Friday, February 16, 2007

News Roundup 2/16/07

This takes the cake for the craziest news article title:

Cross-snatching college holds porn show

Ah yes. Secular progressivism at work in a formerly Christian college!

Out with the cross?

In with the porn?

Jesus, I just know that you are returning...soon!

HT: WorldNetDaily

*******

And now for something completely different...but terribly ridiculous...

Yeah....THIS IS A TRUSTWORTHY JUDGE!!!




NOT!!!!



HT: WND...again

*******

Has anyone else noticed that the real story about the Utah Mall shootings has kinda been spiked by most news organizations? It seems that most had been reluctant to point out that the killer was Muslim. Yesterday, on the Michael Savage radio show, it was pointed out that one liberal left loonie reporter actually gave more sympathy and comfort towards the killer and his family during his report rather than focusing on mourning the 5 white, Christian people killed and the 4 white, Christian people who were also wounded (two seriously).

I know that a lot of liberals hate Savage. But at least he is asking the questions that no one else has the guts to ask!

Why is this not broadcast as a "hate crime" against Christians? Many, if not all, were Christians.

Why is this not being broadcast as a "hate crime" against white, Anglo-Saxon people? They were all white, Anglo-Saxon victims.

Why is it strange that the killer targeted ONLY white, Anglo-Saxon and primarily Christian people?

Isn't it strange that the killer chose this particular mall? There was one much closer to his residence with many more people. However, this mall was smack dab in the middle of a primarily white, Anglo-Saxon, primarily Christian community.

Hmmmmm.....

He's a Muslim.

They are Christian.

They are ALL white. No Asians, no Hispanics, no African Americans, no fellow Arabs or Muslims.

Is there a connection being made here?

Do you see a pattern?

Is there no such thing as a hate crime against white, Anglo-Saxon Christian people who were targeted at a mall?

During Savage's radio show, he received an email from a relative who claimed that his/her nephew works at the school that the killer attended. Apparently, the FBI had been alerted over concerns that the perpetrator was researching weaponry on the computers at the school. It appears that the concerns were ignored...

*******

Keep that last story in mind when you see this Radically Ridiculous Item of the Day.

Apparently, most S.F. liberal left dafts haven't seen this photo from the last anti-war demonstration there!!

*******
Update 12:09 p.m. PT

Took them long enough, but at least terrorism has not been ruled out as a motive in the murders.

[Added @ 2:21 p.m. PT: Hal Lindsey shares his take on the matter and makes a strong case for the poll majority conclusion. ]


The public obviously trumps the FBI on this one!
Take a look at this WorldNetDaily poll:

What do you think motivated the Utah-mall shooter?

(Poll now updated at 2:23 p.m. PT)

His affinity for Islamic jihad – it's a state of mind, not a formal political organization 90.37% (3934)


Other 4.30% (187)


Like everyone, he has his own personal demons 1.91% (83)


Exposure to violent video games, movies and music 1.31% (57)


He wore a trenchcoat – it was probably that Goth culture 0.76% (33)


Having been traumatized as a young child by the war in his native Bosnia 0.46% (20)


The failure of the government to provide post-traumatic stress counseling to immigrants from war-torn nations 0.34% (15)


Easy access to guns in America 0.21% (9)


It's unexplainable – everyone says he was a good boy 0.18% (8)


Like his dad said, 'It just happened' 0.16% (7)



TOTAL VOTES: 4353

11 comments:

Wakim said...

Well I wouldn't call a shooting in Utah where only Caucasian Christians were hit a "hate-crime" for the reason it was only Caucasian Christians injured, a random shooting in Utah would statistically lead to only Caucasian Christians being injured. It isn't like this happened in some ethnically diverse place and the shooter waited specifically for Caucasians he somehow knew were Christians. Now if someone started shooting people in my neighborhood and they hit a Caucasian I'd be surprised, and would guess it was probably a targeted attack either against that specific person or against Caucasians. When someone just goes off and starts shooting people they are going to shoot whoever is in the way.

Jaded said...

Wakim, you can't have it both ways...

If you choose to slaughter people in an area where you're statistically apt to shoot only African Americans, then that's who you've targeted, according to hate crimes laws. If this shooter entered a mall in a white, Christian area, then that's who he targeted by that same flawed logic.

Neither life is less valuable than the other. Both should be punished equally.

Ubersehen said...

Why is this not broadcast as a "hate crime" against Christians? Many, if not all, were Christians.

Are we taking into account the fact that this boy was a local? Furthermore, do we know what his motivation was for the shooting? I don't think any killing can necessarily be called a hate crime, even in accordance with hate crime law, unless there is some element of the crime that suggests that a certain group was singled out. Indiscriminate shooting, even if it winds up killing people of only one background, is still indiscriminate.

Given what is known about this incident, I think it's ludicrous to suggest that white Christians were "targeted" any more than anyone else would have been "targeted" had they been in the same mall. Since Salt Lake City isn't necessarily well known for its ethnic diversity, I don't think that it's too difficult to imagine that the first five people you pick out at random in a crowded mall would probably be anglo-saxon Christians.

Is there no such thing as a hate crime against white, Anglo-Saxon Christian people who were targeted at a mall?

Certainly, there is, but unless there is some evidence that shows he was there because he was looking for Anglo-Saxon Christians, (like him screaming "Die, Westerners" while he shot or something similar), it's simply not reasonable to assume that that's the case.

Why do you automatically assume, without any evidence, that a crazy gun-toting boy killing people in a crowded mall would have a religious agenda? Is there some sort of precedence for this?

Christinewjc said...

Thanks for all three comments. I think that all three of your responses bring us to the conclusion of how totally unnecessary "hate" crimes laws are for specific groups.

As wakim said, because Caucasian Christians were killed and injured, may not mean that they were specifically targeted.

Jaded added that:

"Neither life is less valuable than the other. Both should be punished equally."

That is the point that many conservatives are trying to make when we say that we are against hate crimes legislation.

Labeling a murder a "hate" crime is redundant. People don't generally kill others because they "love" them. Most murders are a result of a killer having rage, anger, hate, despair,indifference, and no conscience or ability to value the life of others etc. Plus, the list of motives are endless.

However, when "hate" crimes legislation is used to target people who happen to kill a homosexual, the gay or lesbian's life should not be considered less valuable nor more valuable than any one elses.

Ubersehen asks many additional questions and adds:

"... but unless there is some evidence that shows he was there because he was looking for Anglo-Saxon Christians, (like him screaming "Die, Westerners" while he shot or something similar), it's simply not reasonable to assume that that's the case."

Ultimately, punishment should fit the crime. But making the same type of crime (murder) considered "more heinous" when done to a self-identified Christian person, lets say, rather than considered "more heinous" when done to a self-identified homosexual person, explicitly places one type of person (and their life) over and above all others.

This is exactly why I am against "hate crimes" legislation.

I will add one thing though. I think that the "gay panic" defense that lawyers can use in the cases we read about where a transvestite person is killed by an unsuspecting male "client"(...specifically because that client thought he was a female), is highly flawed. It leaves to much wiggle room for an excuse for the murderer. That is one law that should be changed, IMO.

Jaded said...

I heard a report on NPR over the weekend about 3 girls in CA who were attacked and brutally beaten by a group of African American teenaged males on Halloween a couple of years ago. The girls were white. The defendants were charged with hate crimes, tried and convicted. However, the main stream media was hesitant to cover the case because they didn't want to offend the black community by reporting that a hate crime was committed BY their community, instead of AGAINST it. The LA Times gave the story to 6 different reporters until settled on one to complete the spotty reports, because they didn't want to upset anyone. Off the record, they stated that they didn't have a black reporter to cover the story, nor a strong enough grasp on the community to report without upsetting anyone. The portrayal of the defendants was supplied by their defense attorney, who said they were scholars, athletes, had never been in trouble in school or out, and from stable middle class homes. At trial, it turns out that they were not scholars, they had all been in trouble with the law, suspended or expelled from school, and from troubled homes. They didn't report the truth for fear of inflaming the community.

Um...what?!

Three women were brutally attacked by a group of males. It matters little what color they were. The punishment should be the same without any regard to race, gender etc.

The MSM has no problem reporting with bias against Christianity, yet they're afraid to report the fact of a case because someone might be upset? People SHOULD be upset...3 people were brutally attacked and beaten. These people were tried and convicted.

When the Lacrosse players at Duke were accused of raping a stipper, it made national headlines daily, before any arrests were even made. In an effort to defend a member of the black community against a hate crime, there was a rush to judgement such that the prosecutor has even destroyed his career. The woman lied, as she had in the past about the very same thing. She should be punished for her lies. There was no national coverage of these 3 women being brutally beaten, because of fear of offending the African American community. The use of the term "hate crime" in this case, covered up the severity of the situation because it's not popular to use it when it's not a Caucasion attacking a minority. Why should that even matter?! Three women were savagely attacked! Who cares WHY it was done? It should only matter that it WAS done!

Ubersehen said...

making the same type of crime (murder) considered "more heinous" when done to a self-identified Christian person, lets say, rather than considered "more heinous" when done to a self-identified homosexual person, explicitly places one type of person (and their life) over and above all others.

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing for here. Are you saying that we shouldn't distinguish between murders comitted for different reasons in the punishments that are doled out for them?

Christinewjc said...

Ubersehen's question:

"Are you saying that we shouldn't distinguish between murders comitted for different reasons in the punishments that are doled out for them?"

No. What I am attempting to do here is point out the needless "extra step" (IMO) of labeling one murder a "hate crime" (because of the person who it is done to); rather than focusing on, as you said, "the punishments that are doled out for the specific crime done."

Therefore, a murder done against a Muslim, lets say, rather than a murder done against an atheist, lets say, should not be labeled as a "hate crime" because of any perceived need to "protect Muslims more" than the law requires in protecting "atheists."

Sorry if this is confusing. I'm probably not explaining this very well and I apologize for that.

Ubersehen said...

Therefore, a murder done against a Muslim, lets say, rather than a murder done against an atheist, lets say, should not be labeled as a "hate crime" because of any perceived need to "protect Muslims more" than the law requires in protecting "atheists."

Right, that makes sense. But is that an issue, really? I mean, if I were to walk out of the house and gun down the first person I saw, and that person happened to be Muslim, hopefully no one would call that a hate crime. My understanding is that hate crime law is in place to address issues where specific groups are actually targeted. To be called a hate crime, I think that there has to be evidence of such a targeting process happening.

So are you against the notion of passing out increased punishment for killings that are motivated by hate against a specific group? Should every murder be punished to the same degree (under laws that most Americans/Canadians would agree with, that is)?

Christinewjc said...

Ubersehen said, "Right, that makes sense. But is that an issue, really?"

Yes. It is in the U.S. right now. There have been several attempts to add "sexual orientation" to hate crimes laws. It would be the first "behavioral reason" given to separate crimes done against certain people rather than others.

I think that labeling something a "hate" crime is redundant, anyway.

In fact, the real reason(s) for the crime may not always come out right away. Look at the Matthew Shepard case. For years it was assumed that he was killed because he was homosexual. The truth came out later when the perpetrators were interviewed in prison (20/20 program, I think?) and it was revealed that he was murdered as a result of a robbery. This additional information, of course, provoked extreme anger in the gay community. After all, there were several plays, movies, and millions of websites dedicated to pushing "hate crime" legislation because of this terrible murder. To find out later that it was as a result of a robbery hurt the gay agenda and the causes that they are fighting for.

This is yet another reason why hate crimes legislation is dangerous. It can be misused to promote a social agenda which didn't really have anything to do with the crime in the first place.

I know that what I have just typed out will anger many homosexual activists. But it does demonstrate two good reasons why sexual orientation "hate crimes" laws are unnecessary, often redundant, and can, unfortunately, be used to push a certain kind of social agenda above and beyond where they should lead.

Just my opinion, of course.

Christinewjc said...

Lest you think that I am only against "hate crimes" laws because I am "against" homosexuals, let's look at another case.

I thought that it was horrendous that an illegal immigrant got such a short prison sentence for murdering a transvestite prostitute. The defendant's lawyer used the "gay panic" defense to get a lesser sentence for his client.

Do I think that this was enough punishment for the crime committed? No! Of course not!! But a technicality in the law allowed for a lenient sentence.

The murder of another person (any person!)deserves either the death penalty or life in prison. But that is just my opinion. So, the results of this case were such that I do not agree with the sentence. Others may disagree. But I personally think that the punishment should fit the crime, rather than the label of the crime being "politically correct" language.

Yet, does this kind of incident count as a "hate crime?" Maybe it would have. The man killed another man masquerading as a woman. But would labeling it a "hate crime" have changed the mind of the defendant's lawyer in getting his client less jail time? Probably not. Therefore, would it really be necessary to label it a hate crime in this case? Probably not.

You see, one person's perception of a "hate" crime may not be another's person perception that it should be labeled as such. Making "hate crimes" more punishable because of the sexual orientation and behavior of the person could, as I stated previously, be misused to promote a social agenda which didn't really have anything to do with the crime in the first place.

In this transvestite's murder case, it wasn't only sexual orientation that was at issue but the deception of the victim plus the anger and violent over-reaction of the killer.

Perhaps it could be labeled a "crime of passion" ('passion' meaning anger here)? But I think that the punishment end of it should fit the crime done not just the reason why it was done.

Why?

Because in this example, a defense tactic was used to bring about a more lenient punishment of the perpetrator. I happen to disagree with it. I think THAT law ("gay panic" defense) should be changed. A "hate crimes" law, in this case, would not have "worked" to get the murderer a longer sentence.

Confused yet? I'm sorry that I have not been able to explain my view better, but I tried.

Christinewjc said...

Here is a link to a recording that describes why the "hate crimes" law in Pennsylvania is a bad law and why the national "hate crimes law" - H.R. 254, needs to be defeated.

If you take the time to listen to the recording, it will explain (better than I did here) why the "hate-crimes" law is terrible legislation that has as it's target, the goal of silencing Christians who want to share the Gospel.

A bill introduced on Capitol Hill, H.R. 254, The David Ray Hate Crime Prevention Act, could federalize statutes like those used to silence and imprison 11 Christians in Philadelphia. Martha Kleder spoke with Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues and Michael Marcavage, director of RepentAmerica.com about this bill and the case of the Philadelphia 11 which is still in the courts.