Why not just treat everybody equally under the law?

MJ of the Delaware Liberal posted:

Remembering Matthew Shepard

October 12th, 2011

Thirteen years ago tonight, Matthew Shepard died from a beating at the hands of two homophobes. Although both were convicted and faced the death penalty, it was through the grace of Judy and Dennis Shepard that their lives were spared.

Matthew was targeted for this beating because he was gay. He was taken to a desolate spot outside of Laramie, Wyoming, tortured and beaten, and left for dead. When his body was discovered, the person finding him thought he was looking at a scarecrow.

On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Act, in memory of two victims of hate crimes that were murdered in 1998.

For those who think the we’ve come a long way since Matthew’s death, you’re wrong. Hate crimes against gays, lesbians, and transgender individuals continue to rise, especially in major metropolitan areas. Just last month, a DC police officers was arrested for assaulting a transgender woman.

We must never forget Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, and the hundreds of other victims of hate crimes that have been murdered. Never Again!!!

The two men who murdered Mr Shepard both received sentences of life without the possibility of parole, and one of them could have been sentenced to death. (The second man pleaded guilty in exchange for not having to risk capital punishment.) Of the three men who murdered Mr Byrd, two received the death penalty, and the third life without parole.

Given the sentences the murderers received, just how much more do you think the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Act could have done to them?

Matthew Shepard was murdered because he was a homosexual. Scott Robins was killed in Philadelphia because his neighbor hated his loud music. Is Mr Robins any less dead? Was his killing somehow more acceptable, or less heinous, because his killer wasn’t shooting him over race or sexual preference?

Of course, murder isn’t always the end result of a hatred-motivated attack, but is it really worse if a man is assaulted because he is black than it is if a man is assaulted because someone wanted to steal his wallet?

To me, it’s pretty simple: all citizens should be equal under the law, and no citizen’s life is either more or less valuable than anyone else’s. If a man thinks that someone he sees walking down the street is homosexual, and decides to beat the crap out of him based on that judgement, he ought to be punished severely; if a man thinks that someone he sees walking down the street had a lot of cash in his wallet, and decides to beat the crap out of him in order to steal that wallet, he ought to be punished severely . . . and pretty much identically with the thug in the first example.

We have had instances in our history where the identity of the victim and the perpetrator determined the severity of the punishment. It wasn’t so long ago that if a black man raped a black woman, not much was done about it, but if a black man raped a white woman, he’d be lucky if he was only caught, tried, convicted and executed. It wasn’t too terribly far back in our past that if a white man killed another white man, he’d go to jail, and possibly be executed, but if a white man killed a black man, well, shucks, he was just having a bit of fun, and things got out of hand a bit, and, you know, he’s got a wife and kids at home, and that black fella, why he was just lazy and shiftless anyway, so why don’t we just forget this and go on home?

The hate crimes concept is one where we are saying we really disapprove of this kind of thing — kind of like how we keep sentencing people to death to show how angry we are with the killer, but have no real intention to actually carry it out — but it flies in the face of what we say we want, that being for everyone to be treated equally under the law.

The men who killed Matthew Shepard were never convicted of violating a hate crimes statute, but there’s really nothing more we could do to punish them if they had been. Two of the three men who murdered James Byrd were executed; somehow, I fail to see what more a hate crimes conviction could have added.

To me, those were the best possible outcomes (though, being opposed to capital punishment, I wish that the killers of Mr Byrd had been sentenced to life without parole instead): the law treated the killing of Messrs Shepard and Byrd exactly as the law would have treated the killing of anyone else, and the message in that is that there is no one in our society who is different under the law, no one who can be attacked just because he’s different from you.

107 Comments

  1. Hate crimes legislation is a difficult one for me because one the one hand, murder of someone just because of their identity (be it gay, Christian, ginger, whatever) does feel worse than murder because of, say, robbery or jealousy. But it also feels like thought-crime – you’re federalizing the crime (which is almost always a bad idea) just because of the thoughts that are going through someone’s head when they’re committing the act.

    To play devil’s advocate here: the main argument for treating hate crimes more harshly than normal crimes is that a hate crime isn’t just a crime against a person but against an entire group. By assaulting a gay man because of his sexual identity, you’re not just committing a crime against that man, but you’re committing a crime that is intended to intimidate the entire gay community. Because a hate crime affects more people than a “normal” crime, it’s generally fair to give the hate crime a harsher sentence.

  2. By that logic, doesn’t a mugger wind up terrorizing an entire neighborhood, as people hear that there is an assailant somewhere out there, locally, preying on people?

  3. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Fall Back Edition

  4. Pingback: The Watchers Council | therightplanet.com

  5. Pingback: NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Fall Back Edition

  6. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels Council Nominations Honorable Mention: Fall Edition | Maggie's Notebook

  7. Pingback: Bookworm Room » From the Watcher’s Council — what I’m reading right now

  8. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results

  9. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results 10-21-2011 | Virginia Right!

  10. Pingback: The Watcher’s Council – Results Week of 21 Oct 2011 | therightplanet.com

  11. Pingback: NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results

  12. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results | My Blog

  13. Pingback: Watcher Results |

  14. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results | My Blog

  15. Pingback: TrevorLoudon.com: New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results

  16. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations | My Blog

  17. Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council results for October 21

  18. In my view, the Watcher’s Council is a periodic collection of radical right wing pontifications/propaganda, as would become evident to any reasonable person.

  19. In my view, the Watcher’s Council is a periodic collection of radical right wing pontifications/propaganda, as would become evident to any reasonable person.

    Since it’s been proven time and time again that YOU are not a reasonable person, your “view” means absolutely shit.

  20. Perry wrote:

    In my view, the Watcher’s Council is a periodic collection of radical right wing pontifications/propaganda, as would become evident to any reasonable person.

    So, are you saying that the notion of treating everybody equally under the law, the theme of this post, constitutes “radical right wing pontification/propaganda?” I can’t speak for the Watcher’s Council, but I’ll happily claim that the idea of treating everyone equally under the law is something that this radical right winger supports.

    If you disagreed with the main article, you never said so; there are no previous comments from you on this thread. Shall we infer from your comment that you do not believe in the equal treatment of everybody under the law?

  21. I fully agree with Hube’s assessment and with Dana’s remarks. But it’s obvious Perry and his ilk are not to be considered seriously among people who have any quality reasoning capability.

  22. “Heck, the esteemed Mr Hitchcock even has CSPT listed on his site sidebar as one of the “Self-Proclaimed Right Wing Extremist™ Blogs.” If saying that everyone should be treated equally under the law is a Right Wing Extremist™ position, well I’d guess we’d all agree! :)”

    Dana, finally, finally we have Hitchcock speaking the truth. It is about his “right wing extremist” label!!! Now stick with this precedent, Hitchcock! – I guarantee it will do your soul some badly needed good!!! :)

    And Hube, do you think I give a s**t about your out-of-control “s**t”? Your credibility, honor, and demeanor on here are beneath the detection limit!

  23. And Hube, do you think I give a s**t about your out-of-control “s**t”? Your credibility, honor, and demeanor on here are beneath the detection limit!

    No, I don’t, as you’ve amply demonstrated again and again with your memory-fatigued histrionics and outright falsehoods. Thus, again, you are not even close to a “reasonable” observer, hence your opinion of the Watcher’s Council is completely meaningless.

  24. “If you disagreed with the main article, you never said so; there are no previous comments from you on this thread. Shall we infer from your comment that you do not believe in the equal treatment of everybody under the law?”

    Of course I agree with equal treatment under the law, Dana. But what treatment under the law did the five tobacco company CEO’s get when they committed perjury at a Congressional hearing, standing up there with their right hands raised, swearing that they had no knowledge that the nicotine in their tobacco products was addictive? We all know that perjury is a crime. Were these CEO’s ever indicted?

    This is just one example of how white collar alleged criminal behavior is overlooked.

    What happened to the investment bankers who packaged toxic mortgage assets and sold them globally as if they had value? Does this not constitute fraud?

    How about the executives of the rating agencies who granted entities such as AGI triple A ratings obviously undeservedly? Have these people been prosecuted?

    But catch the factory worker with 4 grams of marijuana hidden under the seat of his car, and he is sent to jail for possession of an illegal substance, for long periods if he has three strikes.

    Our judicial system must focus more attention on white collar crime wrt equal treatment under the law!

  25. “No, I don’t, as you’ve amply demonstrated again and again with your memory-fatigued histrionics and outright falsehoods. Thus, again, you are not even close to a “reasonable” observer, hence your opinion of the Watcher’s Council is completely meaningless.”

    Hube, if you really believed what you say here, then you would ignore this “meaningless” opinion of mine. But as usual, you don’t, because you are compulsive and undisciplined, and because you are obviously an out-and-out liar!

  26. Of course Perry has a poor opinion of the Watcher’s Council, Hube. They’re not a left wing, commie, socialist, nazi, anarchist, anti-American, anti capitalist, antisemetic group. All the Watcher’s Council has to do is join the fleabaggers and they’d be okay with Perry. BTW Perry, after they’re done “killing” and “eating” the “rich”, who’s next? The better looking? The smarter? Or the usual scapegoat, the Jooos? Is there ever an end to who the leftists want to kill to attain utopia?

    I noticed the fleabaggers in Oakland are starting to riot. Yeah, just like the Tea Party did. You do remember the Great Tea Party Riots of 2010, don’t you? No? Neither do I.

  27. Hube, if you really believed what you say here, then you would ignore this “meaningless” opinion of mine. But as usual, you don’t, because you are compulsive and undisciplined, and because you are obviously an out-and-out liar!

    Why do you respond to me, then? Is it because you are compulsive and undisciplined, and because you are obviously an out-and-out liar? Why yes you are!

    Not to mention, totally and completely unreasonable and devoid of reality as evidenced by the laughably ridiculous moniker of your barely visited blog.

  28. Perry wrote:

    “If you disagreed with the main article, you never said so; there are no previous comments from you on this thread. Shall we infer from your comment that you do not believe in the equal treatment of everybody under the law?”

    Of course I agree with equal treatment under the law, Dana.

    OK, if you agree with equal treatment under the law, which was the main point of the article, why would you criticize the Watchers’ Council as “a periodic collection of radical right wing pontifications/propaganda, as would become evident to any reasonable person,” when they (apparently) approved of an article with which you agree?

  29. “OK, if you agree with equal treatment under the law, which was the main point of the article, why would you criticize the Watchers’ Council as “a periodic collection of radical right wing pontifications/propaganda, as would become evident to any reasonable person,” when they (apparently) approved of an article with which you agree?”

    Hitchcockj Dana, there is no connection between the generic Watchers’ Council and “equal treatment under the law”, unless you try to make one, then maybe we have something to discuss.

  30. “Of course Perry has a poor opinion of the Watcher’s Council, Hube. They’re not a left wing, commie, socialist, nazi, anarchist, anti-American, anti capitalist, antisemetic group. All the Watcher’s Council has to do is join the fleabaggers and they’d be okay with Perry. BTW Perry, after they’re done “killing” and “eating” the “rich”, who’s next? The better looking? The smarter? Or the usual scapegoat, the Jooos? Is there ever an end to who the leftists want to kill to attain utopia?

    I noticed the fleabaggers in Oakland are starting to riot. Yeah, just like the Tea Party did. You do remember the Great Tea Party Riots of 2010, don’t you? No? Neither do I.”

    Sorry, Hoagie, but there is not one thing you stated in your stupid rant that contains any more intelligence or insight than a second grader with a foul mouth!

    Moreover, I doubt that you know a thing about the Watchers’ Council. When/if you do look into it, I guarantee that you will just love it!!! Hube epitomizes their stupidity. Would you like an example?

    All you guys know is yelling and screaming. Can’t even have a reasonable discussion any more with any of you flakes! Consider that a compliment!!!

  31. Moreover, I doubt that you know a thing about the Watchers’ Council. When/if you do look into it, I guarantee that you will just love it!!! Hube epitomizes their stupidity. Would you like an example?

    Your “example” would be meaningless because, as has been established ad nauseum, you are completely unreasonable, mentally deficient, and passive-aggressive. But feel free if you so desire. It’ll be great to get a good guffaw this afternoon.

  32. All you guys know is yelling and screaming. Can’t even have a reasonable discussion any more with any of you flakes! Consider that a compliment!!!

    Um, then why do YOU come here? Why not limit yourself to your own blog which averages about 2 visitors per day?

  33. Right, Hube, and how many responses per day are you getting on your blog, after how many years? Most of your posts elicit a big fat zero! Pot-kettle.

    I know you would love for me to cease on here, which is exactly why I will not, no matter how much more you behave with utter contempt. You radical righties need some push back on here. This is all you know, to personally attack those with whom you disagree. It’s your obnoxious nature, as others have already noted. You have yet to learn how to have an honorable debate, because when you get it, back come the personal attacks from the likes of you and the Hitch. It’s entirely predictable.

    Instead of this bickering and name calling, here is what we should be debating: Decline and fall of the American empire

    The economic powerhouse of the 20th century emerged stronger from the Depression. But faced with cultural decay, structural weaknesses and reliance on finance, can the US do it again?

    “America clocked up a record last week. The latest drop in house prices meant that the cost of real estate has fallen by 33% since the peak – even bigger than the 31% slide seen when John Steinbeck was writing The Grapes of Wrath.

    Unemployment has not returned to Great Depression levels but at 9.1% of the workforce it is still at levels that will have nerves jangling in the White House. The last president to be re-elected with unemployment above 7.2% was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    The US is a country with serious problems. Getting on for one in six depend on government food stamps to ensure they have enough to eat. The budget, which was in surplus little more than a decade ago, now has a deficit of Greek-style proportions. There is policy paralysis in Washington. ….”

    And I would add: … and faced with a dysfunctional government, made dysfunctional by America’s radical Right!

  34. I noticed the fleabaggers in Oakland are starting to riot. Yeah, just like the Tea Party did.

    As has been mentioned, the Occupy Maine protesters had an IED thrown at them.

    Do you or do you not support applying anti-terrorism laws to those engaging in domestic terrorism – even if they aren’t scary Muslims? Should those who might know who threw the bomb be rounded up, detained without charge, and interrogated – even if they’re right-wing, white Americans?

  35. Right, Hube, and how many responses per day are you getting on your blog, after how many years? Most of your posts elicit a big fat zero! Pot-kettle.

    Earth to Perry: Visitors do not equal comments. You get neither.

    I know you would love for me to cease on here

    To the contrary — I need the laughs and catharsis. Fish in a barrel, so to speak.

    This is all you know, to personally attack those with whom you disagree.

    What was that about the pot and kettle?

    It’s your obnoxious nature, as others have already noted.

    Let’s see — you and Phoe. That’s your “others.” As opposed to you pissing off people across the political spectrum. Nice try though. Actually, no it wasn’t.

    You have yet to learn how to have an honorable debate

    Right. See above. People across the political spectrum recognize that you do not desire, nor engage in, “honorable” debate. It’s like the name of your blog — a total, hysterical falsehood.

  36. “Right. See above. People across the political spectrum recognize that you do not desire, nor engage in, “honorable” debate. It’s like the name of your blog — a total, hysterical falsehood.”

    Hube, you lie, otherwise, citations please!

  37. “Earth to Perry: Visitors do not equal comments. You get neither.”

    Like I said, Hube, virtually zero comments on your blog. I wonder why that is? Contrast your blog to Dana’s here, with plenty of comments on a daily basis. A little introspection on your part might be in order. Never mind, you won’t do that, I know. It’s always everyone else but you yourself as your ego dictates. I recognize the type, as I’ve seen it before, but you are the worst in my experience. I must say, however, you met your equal on DL, and it was not pretty at all. But the insults and language you threw out over there have somehow migrated over to here. You need a victim, Hube, that is part of your dysfunction. If it were not me and PiaToR, you would find someone else, would you not?

  38. Hube, you lie, otherwise, citations please!

    No need. The many times previously mentioned Steve Newton and Mike Matthews had to call you out on your inanity. Case closed, liar.

    Like I said, Hube, virtually zero comments on your blog.

    Except that you changed the goal posts to make your “case,” such that it is.

    The fact is, I’ve never had a lot of regular commenters, even when you infested the place. On the other hand, I have many regular readers. You have neither. Why do I have many regular readers (who do occasionally comment, BTW), Perry? If I am such the ogre as you say, why do I get the # of regular and unique visitors per day that I do? Here’s the answer which your feeble mental faculties and passive-aggressive sickness blind you to: Because I am not the caricature you routinely profess. Unlike you, I don’t lie, I don’t repeat talking points day after day, I don’t forget things as easy as I take a piss, and I don’t easily irritate people of my own political stripe. And I only give to you what you routinely give to others with whom you disagree. As already proven, your schtick is transparent to those who even share your political bent, and they think you’re an idiot. So, the sooner you realize it is YOU who is the problem and not everybody else, you’ll be on the road to recovery.

    Unfortunately, I know you’ll refuse. It’s who you are.

  39. Dana asks: Why not treat everyone equally under the law?

    Right, why not, but we don’t. Check this out:

    “….

    Today, it is glaringly obvious to a wide range of Americans that the wealth of the top 1% is the byproduct not of risk-taking entrepreneurship, but of corrupted control of our legal and political systems. Thanks to this control, they can write laws that have no purpose than to abolish the few limits that still constrain them, as happened during the Wall Street deregulation orgy of the 1990s. They can retroactively immunize themselves for crimes they deliberately committed for profit, as happened when the 2008 Congress shielded the nation’s telecom giants for their role in Bush’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping program.

    It is equally obvious that they are using that power not to lift the boats of ordinary Americans but to sink them. In short, Americans are now well aware of what the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, Illinois’s Dick Durbin, blurted out in 2009 about the body in which he serves: the banks “frankly own the place.”

    If you were to assess the state of the union in 2011, you might sum it up this way: rather than being subjected to the rule of law, the nation’s most powerful oligarchs control the law and are so exempt from it; and increasing numbers of Americans understand that and are outraged. At exactly the same time that the nation’s elites enjoy legal immunity even for egregious crimes, ordinary Americans are being subjected to the world’s largest and one of its harshest penal states, under which they are unable to secure competent legal counsel and are harshly punished with lengthy prison terms for even trivial infractions.

    ….”

    You will see if you read this entire piece, that the author, Glen Greenwald, effectively makes the case that this inequality has been ingrained in American culture from the very beginning. Now that really hard times are striking many Americans, and given the extensive network of news and opinion outlets, it is beginning to dawn on many Americans that we have a cancer in our system which needs attention and work in order to excise it, which is why this Occupy Wall Street is beginning to resonate across our nation, in fact, across the globe. Is this a second American Revolution in the making? This inequality cancer exists because the American people allow it. When the day comes that the people no longer allow it, we will have bloodshed quite similar to what we are seeing in the Middle East as the Arab Spring continues to take root, in my view. Will our military power then be turned against our own? I honestly wonder!

  40. “No need. The many times previously mentioned Steve Newton and Mike Matthews had to call you out on your inanity. Case closed, liar.”

    Since your honor and credibility are beneath detection, citation please!

    Having a debate with someone is hardly “inanity”, and for you to pull Mike Matthews up is your inanity, and you know exactly what I mean. Need I point out that once he got a job as an elementary teacher, he immediately shut down his blog? Regarding Steve, we had friendly debates. He is a libertarian in the vein of Dana here, and maintained a polite demeanor in his discussions on his blog, now also extinct. I had/have the highest respect for his intellect. And his co-blogger has been arrested for drug violations. Just a little background to color in for Hube here.

    “Because I am not the caricature you routinely profess. Unlike you, I don’t lie, I don’t repeat talking points day after day, ….”

    But you are that caricature, and you do lie, constantly! I don’t have to profess it because you demonstrate it on here on a daily basis. But you do repeat yourself day after day, Hube! That you are not aware of these character issues is part of your dysfunction.

    “As already proven, your schtick is transparent to those who even share your political bent, and they think you’re an idiot.”

    And now you arrogantly assign yourself the task of speaking for other people. What a sorry case you are, Hube! You simply cannot hide it on here, because it is right here for all to see, every single day, as you hover over your victims and pounce with personal attacks, always. That you apparently don’t see yourself, well Hube, that’s on you!

  41. Need I point out that once he got a job as an elementary teacher, he immediately shut down his blog?

    And this is relevant how …? BTW, he actually shut it down before he got that job, FWIW.

    Having a debate with someone is hardly “inanity”, and for you to pull Mike Matthews up is your inanity, and you know exactly what I mean.

    Actually I don’t. Spell it out. See if you can without your usual lying and total misuse of actual facts.

    Regarding Steve, we had friendly debates.

    According to you. He still had to call you out when you began your usual nonsense. I’d say “you know it and I know it,” but everyone along with myself only know it because your memory is so outrageously pathetic. The most recent example is today you — after myriad posts saying Hitch and I were liars about Fox News viewership vs. major networks’ — finally realizing that we were right. It was there all along, you kept denying it, until your perpetual inanity finally caught up to you. Such is the case now with Matthews and Newton. What I say is FACT; all you have to dispute it is your feeble memory which is only slightly better than an amnesiac’s.

  42. You will see if you read this entire piece, that the author, Glen Greenwald, effectively makes the case that this inequality has been ingrained in American culture from the very beginning

    Matt Taibbi made a similar comment recently:

    All weekend I was thinking about this “jealousy” question, and I just kept coming back to all the different ways the game is rigged. People aren’t jealous and they don’t want privileges. They just want a level playing field, and they want Wall Street to give up its cheat codes,

    The w1ngnuts aren’t interested in the truth, because they’re arguing for neo-feudalism, for America and Americans to become owned by Wall Street. In their hearts, they’re already serfs, and they’re angry with people like the OWS protesters for wanting to be free.

    [link fixed – pH]

  43. I found it interesting that Perry actually quoted part of an article I wrote on my blog without actually reading that article and understanding it. The article where I showed much respect for a couple respect-worthy Liberals but great disdain for the disdain-worthy Perry and explained why.

    That’s another thing the willfully blind and willfully deaf radical Leftist hyper-partisan passive-aggressive Perry will never understand as he spews forth with his outright lies and Socialist propaganda and his outright demand that the US Government expand a Tenth Amendment violating Federal policy.

  44. Perry wrote:

    “OK, if you agree with equal treatment under the law, which was the main point of the article, why would you criticize the Watchers’ Council as “a periodic collection of radical right wing pontifications/propaganda, as would become evident to any reasonable person,” when they (apparently) approved of an article with which you agree?”

    Dana, there is no connection between the generic Watchers’ Council and “equal treatment under the law”, unless you try to make one, then maybe we have something to discuss.

    The Watchers’ Council is a group of conservative bloggers, Hube being amongst them, who submit different articles, of their own and from other people, to their group for consideration. That’s what happened here: Hube selected this article as one he thought his compatriots ought to read. They also vote on which articles they believe are best.

    Now, it appears that an article on equal treatment under the law was one which found some favor with that group. Given that you have stated that you agree with that concept — though you did not mention the more specific point of the article, about treating so-called “hate crimes” differently — shouldn’t such an article be an opportunity for you to bridge the gap between conservatives and liberals? After all, they seem to agree with you, at least on this one item. What purpose is served by you trashing people who happened to agree with you on something?

  45. What purpose is served by you trashing people who happened to agree with you on something?

    Don’t confuse the “man,” Dana. He’s busy trying to remember WTF he just had for dinner.

  46. The Phoenician wrote:

    Police shoot Marine veteran.

    The w1ngnuts here are no doubt cheering.

    And what was he doing that led to the police using non-lethal force against him?

    Some people might think it a bit disingenuous to write “Police shoot Marine veteran,” from which most people would assume that the police were using live, lethal ammunition, when the linked story notes that “A Marine veteran at Occupy Oakland was injured Monday night after being shot at point-blank range with bean bags or rubber bullets by police.” The police were attempting to disperse the protestors, after the city said that their encampment was illegal. Oakland, the city of my birth, is run by, you guessed it, the Democrats: Mayor Jean Quan is a Democrat, who succeeded former Representative Ron Dellums, also a Democrat, in that office, who succeeded Jerry Brown, yet another Democrat. The city is represented in the State Assembly by three Democrats (no Republicans) and one State Senator, a Democrat. A far-left Democrat, Barbara Lee, represents the city in the House of Representatives, and both of California’s Senators are Democrats.

    But, don’t worry, I’m sure that there’s some way we can blame it all on George Bush!

  47. Hube addressed Perry:

    The most recent example is today you — after myriad posts saying Hitch and I were liars about Fox News viewership vs. major networks’ — finally realizing that we were right.

    Actually, the difference was that, while the link you provided showed same thing, Perry didn’t believe it until I provided a link with the data. I do not know why Perry refused to believe your documentation, unless, of course, he never followed the link you provided.

  48. Hube wrote:

    Need I point out that once he got a job as an elementary teacher, he immediately shut down his blog? (Perry)

    And this is relevant how …? BTW, he actually shut it down before he got that job, FWIW.

    One difference I’d note is that the gentleman in question was using his real name, while Hube is using a pseudonym. Remember Natalie Munroe, the Central Bucks East High School teacher who got in hot water for comments she made on a blog concerning her opinions of some students? I can see why a teacher might not want to have an internet-available blog which specifically identified him.

  49. Actually, the difference was that, while the link you provided showed same thing, Perry didn’t believe it until I provided a link with the data. I do not know why Perry refused to believe your documentation, unless, of course, he never followed the link you provided.

    I expect that to be the major part of the reason why Perry foolishly dug deeper and deeper with his game. He demands “citations” constantly, but is well known for rarely if ever actually checking back and following the documentation, and then vanishing from that thread only to repeat his dishonest game in a new thread. Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

  50. And what was he doing that led to the police using non-lethal force against him?

    Acting like a free American. No wonder you hate him, and his fellow Marines…

  51. Oh, and as regards that “non-lethal force”? Reports are he’s in hospital with a skull fracture from a tear gas canister.

    He survived Iraq only to come home, join a protest as he was told was his right – and get hospitalised by a police state. And contemptable little authoritarian followers like yourself cheer on this sort of thing.

  52. Occupy Oakland: Iraq war veteran in critical condition after police clashes

    An Iraq war veteran has a fractured skull and brain swelling after allegedly being hit by a police projectile.

    Scott Olsen is in a “critical condition” in Highland hospital in Oakland, a hospital spokesman confirmed.

    Olsen, 24, suffered the head injury during protests in Oakland on Tuesday evening. More than 15 people were arrested after a crowd gathered to demonstrate against the police operation to clear two Occupy Oakland camps in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

    Jay Finneburgh, a photographer who was covering the protest, published pictures of Olsen lying on the ground.

    “This poor guy was right behind me when he was hit in the head with a police projectile. He went down hard and did not get up,” Finneburgh wrote.
    […]
    “It’s terrible to go over to Iraq twice and come back injured, and then get injured by the police that are supposed to be protecting us,” he said.

    He said Olsen had served two tours of Iraq, in 2006 and 2007. Olsen was in 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines with Shannon before leaving the military in 2010.

    You call for these people to go fight wars for you because it makes you feel manly to blow up Iraqi men, women, and children – and then you support breaking their skulls if they dare question why the US isn’t actually the republic they were promised.

    I guess every kleptocracy needs a few cowardly lickspittles cheering it on.

  53. “I expect that to be the major part of the reason why Perry foolishly dug deeper and deeper with his game. He demands “citations” constantly, but is well known for rarely if ever actually checking back and following the documentation, and then vanishing from that thread only to repeat his dishonest game in a new thread. Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.”

    Who are you trying to fool, Hitchcock? You never provide the citations when requested, instead, you come forth with your usual ugly ad homs. We’ve come to expect this debased behavior out of this self-proclaimed Christian who has not yet grasped the real teachings of Christ.

  54. “I can see why a teacher might not want to have an internet-available blog which specifically identified him.”

    Exactly, Dana, and especially re Mike Mathews, who was about as trashy mouthed a blogger as I’ve ever encountered. Hube is a close second, which is why he is so sensitive about his identity being revealed; he knows full well what a poor behavior model he would be for a teacher. Here I meant to praise his sister, not intending to reveal Hube’s identity.

  55. Hube addressed Perry:

    The most recent example is today you — after myriad posts saying Hitch and I were liars about Fox News viewership vs. major networks’ — finally realizing that we were right.

    Actually, the difference was that, while the link you provided showed same thing, Perry didn’t believe it until I provided a link with the data. I do not know why Perry refused to believe your documentation, unless, of course, he never followed the link you provided.

    Right, Dana, I may not have followed the link, my bad. But I’d like Hube to show where I called him a liar on this issue. Now of course we all know that Hube is a liar, and worse, considering his personal attacks and character assassinations on here, on a daily basis! This is what contaminates your blog, Dana, and reduces your hits.

  56. “What purpose is served by you trashing people who happened to agree with you on something?”

    You have a point, Dana, on that one issue, but generically, the Watchers’ Council is a collection of right wing militant ideologues trying to behave as if they were intellectuals, partaking in self-congratulatory rituals. They are amusing to watch. I must say, Hube fits very well in this group, because ideologue is exactly what he is, along with the personal vilifications of political figures they don’t like often emanating from them. One could call them propagandists in the vein of Hitchcock. Must I pull out some examples? Check them out!

  57. “Don’t confuse the “man,” Dana. He’s busy trying to remember WTF he just had for dinner.”

    More here from Hube: He can’t help it folks, so be kind!

  58. “That’s another thing the willfully blind and willfully deaf radical Leftist hyper-partisan passive-aggressive Perry will never understand as he spews forth with his outright lies and Socialist propaganda and his outright demand that the US Government expand a Tenth Amendment violating Federal policy.”

    Citations please!

  59. More here from Hube: He can’t help it folks, so be kind!

    That’s right — I can’t help pointing out the truth!

    And I warned you, Perry [last name redacted] about posting about the person you did — again, in this thread. The gloves are off now, son. You asked for it.

  60. Hube is a close second, which is why he is so sensitive about his identity being revealed; he knows full well what a poor behavior model he would be for a teacher.

    Is that so? Then one wonders why Perry [last name redacted] is not worried about being labeled a poor role model as 1) a father, 2) a husband, and 3) a decent human being.

  61. “The w1ngnuts aren’t interested in the truth, because they’re arguing for neo-feudalism, for America and Americans to become owned by Wall Street. In their hearts, they’re already serfs, and they’re angry with people like the OWS protesters for wanting to be free.”

    That’s right, PiaToR, and Taibbi goes on to say:

    “When you take into consideration all the theft and fraud and market manipulation and other evil shit Wall Street bankers have been guilty of in the last ten-fifteen years, you have to have balls like church bells to trot out a propaganda line that says the protesters are just jealous of their hard-earned money.

    Think about it: there have always been rich and poor people in America, so if this is about jealousy, why the protests now? The idea that masses of people suddenly discovered a deep-seated animus/envy toward the rich – after keeping it strategically hidden for decades – is crazy.

    Where was all that class hatred in the Reagan years, when openly dumping on the poor became fashionable? Where was it in the last two decades, when unions disappeared and CEO pay relative to median incomes started to triple and quadruple?”

    We hear this class envy/class warfare Limbaugh-like rhetoric from the Righties on here quite often, their assuming that they know the motivations of each and every participant in the OWS demonstrations. The irony is, that most of them on here qualify to be out there on the streets protesting themselves. Why they decide to defend the Wall Street culprits is beyond me, as this seems to me like an act of self-immolation.

  62. Hube is a close second, which is why he is so sensitive about his identity being revealed; he knows full well what a poor behavior model he would be for a teacher.

    Is that so? Then one wonders why Perry is not worried about being labeled a poor role model as 1) a father, 2) a husband, and 3) a decent human being.

    Hube, you are a snake, outing my name, just like Hitchcock also did a while back. Fortunately, I have the ability to edit it out. As far as my role modeling for my loved ones, I will let them be the deciders, and certainly not one as corrupted as you are, such that most of what you say is meaningless because it is nothing more than personal attacks and vilifications. This is getting really ridiculous, and tiresome, and a waste of time. But you persist, so I respond.

  63. Hube, you are a snake, outing my name

    And I’ve asked you repeatedly not to mention a certain relative. Yet you persist. That’s why the gloves are off. Shall I post the e-mails I sent to you about it in here to show the world what snake YOU are??

  64. Hube, you are a snake, outing my name

    And I’ve asked you repeatedly not to mention a certain relative. Yet you persist. That’s why the gloves are off. Shall I post the e-mails I sent to you about it in here to show the world what snake YOU are??

    The point is, Hube, that I did not out your name. [redacted] The solution is for you to change your behavior. If you are unable to do that, get help!

    Now let’s you and I get back to behaving like adults, shall we?

  65. The point is, Hube, that I did not out your name.

    The POINT is, I politely requested that you NOT mention the name for the reasons I noted in the e-mail. You persisted. As for your name, as has been pointed out previously you YOURSELF have used it, so your crying game is just that.

    I warned you; you didn’t listen. If you persist, you’ve no one to blame but yourself.

  66. The point is, Hube, that I did not out your name.

    The POINT is, I politely requested that you NOT mention the name for the reasons I noted in the e-mail. You persisted. As for your name, as has been pointed out previously you YOURSELF have used it, so your crying game is just that.

    I warned you; you didn’t listen. If you persist, you’ve no one to blame but yourself.

    You know, Hube, it is interesting that you would assume evil intent on my part, which could not be farther from the truth. It seems that you are projecting, which is just one more sign of a disturbed person who needs to get his act together! I could be wrong, of course, but I have to wonder if your animosity toward me is that I represent a father figure, implying that your antagonism is actually meant to be against your own father. Is that it Hube? There certainly is something very weird/mysterious about this entire situation with you on here.

  67. Oh I see, Hube, you persist in attempting to out me, as you now use your editing privileges on here to insert my last name. What a ditz you are, playing this game like a child. This is a game that you, by definition, will win, because I will no longer attempt to go in and delete my last name. So you win, Hube, but I think Dana might have something to say about this latest behavior of yours. We’ll see!

  68. “As for your name, as has been pointed out previously you YOURSELF have used it, so your crying game is just that. “

    I chose not to use it here, which you have now willfully violated, Hube. Contrary to your belief, I did not willfully violate your wishes, as it never occurred to me, in spite of your emails, that I was outing your identity. Whether you choose to believe me or not, well that’s on you, Hube, and truthfully, I don’t really care!

  69. Contrary to your belief, I did not willfully violate your wishes

    Yes, you did. Stand by for the e-mails, liar.

    No, I did not. You continue to project your own behavior onto me. Nevertheless, you will do what you choose to do, and you will believe what you choose to believe. You have already violated the expected behavior of an administrator on this blog, which is reprehensible. Lord knows what you will do next.

  70. No, I did not. You continue to project your own behavior onto me.

    Fact: I requested TWICE you do not mention my sibling’s name. You WILLFULLY ignored me and are now attempting to somehow absolve yourself, Perry [last name redacted].

    Reply |Hube to Perry
    show details 4/28/10

    Perry,

    I appreciate the kind words about my sister; however, I’d appreciate you removing the reference to her from your recent CSPT comment as it can lead one to my real ID (which I don’t want).

    Thank you,
    Hube

    The Colossus of Rhodey (http://colossus.mu.nu)
    & Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org)

    Reply Forward

    Reply |Perry [last name redacted] to me
    show details 4/28/10

    Done, Hube. You might be interested to know that your sister and you are very obviously brother and sister; some time back, you put your photo on your blog, which was my clue, and which I have known for a long time. She is indeed an impressive person, judging from her column. I always read it! Perry

    Reply |Hube to Perry
    show details Jan 5 2011

    Perry,

    I asked you before not to reference my sister in comments/posts. While I appreciate the sentiment, I do not want such to compromise my quasi-anonymity.

    Thank you,
    Hube

    The Colossus of Rhodey
    & Newsbusters

    Reply Forward

    Reply |Perry [last name redacted] to me
    show details Jan 5

    Sorry Hube. I should have known better. I will go in and delete the post. Perry

    End of story. You WILLFULLY ignored what YOU YOURSELF said you would do. You’re a liar and a snake.

  71. “End of story. You WILLFULLY ignored what YOU YOURSELF said you would do. You’re a liar and a snake.”

    Like I said, Hube, I did not intentionally out your name. Who would think that mentioning your sister, not even by name, could be construed as outing you. Yet you and Hitchcock have no qualms about outing me!

    I find it telling that since you do have the administrative power to do so, that you did not go in and delete that which you claim outs your name. Why did you not do that, Hube, if you are so uber-sensitive about your being outed, even very indirectly? I await your answer.

    You do it because you wish to make a stink about nothing, in just one more attempt by you to villify. Hube, you are a liar and a phoney, the evidence for which is right here for all to see! Your identity has not been revealed. I challenge anyone on here to post your name, or short that, post that they know your name because I outed you. No one on here knows your name, Hube, except those of us who have met you. No one even knows your sister’s name. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, because that is what you choose to do, which is worthless and meaningless. Therefore your paranoia is just that, nothing more.

    You would do better to focus on improving your behavior on here, instead of generating meaningless issues.

    [Added: If you continue playing your outing game, by inserting my full name in a previous post every time I delete it, then I will consider really outing your full name in every post I write where your name is mentioned. Is this what you wish me to do, Hube? This has gotten quite ridiculous!]

  72. “End of story. You WILLFULLY ignored what YOU YOURSELF said you would do. You’re a liar and a snake.”

    Like I said, Hube, I did not intentionally out your name. Who would think that mentioning your sister, not even by name, could be construed as outing you. Yet you and Hitchcock have no qualms about outing me!

    I find it telling that since you do have the administrative power to do so, that you did not go in and delete that which you claim outs your name. Why did you not do that, Hube, if you are so uber-sensitive about your being outed, even very indirectly? I await your answer.

  73. Oh, so that’s it now, Hube, you have further escalated and violated your administrative privileges by deleting my posts. Let us see now what Dana’s reaction will be. And by the way, I am now saving all my posts, so I will be able to present them to Dana, if need be. I would not have believed that you would ever do this. Your desire to control has exceeded all reasonable bounds now. What a cowardly thing to do!!!

    PS: I did restore the post you deleted. Don’t delete it again!

  74. What are the possibilities of declaring a truce here? Perry has a gripe with Hube, and Hube has a gripe with Perry, but y’all were both perfectly civil and friendly to each other at our get-together last spring.

    You two don’t even need to worry about who apologizes to whom, first or second, or anything like that, or who won. It’s easy enough to just cease.

  75. “What are the possibilities of declaring a truce here? Perry has a gripe with Hube, and Hube has a gripe with Perry, but y’all were both perfectly civil and friendly to each other at our get-together last spring.

    You two don’t even need to worry about who apologizes to whom, first or second, or anything like that, or who won. It’s easy enough to just cease.”

    I’ll go for that, Dana. Truce!

  76. Why they decide to defend the Wall Street culprits is beyond me, as this seems to me like an act of self-immolation.

    As I have stated, they are authoritarian followers – their first instinct is always to kowtow to power and authority. Consider Dana – he has continually praised soldiers and even has children in the military, but when confronted with a story of police shooting a protesing marine threat, his first (and only) reaction is “He must have done something bad or he wouldn’t have been shot”.

    Knowing a little history, I prefer to think of them as “serfs” – they have the instincts of a peasant defending feudalism.

    Hube is screwed up beyond that with his hypocrisy and pettiness, and he’s been drawing you into mirroring his personality problems. You shouldn’t bother with him beyond pointing out where he lies and where he plucks “facts” from his @ss.

  77. You two don’t even need to worry about who apologizes to whom, first or second, or anything like that, or who won. It’s easy enough to just cease.

    Dana: Perry [last name redacted], as proven by my e-mails, continues to invoke my sibling’s name against my wishes. This is a cold, hard fact. Then he has the gall to say this wasn’t purposeful? Now he threatens to post MORE info about me b/c I post his full name — which HE HIMSELF HAS USED HERE, AT HIS BLOG AND AT COLOSSUS.

    You wanna take it to the next level, Perry [last name redacted]? You want a war along those lines? You’ll get it. I promise you. And you won’t like it.

  78. I am now saving all my posts, so I will be able to present them to Dana, if need be. I would not have believed that you would ever do this.

    You mean like you did with some of MY posts in this thread? You are BEYOND parody … not to mention insane.

  79. “As I have stated, they are authoritarian followers – their first instinct is always to kowtow to power and authority.”

    I think this is true, PiaToR, but I continue to be surprised by this behavior because it seems so inconsistent with the image they wish to project.

    “Hube is screwed up beyond that with his hypocrisy and pettiness, and he’s been drawing you into mirroring his personality problems. You shouldn’t bother with him beyond pointing out where he lies and where he plucks “facts” from his @ss.”

    I appreciate your feedback, PiaToR!


  80. I am now saving all my posts, so I will be able to present them to Dana, if need be. I would not have believed that you would ever do this.

    You mean like you did with some of MY posts in this thread? You are BEYOND parody … not to mention insane.”

    For the record, I deleted one post, the one in which you outed me.

    Truce!

  81. You two don’t even need to worry about who apologizes to whom, first or second, or anything like that, or who won. It’s easy enough to just cease.

    Dana: Perry [last name redacted], as proven by my e-mails, continues to invoke my sibling’s name against my wishes. This is a cold, hard fact. Then he has the gall to say this wasn’t purposeful? Now he threatens to post MORE info about me b/c I post his full name — which HE HIMSELF HAS USED HERE, AT HIS BLOG AND AT COLOSSUS.

    You wanna take it to the next level, Perry [last name redacted]? You want a war along those lines? You’ll get it. I promise you. And you won’t like it.

    Hube, first of all, please show me where I have directly revealed your sister’s name, like you revealed mine, and continue repeatedly to do so.

    Secondly, instead of responding to Dana’s request, you wish to continue, in fact, escalate, by threatening me.

    I already expressed my willingness to have a truce. What is now your hangup about doing the same?

  82. “Still editing my posts, eh? No worries — I just edited another of yours, snake.”

    My editing consists only of redacting my last name, nothing more! You should not be editing my posts, Hube!

  83. Hube, first of all, please show me where I have directly revealed your sister’s name, like you revealed mine, and continue repeatedly to do so.

    You didn’t and never did. That’s beside the point. What you also reference with regards to her is the relevant issue. And the MAIN ISSUE is that I e-mailed you — politely, too — requesting you don’t mention her anymore. I had to e-mail you TWICE. You said you were sorry and wouldn’t do it again. You didn’t. You’re a liar and a snake.

    As for your name — what do you not understand? Yes, I used it here b/c of your purposeful invocation of my sibling’s name. However, you went ballistic months ago when Hitch used it … even though you used it on your blog, here and Colossus previously. Instead of politely e-mailing him asking him not to do so anymore (like I did with you), you went off the deep end accusing him of treachery and all other sorts of nonsense. That is how YOU operate. Again, note the contrast in how I handled the situation, and how you did. And you have the cojones to comment on MY disposition.

  84. My editing consists only of redacting my last name, nothing more! You should not be editing my posts, Hube!

    Deleting an entire post of mine is “editing your name?” Uh huh.

    As for my last edit, all I did was excise yet another mention of my sibling FWIW, so don’t your panties in a bunch.

    [I have restored said post, with my last name redacted. – pH]

  85. “As for my last edit, all I did was excise yet another mention of my sibling FWIW, so don’t your panties in a bunch.”

    I cannot imagine what you would excise, because again, I never ever directly referred to your sibling.

  86. I cannot imagine what you would excise, because again, I never ever directly referred to your sibling.

    Yes, you did. Just like you didn’t three times now remember not to make said references, you cannot now remember when/where you mentioned her.

    Three times, Perry. Two times after I e-mailed you politely about not doing so. But you did it again. That’s the definition of “snake.”

  87. Hube writes: You wanna take it to the next level, Perry [last name redacted]? You want a war along those lines? You’ll get it. I promise you. And you won’t like it.

    Followed by:

    Again, note the contrast in how I handled the situation, and how you did.

    Uh-huh.

    Now where was – ah, here we go

  88. I cannot imagine what you would excise, because again, I never ever directly referred to your sibling.

    Yes, you did. Just like you didn’t three times now remember not to make said references, you cannot now remember when/where you mentioned her.

    Three times, Perry. Two times after I e-mailed you politely about not doing so. But you did it again. That’s the definition of “snake.”

    Hube, again, I did not directly name your sister. Therefore, no one on here knows her name, and, at no time now or in the past did I intentionally attempt to reveal her name or yours either, in contrast to what you have done multiple times with me. Nevertheless, you won’t let this go.

    And btw, I just got finished restoring the one post of yours which I took out because it contained your outing of me. However, I did redact my last name from it. I also restored the two posts of mine which you deleted, plus another from a commenter who was representing Islam, which someone had deleted. I think we all need to adhere to Dana’s guideline on free speech on this blog. Before this, I have never ever deleted anyone’s post.

  89. Hube, again, I did not directly name your sister. Therefore, no one on here knows her name, and, at no time now or in the past did I intentionally attempt to reveal her name or yours either, in contrast to what you have done multiple times with me. Nevertheless, you won’t let this go.

    How many times do I have to say the same thing? The name isn’t the issue, and I explained it in my e-mails. You were wrong to make reference to her — again, after TWO e-mails to you in which you said you were sorry. In your zeal to denigrate me, you violated your promise. At least I admit I mentioned your full name in retaliation for this violation; you, OTOH, continue to make excuses for your violation of trust.

    I’ve no hassle whatsoever with your denigrating me here (even though you’d be a hypocrite, as usual); just leave the relative out of it as I requested two times to you via e-mail.

  90. “In your zeal to denigrate me, you violated your promise. “

    I did not wish to denigrate you, Hube. And again, I wished only to compliment your sister. You are again projecting, and you are wrong again. My error was in not thinking of your memo when intending merely to compliment your sister. That’s all there is to it, Hube! Now what do you expect me to do. Let it go, Hube!

  91. I did not wish to denigrate you, Hube. And again, I wished only to compliment your sister.

    Memory problems again? Yeah, that’s why, after “complimenting” my sister, you went on a long-winded rant about what an ogre I am. Puh-lease.

    At any rate, you’ve proven to the Nth degree how futile it is to argue with someone with the memory of an amnesiac.

  92. The Phoenician wrote:

    As I have stated, they are authoritarian followers – their first instinct is always to kowtow to power and authority. Consider Dana – he has continually praised soldiers and even has children in the military, but when confronted with a story of police shooting a protesing marine threat, his first (and only) reaction is “He must have done something bad or he wouldn’t have been shot”.

    My reaction, which the Phoenician said, in direct quotes, was “He must have done something bad or he wouldn’t have been shot,” was actually:

    And what was he doing that led to the police using non-lethal force against him?

    That, it will be noted, is a question, not the direct statement the Phoenician attributed to me.

    Nor did our Kiwi Kommenter address what I also pointed out, that his choice of words implied that the police were using real bullets, when they were using what are supposed to be non-lethal ammunition, rubber bullets and beanbags.

    Was this Marine in uniform? If not, how were the police to know he was a veteran? And if someone is committing a crime, does wearing a uniform somehow put him beyond the reach of standard law enforcement?

    Now, it may be true that the city officials in Oakland have over-reacted, or that they had no reasonable cause to issue a disperse order; that part I do not know. But a Marine veteran being in a particular crowd does not somehow exempt him or the crowd in general from having to obey the law.

  93. Nor did our Kiwi Kommenter address what I also pointed out, that his choice of words implied that the police were using real bullets, when they were using what are supposed to be non-lethal ammunition, rubber bullets and beanbags.

    Uh-huh.

    “Some people might think it a bit disingenuous to write “Police shoot Marine veteran,” from which most people would assume that the police were using live, lethal ammunition, when the linked story notes that “A Marine veteran at Occupy Oakland was injured Monday night after being shot at point-blank range with bean bags or rubber bullets by police.””

    Let’s see – “shoot” is the verb transitive version of which four letter noun starting with “s” and rhyming with “Dana is a weasel, and the weather is hot”?

    That, it will be noted, is a question, not the direct statement the Phoenician attributed to me.

    Riiiiight.

    I apologise for making the direct statement of calling you a serf, Dana. Just answer me a simple question – why do you think and talk like one and argue so hard for neo-feudalism?

    Was this Marine in uniform? If not, how were the police to know he was a veteran? And if someone is committing a crime, does wearing a uniform somehow put him beyond the reach of standard law enforcement?

    ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    I wasn’t aware Constitutional rights were crimes when an authority figure says they are. then again, I don’t think like a serf.

  94. Nah, Yorkie – Dana’s just an authoritarian follower, not necessarily anti-gay. I’m pretty sure he didn’t get the same thrill from Shepard getting beaten to death as he does from some OWS protester getten beaten up by the police.

  95. The Phoenician wrote:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I wasn’t aware Constitutional rights were crimes when an authority figure says they are. then again, I don’t think like a serf.

    The First Amendment protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble; was a demonstration which resulted in clashes with the police peaceable?

    You’ll note that the original fleabagger protest has not resulted in such problems, because, despite the fact that the New York group is occupying private property and living amidst their own filth, they haven’t been violent, and haven’t, for the most part, interfered with other people’s rights.

    From the Oakland Tribune:

    The Occupy Oakland encampment, which began on Oct. 10 and grew into a tent city with 300 resident protesters, was quickly and relatively peacefully dismantled by police in the predawn hours on Tuesday.

    There were a few dozen arrests and anti-police chanting, but a force of at least 200 police had little difficulty in tearing down the camp in front of Oakland City Hall along with a smaller camp near Lake Merritt. It took less than 30 minutes to clear away the tents and campers in raids that went smoothly, according to police.

    The need to raze the camps had been obvious for days. Oakland officials reported rats in the camp, fights, sexual harassment, drug use and some violence against the media.

    The protesters were given adequate and explicit warning that the camps were illegal and needed to be dismantled and plenty of time to comply with orders to end the encampment.

    There is no way the city could have allowed the camps to endure and expand without creating an increasing threat to public health and safety.

    Mayor Jean Quan was correct in concluding that “neither the demonstrators nor the city could maintain safe or sanitary conditions, or control the ongoing vandalism.”

  96. The First Amendment protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble; was a demonstration which resulted in clashes with the police peaceable?

    Gee – did you even look at the goddamned videos?

    There was no “clash with the police”. There was a solid line of cops behind a barrier that the protesters did not cross. And when they went to try and help the wounded Marine, one of the cops lobbed a gas bomb into their midst.

    Lest we have to point this out, you’re quoting an anonymous editorial – and one which is deliberately deceitful, since it assumes facts the writer was in no way to check and simply takes officials at their word.

    Like a typical serf, you assume that everyone not kissing the @ss of someone in uniform must be doing something wrong. YOU HAVE NO REASON TO SAY THAT IT WAS NOT PEACEFUL EXCEPT YOUR BELIEF THAT IF THE POLICE START BEATING UP CIVLIANS, THE CIVILIANS MUST BE IN THE WRONG.

    We already know that you think of the Constitution as just so much toilet paper. By asserting that exercising First Amenedment rights is a crime if a cop says so, you demonstrate yet again that you’re not really much of an American at all.

Comments are closed.