Links, Miscellaneous Domestic
"If Joe Schmoe walks out of his house and punches a 22 year-old-man in the mouth, it is assault. And Joe is punished for the act.
"If Joe Schmoe walks out of his house, punches a 22-year-old-man in the mouth, whiling yelling, 'Queer!' what is the difference?
"Both acts are assaults. Both acts involve a fist and a mouth, and both acts involve the same level of physical damage.
"The difference is that in one, Joe thinks -- thinks -- that his victim is somehow deserving of an assault because of sexual orientation. Or he thinks the sexual orientation is evil. Maybe he thinks his God has a case of the red-arse towards that particular sexual orientation.
"Whatever the excuse, it still boils down to the fact that the Federal Government wants to add extra punishment, more charges because of What.
The point here is that while certainly such attitudes are deplorable, the entire point of the US Constitution is to protect attitudes the some people find deplorable so long as those attitudes do not translate into actions which violate the rights of others.
Note: ACTIONS, not speech (Constitutionally protected) and not thoughts. If you want to to hate me, fine. Could care less. I know lots of people do. If you say so, I might be offended and return with a dissection of your particular breed of illogic, but then afterwards I continue my life.
If you are the sort that gets so wrapped up around the axle that the thought that people out there dislike you cripples you (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and anyone else who feels the urge to sue over the phrase 'nappy headed ho') then I have just a few words of wisdom for you.
Get over yourselves, you stupid emo whiney bitches.
While I'm offending folks, let me discuss illegal immigration. I love Dr. Pournelle's politics almost as much as his fiction. He suggests an answer. The only question I have is to the efficacy of actually closing the border. We can try, but if you think smugglers of drugs and people (or both, for the enterprising smuggler) can't find a way around it, you're sadly mistaken. However, at least making it hard for them would cut down significantly. I agree that hunting down illegals is probably a waste of time--but that removing the ability of their children to automatically become citizens of the United States at birth is more effective. As far as I'm concerned, citizenship should be limited to those born of at least one US citizen or long-term resident alien. And if you aren't a citizen, and you get so much as pulled over, deportation. Good-bye, you are the weakest link.
My solution to the "Amnesty" question: Illegals should also be permitted to register to pay taxes and that information NOT shared with any other agency. If they can demonstrate a continuous history of paying taxes and not otherwise coming to government attention for a period (5 years? 7 years?) then they are better de facto American citizens than some of the born and raised types here and should be granted resident status.
Immigrants that do this sort of thing, on the other hand, should be executed by firing squad as spies and saboteurs used to be, back in the day.
Just my opinion here.
I think I'll juxtapose that story with this story, about some folks who just don't want a mosque in their back yard.
Remember that bit a couple paragraphs up about how speech is protected, actions aren't? Yeah, well. . . It is truly tempting to make an exception for this. Haha. Just kidding.
Or not. Incitement to riot is still as crime, as is criminal conspiracy. It all depends on what sort of Muslim you've got in your back yard. But from a public relations standpoint, reading your talking points off of CAIR's script is NOT a way to settle ruffled feathers.
"As I've said before, my first thought after hearing a CAIR official instruct me that I must go out of my way to learn more about Islam is 'Good God, how many did they kill this time?'"
Islam is antithetical to both Western culture and the logic that was formalized in Greece, spiritual ancestor to all of Western culture. The more Muslims assimilate, the worse they become as Muslims (by the letter of the law, which is of far greater importance in Islam than in other religions due to their understanding of human relations with God or lack thereof), opening their disaffected younger generation up to the teachings of radicals who call for a return to 'true' or 'pure' Islam. Once that hooks the kids, they are off and running with political Islam and blowing themselves up. Raymond Ibrahim explores the problems raised by the multiple understandings of Islam.
"Thus, even if we were to agree with Ramadan that the vast majority of Muslims are 'moderates' and that, say, only a mere 20 percent of Muslims are 'literalists,' that simply means that some 200 million Muslims in the world today are dedicated enemies of the infidel West. At any rate, when it comes to instilling terror, numbers are of no significance. It took only 19 to wreak great havoc and destruction on American soil on 9/11. It won’t take much more to duplicate that horrific day. This is precisely why, to use Ramadan’s own words, 'we are obsessed by the few [radical Muslims] and not seeing the many [moderate Muslims].' That most Muslims are good, law-abiding citizens and that only a mere minority of the umma, say, 200 million, are hell-bent on destroying the West — how is that supposed to be any comfort to us?"
Now, given this problem and the dramatic increase in what Victor Davis Hanson calls 'al-Qaedism' in incidents in Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle, and North Carolina, it is reasonable that the residents feel threatened by a mosque. After all, if a Mosque has a mere 30 attendees (I don't know what the Muslim equivalent of 'parishioner' is) then there is a good chance that they will have at least 6 lunatics attending. Given this reality, it is reasonable to treat a mosque as one would the KKK or the Communist Party of the United States during the period where the United States was engaged in a global confrontation with Communists. In other words, while membership in the organization is not illegal, it is suspicious because the organization has goals antithetical to the Constitution of the United States of America. Law enforcement agencies would justified in keeping tabs on them at the least.
Not to say that all Muslims are SUV-wielding madmen. At least one community in Pennsylvania has decided not to tolerate incitement to commit murder from those who represent them. This is a positive step, which should be encouraged. The sooner the Muslim community in the United States adopts this attitude wholesale, the better off they will be.
"'The board and members of the Islamic Center of Johnstown were shocked and regret the comments made by Imam ElBayly regarding the visit of author Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The statements regarding the Islamic Center's reaction to her visit were incorrect, unfounded and not the views of its members,' Dennis J. Stofko, the center's attorney, said in a letter to the Tribune-Review.
"Stofko indicated that ElBayly's views 'are not shared or tolerated by the Muslims' associated with the Johnstown center.
"'The Islamic Center of Johnstown was established to foster religious tolerance, education and the exercise of its religious beliefs,' Stofko wrote, adding that members 'strongly believe in exercising religious freedom, which is the right of all citizens. The Islamic Center of Johnstown sincerely respects the rights of individuals to speak their opinions openly and freely without the fear of reprisal.'That's properly American, perfectly respectable, and I am proud to call those folks fellow citizens.