Some possible topics:
- Fresh pro-Russian attack in Ukraine. More than that, I’m worried that the Ukrainians are taking military steps now to confront this provocation. Not that they don’t have every right to — in fact, I’ve been wondering when the new government would step up and defend its interests, starting with its territorial integrity. But I worry — how well do you think regular Ukrainian troops are likely to do against Spetsnaz? But wait — the new Ukrainian president now says he’s open to more secessionist referenda. Which is worse — war, or caving in to Putin’s latter-day Anschluss?
- Authorities say hate motivated Kansas shooting. Do ya think? It certainly was more than mild dislike. But I mention this to object yet again to the whole idea of “hate crimes.” Anti-Semitism is one of the nastiest impulses in human history. But in this country, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson’s character in “The Departed,” we don’t prosecute people for holding disgusting ideas. Murder is enough. Punish the crime, not the opinion.
- According to research by Pew, most Americans agree with me — they don’t think of Barack Obama as “black” either.
I tried to find something local, but it’s looking kinda slow around here. I think we’re all stupefied by antihistamines. I certainly am.
But you know what? It’s not my job to come up with topics for an Open Thread. That’s up to y’all…
Related Posts
Oh, and about the Ariail cartoon — I don’t post it because I agree with the political point it makes. I think y’all know my own opinion is 180 degrees from that. But I appreciate it as a good cartoon. It really works…
Oh, and I don’t think Robert is particularly wedded to that view, either. While I defend Bush a lot from detractors here on the blog, I fall short of being what I’d call pro-Bush. But Robert tended to actively like him, much more than I did. I suspect he just couldn’t resist the cartoon when it occurred to him…
A certain moron on the pledge drive said that one reason to listen to public radio is to find out what’s going on in THE Ukraine. Like maybe she should listen more closely?
If Putin gets his way, it’ll be “the Ukraine” once again…
Re: Hate crimes
I’ve found myself occasionally accused of incredible insensitivity for voicing your viewpoint, Brad.
But I absolutely do not accept concept that a heinous act is somehow MORE heinous if the perpetrator “hated” the victim’s religion, sexual orientation, skin color, etc. The logical extension is that a heinous act should be prosecuted less vigorously if the perpetrator simply felt the urge to commit it based on something other than “hate” of a “protected” group (perhaps an issue with a victim’s fashion sense, choice of body fragrance, or…hmmm…texting at a movie theater?).
The reasons hate crimes laws were passed is to bring increased law enforcement (investigation and prosecution) to crimes motivated by ideology and often intended to intimidate groups and inflame supporters and opponents of the ideology. The crime is the crime, but is considered more dangerous to the fabric of society than other murders, assaults, or vandalism. These laws do not punish thought, speech, or expression except where that expression involves harm or provable intimidation. As with any law (eg “stand your ground, ” patient’s rights) they can be abused, misapplied, or applied too aggressively.
The act of intimidation is like the act of shouting fire in crowded theater
The whole “hate crimes” movement is about criminalizing opinions one disagrees with. And I find that appalling. That is absolutely not what this country is about.
It’s particularly alarming as I see the list of things that the Ideologically Correct designate as “hate” continuing to grow. Disagreeing with someone about the current cause of the day is labeled “hate,” the same as murderous anti-Semitism.
Libertarians sit up nights worrying about the government being able to monitor their phone calls. I never give that a second thought. But THIS, “hate crimes,” is a concept that isn’t about some vague threat of “What if bad people were in charge of the government.” “Hate crime” laws are themselves, on their face, a profound offense against what liberal democracy is all about.
“We must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits; not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear,” Mr. Obama said.
Putin? Al-Assad? Are we dealing with Ukraine now because we didn’t do anything to punish al-Assaad?
Not standing up to bullying often has consequences far greater down the road. Which is why hate crimes came to be. They were designed to punish those who turned odious words (protected) into hurtful action (punishable). And to warn others to toe the line themselves.
The situation in Ukraine makes me nervous. Your use of “Anschluss” makes me more nervous.
Anschluss is just German for Annexation, which is what Putin did.
Das Stimmt.
You say the “hate crimes” laws criminalizes “opinions one disagrees with.” Please show me a law that allows a person to be arrested for speaking whatever opinion he/she pleases. She can shout anti-Semitic and racial slurs from the rooftops if she wishes. She can run for public office on such a platform if she wishes. It’s only when she hurts someone that it becomes criminal. I don’t think they are needed either, but they certainly don’t criminalize opinions.
Another day, another editorial from The State laying the blame for incompetence and malfeasance at South Carolina State University on a nameless, faceless board.
“The board’s ineptitude is legendary. For sure, there have been and still are some committed, well-meaning people on the board, but so many over the years have treated the university like their own private club, engaging in senseless and unproductive turf wars.”
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/04/14/3388028/bolton-sc-state-university-deserves.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_destination=thestate#storylink=cpy
Why is The State so afraid to use the names of people when they deserve it? It’s always about the system, the commission, the Legislature… it’s the people in those entities that are the problem. Is it fear of hurting people’s feelings, fear of lawsuits, or just plain inability to identify bad characters by name?
It’s the legislative system. The patronage system. It is not the Board’s (pick any one) fault they were not individually selected for their ability to oversee a State entity, and to provide it with able strategic leadership and stewardship; they were selected based on what they could do for their political benefactor.
Spin it down.
Yes, that’s the correct choice – why keep throwing good money after bad? How many second chances does SC State need before it is accepted that it cannot manage itself?
Just combine SC State into the USC system, call it USC-O’burg. Fire the current administrators, replace them with USC folks, keep the academic faculty and support staff in place. Problem solved.
Makes total sense. Which is why it won’t be done. In this game of high stake poker, there is always that one card that will be played to trump all hands.
That is an excellent idea. Politically it is fraught, because SC State is a Historically Black University, and has many legislative friends, but one can hope….dum spiro spero
That’s fine. But what are these people’s names? Wouldn’t we want that to be common knowledge so it doesn’t happen again? These people aren’t victims of the system, they perpetuate it.
Doug, I don’t know why you can’t understand that when a problem is systemic, it’s grossly misleading to blame things on this or that individual. You give people the false impression that if you just get rid of this or that bad actor, things will be all right — when they won’t be.
You always want to blame one or two individuals when the majority of legislators join in doing a bad thing — when obviously, the entire majority is to blame.
So much of what you see in media feeds into this misperception that this or that individual is the problem. It simplifies reporting. The editorial board at The State will tell you what the actual problem is — even if that is harder to grasp than black hats and white hats.
What’s ironic about this is that when I DO blame an individual, y’all get all over me for supposedly being obsessed with that individual.
Of course, the way YOU couch it is that I blame the governor when I should be blaming individual legislators (which I also do when it’s called for, just not as often as you like). But you’re missing the point that the governor acts as an individual, while it takes majorities for the Legislature to act. Big difference.
“And if the whole system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society?”