is wrong.
Society changes and becomes more tolerant through pressure from equality minded, vociferous people. Teh laws are just a distraction.
Lissener:
I recognized the difference between opportunity and privilege in my response. I thought the generalization that I quoted did not, and was unfair. I also think it is not constructive in that:
What say we move on?
This strikes me as convolutedly disingenuous, or at best blind and naive. The depth of cultural ignorance and solipsism required for an (American, for the sake of this argument) SWM to believe himself living in a culture that discriminates against him is just beyond my comprehension.
You’re saying, in effect, that unless we agree to maintain the fragmented, unjust society that rewards Hetero Bearers of Pink Penises simply for being born that way, those Penis Bearers will get all pouty and use their ill-gotten political power to spread discontent.
What 100% spot on? You’re cheering for fragmentation!
Translation: because our ever-evolving efforts to manage these problems have not yet achieved perfection and are still subject to the Sneakier Breed of Pink Penis Bearers, we should scrap the whole thing and just return to feudal Europe.
Same Old Bullshit. Again, reducing the argument to a bumpersticker before you can take it on. The Liberal message is not the pathetic (and not very original) distortion you make it out. BUt you know this; you’ve trotted this out, been called on it, and ignored it many times before. It’s not “you poor little folks need extra help”; it’s “we acknowledge our complicity in a society that has sabotaged your opportunities and pledge to accept responsibility for our actions and to make a practical effort to address and redress that sabotage.”
Well, THAT’S certainly the voice of reason ringing out.
No, I am saying that if you try to dictate how people should think and act in ways that are perceived as unjust, then the people will be unhappy.
Lissener, you are being a perfect example of what I see as the problem. You don’t like the way the world is so you go running to Washington demanding that they legislate the world into the shape you want. And then when it doesn’t work out the way you want it to, you demand more laws.
And yes, the message implicit in such things as Afirmative action is that they “need” help and that many people hate them.
I have had to jump through about a billion hoops this year to get rid of two minority employees. Unless you have been a manager, don’t even try to tell me how these laws work in the real world. It is a royal pain in the ass and protected classes do have a distinct advantage over Pink Penis Bearers like me. I see it, I live it.
And anyway, my point was that society is a more powerful force than the law. A minority can make a law to try to govern society, but society only obeys its own laws. Look at the anti drug laws. No effect. Drugs go out of vogue, the usage drops.
Lissener:
There ARE instances of reverse discrimination.
They DO breed resentment, and retribution, and they perpetuate the problem.
Equality doesn’t mean “Let’s grab stuff from Whitey,” any more than “equal but without opportunity” is a valid solution. There’s a line between the two that is in everybody’s best interests.
Mr. Z:
“I have had to jump through about a billion hoops this year to get rid of two minority employees. Unless you have been a manager, don’t
even try to tell me how these laws work in the real world. It is a royal pain in the ass and protected classes do have a distinct advantage
over Pink Penis Bearers like me. I see it, I live it.”
I don’t understand. I work for a Fortune 500 co. and we haven’t had any problems terminating employees with cause.
Are the hoops and quotas you refer to Governmental, or internal. Could you be specific?
Lissener:
I prefer
Albino Love Python Enabled
Moby Dicked (Great White Whale)
Heat Seeking Moisture Missile of Paleness Equippped
to Pink Penis Bearer
Thanks 