I've never shied from criticizing the gay left for preaching that "LGBT rights" are just one part of a broad "progressive" agenda leading to the golden age of redistributive socialism under the direction of a liberal elite that's better than the rest of us. And I stand by that, especially to the extent that the leading LGBT rights organizations are now little more than Democratic party fundraising fronts run by Democratic party operatives.
But I have to say, as of late, I'm more sympathetic to focusing on a broader agenda, but from the opposite direction. One reason my heart hasn't been in blogging here at IGF is that, as important as gay legal equality remains in the face of government-mandated discrimination (primarily marriage and the military), I'm totally bummed out by the greater issue of the harm to American long-term prosperity and individual liberty under the current administration in Washington, all to the sycophantic cheerleading of the big-government-loving propagandists who dominate the media.
As I doubt that there will be anything other than feigned moves toward repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act or Don't Ask, Don't Tell before the 2010 elections (at which point Republicans who've been opposed by the gay lobbies will, I believe, pick up several or more seats in both congressional chambers), all we're likely to reap from the chosen one is a yet bigger orgy of spending to grow government at the expense of the private sector, sowing the seeds of even more confiscatory taxation and/or hyperinflation, along with still more ill-conceived and anti-growth regulation (much of the worst justified by the hysteria of global warming alarmism, the left's religious apocalypticalism).
So my attention has not been on gay rights; it's not where the action is. And to that degree, as I said, I can sympathize with the left that's always been more interested in "larger issues" at hand.
Still, from time to time I'd like to draw attention to some truly independent thought on gay issues, such as Camille Paglia's recent explanation of why she's against hate crime/thought crime laws (it's here, but you have to scroll down to the last answer on the page). Excerpt:
"Government functionaries should not be ceded the dangerous authority to make decisions about motivation. ... The barbaric acts that led to the death of Matthew Shepard in 1998 deserved a very severe penalty, which has been applied."
As reader "avee" wrote in the comments, responding to some muddled assertions:
Motive is only important in terms of its relation to pre-meditation. If motive reveals a crime was pre-meditated, then it's a more serious crime.
Increasing the penalties for assault or murder because of the bias in a person's head is a very different matter. It is, in effect, punishing thought. You may like punishing those with thoughts you don't think they should have, but it's a very bad road to go down. Beware, social engineers, of the consequences of your actions.
More. Reader "Sol" comments, responding an assertion that it's all Bush's fault:
"The Bush deficit was bad; the Obama deficit is catastrophic. There really is no way to convey the unprecedented size of the projected federal debt, but this chart gives some indication. ... At some point we will either have to inflate our way out of this hole, or raise taxes in a drastic way. The result will be a low-growth, heavily government dependent economy for years to come."
Ah, but at least we'll have higher criminal penalities (or, probably in fact not) if the state can ferret out bias!
20 Comments for “Larger Issues Prevail”
posted by BobN on
From Paglia: I think there were ambiguities here: The aimless hooligans who beat Shepard and tied him to a fence perhaps didn’t necessarily mean to kill him.
Oh, that’s “truly independent thought” all right.
posted by avee on
BobN,
Here’s the context you chose to leave out. Paglia wrote:
“Government functionaries should not be ceded the dangerous authority to make decisions about motivation. They aren’t novelists, psychologists or sibyls! Furthermore, there should be no special privileged class of protected groups in a democracy. A crime is a crime — period…. The barbaric acts that led to the death of Matthew Shepard in 1998 deserved a very severe penalty, which has been applied.”
And the person writing Paglia made a strong point as well: “Matthew Shepard’s case is often singled out as the reason we need hate crime legislation. The question is: What more would those who propose hate crime legislation like to be done to the perpetrators? They are serving consecutive life sentences. I believe they should be executed for their crime, but it seems that most liberals oppose the death penalty. So what would be different in his case if this legislation were enacted?”
posted by Larry on
Follow your heart, Stephen, and give it up. You’re not contributing anything useful here anyway. All you ever seem to do is to attack the “progressives” that you have such contempt for. That is not very helpful.
posted by avee on
Right Larry, the last thing we need is to suffer any dissent from the party line that is leading us to such a glorious future!
posted by Bobby on
The only reason Mathew Sheppard’s killers didn’t get the death penalty was because Mathew’s parents told the judge not to.
I also question the fairness of hate crime laws. Assault is assault, murder is murder, we should be trying acts, not motivations.
And what about the new information that reveals that Mathew’s killers where meth addicts and didn’t kill him because Mathew was gay but because of a meth-induced rage?
posted by Get Real on
“I’m totally bummed out by the greater issue of the harm to American long-term prosperity and individual liberty under the current administration in Washington”
How can you say that with a straight face, Miller? Where were you the last 8 years while Bush and the GOP sacked the economy, ballooned the federal budget, and brought us warrantless domestic spying, torture, suspension of habeas corpus? Now we’re on the verge of some of our greatest victories, what with marriage expanding across the land, and you’re more concerned about the federal budget all of a sudden? What a joke. Big loss of credibility for you.
posted by Sol on
The Bush deficit was bad; the Obama deficit is catastrophic. There really is no way to convey the unprecedented size of the projected federal debt, but this chart gives some indication.
As the blogger notes, at some point we will either have to inflate our way out of this hole, or raise taxes in a drastic way. The result will be a low-growth, heavily government dependent economy for years to come.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Motive, is as much a serious part of adjudicating a crime as opportunity.
Perhaps THE major influence when deciding the punishment.
That is why the range from 1st degree as opposed to manslaughter requires investigating the ‘state of mind’ of the perpetrators.
Now, ALL of a sudden this isn’t so important when a crime against a gay person occurs?!
Then that means the ‘gay panic defense’ could be utilized as legitimate and therefore the gay victim of a violent crime therefore is culpable in their own assault?
In ANY other violent crime against an innocent party, when is the victim turned into a perp?
And since when, if we are to trust the legal system, is a perp given a virtual slap on the wrist compared to other perpetrators of the same crime on someone who wasn’t gay or transgendered?
Our society has created the consciousness that cheapens gay lives. And they don’t like the monster they’ve created being corrected by hate crimes legislation.
Well then, do they have another idea? Another solution? Or are gay people to just sit by and not complain when, regardless of how many and in what way a gay person is brutalized, the justice system finds a way to dehumanize and diminish them in the law.
The Matt Shepard case has shown to be an anomaly in that his killers got what they DESERVED within the law.
However, it’s not true that the Shepards didn’t want the death penalty.
They did.
However, states are very slow in carrying out actual death sentences and Matt’s killers were likely to outlive the Shepards anyway and they didn’t want to have to be showing up at parole or commutation hearings every five years.
This way, they won’t have to engage the state anymore past the trials.
It’s been ten years. And a governor could still likely commute those sentences. These guys are still bucking for sympathy, if that hatchet piece by Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20 is anything to do by.
And in the years since other hate crimes were committed against gay men, such as Barry Winchell or Sean Kennedy, their killers are now free.
Sean Kennedy’s killer served less than two years.
Gays and lesbians (or those thought to be) are targeted for VIOLENCE more than any other group.
And have less justice after the fact than any other person too.
The consciousness that creates hate crimes against gay people would like to think that justice is fair and works the same for everyone, when it doesn’t.
And again, do any of YOU hear a viable alternative to hate crimes legislation?
Would you trust it?
posted by BobN on
Avee,
Again, from Ms. Paglia: They aren’t novelists, psychologists or sibyls!
My point, which stands with and without context, is that one only needs a meteorologist or perhaps a Wyoming native to know what will happen to someone you crucify on fence in the middle of a Wyoming winter. Paglia is either ignorant or an ass.
And the reason the Shepard case is talked about in discussions about hate-crime laws is not because the outcome indicates the need for hate-crime laws, but because crimes like that — that brutal, that senseless — are committed very rarely but when they are, the chances that it was a gay victim are very, very high.
If nothing else, the lack of a hate-crime statute in Wyoming and the lack of a federal one mean that Matthew Shepard’s killing isn’t even listed in official hate-crime statistics.
If you don’t like hate-crime laws, work for the repeal of existing ones. Odd that no one ever seems up to that…
posted by avee on
Motive is only important in terms of its relation to pre-meditation. If motive reveals a crime was pre-meditated, then it’s a more serious crime.
Increasing the penalties for assault or murder because of the bias in a person’s head is a very different matter. It is, in effect, punishing thought. You may like punishing those with thoughts you don’t think they should have, but it’s a very bad road to go down. Beware, social engineers, of the consequences of your actions.
posted by Bobby on
Regan, the Sheppards did not want the death penalty because their son Mathew was against the death penalty, so to honor his memory they decided to ask the judge for clemency.
If Mathew had supported the death penalty, his killers would probably be dead by now. Wisconsin isn’t California, there aren’t that many liberal judges over there.
posted by ron on
hey avee,
Thought is thought – if the motive of a crime is pre-meditated by someone deliberately seeking out someone gay to kill/assault because of gay panic or someone deliberately seeking out their wife’s secret boyfriend because they hate them, it’s based on bias/ prejudice against an individual.
You are as intellectually limp as Camille P.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Sorry, Bobby…you’re wrong. Matt wasn’t against the death penalty at all.
He had been greatly disturbed by the murder of James Byrd in Jasper TX.
He was adamant about the killers getting the death penalty, in a state like TX that actually carries out the sentence.
And the Shepards and the murder took place in WY, not WI.
I was correct in what I said.
Why?
The Shepards and several friends of Matt’s are friends of mine.
It should be noted that in the state of TX, no white man had been executed for the murder of a black man since 1841.
And that victim had been the slave of a white man, and it was the white man that demanded the killer be hanged for the destruction of his property.
Even so, James Byrd’s killer has yet to meet his death sentence, he’s on death row.
As for the murders of gays and lesbians, their killers tend to serve less than two years, regardless of the premeditation and brutality and special circumstances of the crime.
There are very similar circumstances around the murders of gays with the murders and assaults of blacks in the Jim Crow south. Lack of concern or intervention by law enforcers, juries or judges.
Abuse BY law enforcement officers towards gays and lesbians.
Hate crimes legislation is to assure that laws that require protection and proper enforcement and investigation can take place.
That funds can be allocated to make that happen. In the Shepard case, several deputies had to be laid off to defray the costs of the trial.
And Bobby, there is no ‘new information’ about Matt’s killers being in a meth induced rage.
A lot of would be gay bashers assume the stereotype that gays are rich and always have money, so therefore are targets for robbery.
When a murder occurs during the commission of a robbery or kidnap, as in the case of Matt Shepard, that is supposed to be AUTOMATIC 50 to life in almost every state.
Matt’s killers AND Matt had been checked for drugs. Matt was not a meth user, and his killers weren’t under the influence at the time.
In a small town like Laramie, folks know who does what.
My OTHER friend, primary Det. David O’Malley was made accessible to me for a literary project and he told me everything.
Matt wasn’t the first, and he wasn’t the last victim of a terrible bias crime.
It doesn’t seem to matter how young or innocent. Even someone like Lawrence King can be defamed all over again in the media.
That boy had been the target of threats, assault and bullying for WEEKS leading up to his death.
His tormentor told other kids he was going to kill King and why.
And he got in some target practice beforehand and was a budding NeoNazi.
Cut and dried and I think he SHOULD be tried as an adult, if he doesn’t take a deal.
The point is, Bobby…it’s still a large patchwork of whether or not gay murder or assault victims will be taken seriously.
The consciousness that brought the bias, has to pay for it now in hate crimes legislation to make things right.
They don’t like it, they better assure that the long list of victims of anti gay bias get the same justice anyone else would.
posted by Tom on
” I’m totally bummed out by the greater issue of the harm to American long-term prosperity and individual liberty under the current administration in Washington, all to the sycophantic cheerleading of the big-government-loving propagandists who dominate the media.””
I see…warrantless wire tapping, the invasion and occupation of a country that was no threat to us, torture and prison camps are not “big government” or a threat to “individual liberty”, but a stimulus package (effective or not) is?
And as for your (persecution-complex generated) qualm about the media: do you consider Fox News, which has a larger audience by far than CNN or MSNBC, to be “big government propaganda”?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Shorter Regan DuCasse; the police are all bigots and the judges are all homophobes.
It’s amazing how those who scream the loudest about bias and prejudice are the greatest practitioners of it. What’s really disgusting is how they use gay people as their excuse for it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I see…warrantless wire tapping, the invasion and occupation of a country that was no threat to us, torture and prison camps are not “big government” or a threat to “individual liberty”, but a stimulus package (effective or not) is?
Then one would think that you would be incensed over Obama’s continued use of warrantless wiretapping, continuing of military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing authorization of torture and extraordinary rendition, continuing indefinite detention, and continued use of Guantanamo.
That is, if one were foolish enough to think that you actually objected to any of these things, and weren’t simply using them as a rationalization to attack Bush.
posted by french62 on
Same old sophistry from Mr. Miller regarding the descent of the United States into a totalitarian, socialist state since Obama’s election. Please, follow your bliss and feel free to move on to greener pastures. Your posts of late appear to be Chicken Little, the sky is falling rantings regurgitating the most noxious non-sense spewed by the most mindless propagandists in the country, Fox News, Washington Post, et. al.
Stephen, cheerleading during the Bush years, policies that far more resembled statism, while championing the old canard about a scary socialist/progressive take-over of America is truly pathetic. Perhaps it is time for you to decouple your political philosophy from the corrupting influences of our 2 party corporate duoply. I think then that you may find the I in IGF.
Warm Regards,
french62
posted by avee on
Where, exactly, was the “cheerleading for the Bush years” in Miller’s post? Can the lefties ever focus on what’s actually being said?
As for decrying the charge of decent into socialism, I guess you’re right — I mean, it’s not as if the government had nationalized the auto industry, or was setting salaries for the financial industry, or planning to run it’s own health care plan, or anything like that.
posted by Bobby on
Alright Regan, I stand corrected on the facts.
I still don’t believe in hate crime laws because I want acts to be punished, not bias. In a free country you have the right to be biased or prejudiced. In fact, I don’t think I have ever met anyone who isn’t biased or prejudiced, no matter how tolerant some people claim to be, they always have biases.
I also disagree with the racist application of hate crime laws. For example, what happened in Jenna was a hate crime against a white kid. 6 black kids beating 1 white kid is a hate crime. Yet the media never portrayed it as a hate crime and neither did the courts. Progressives are unable to imagine minorities committing hate crimes, and there are many progressives judges and DA’s afraid of public scorn who will only consider a crime a hate crime when is committed from someone white against someone black, latino, asian or gay.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Motive is only important in terms of its relation to pre-meditation. If motive reveals a crime was pre-meditated, then it’s a more serious crime.
Increasing the penalties for assault or murder because of the bias in a person’s head is a very different matter. It is, in effect, punishing thought. You may like punishing those with thoughts you don’t think they should have, but it’s a very bad road to go down. Beware, social engineers, of the consequences of your actions.
So the number of victims don’t matter at all? Because that’s where I see the importance and value of so-called hate crimes laws – they target acts that have many more victims than other crimes.
If you get killed by a rival drug dealer, we don’t necessarily punish that as seriously as we would, say, the BTK killer. The BTK killer not only murdered more people, he did it in a way that deliberately threatened an entire community – that was part of his thrill, to have everyone scared. We call that “terrorism” when it is done internationally, but as a DC resident I can tell you the terror of 9/11 was actually easier to deal with than the terror of the sniper attacks a year later (during the time when Bush and Cheney were keeping us “safe”). The 9/11 attacks were a one-day thing, the attacks by our home-grown terrorist (trained by your tax dollars in the military) and his bizarro-world Robin/sidekick went on for weeks. About a dozen people in all were shot, but millions were terrorized. That is why not only did the terrorists receive the maximum penalties, but their cases were also considered some of the most important to get through the system, because of their severity.
When a straight man walking down the street holding his brother’s arm is savagely attacked and murdered by homophobes, the message is similar – it was an attack on all the LGBT people in the NYC area, not just that one person.
As for decrying the charge of decent into socialism, I guess you’re right — I mean, it’s not as if the government had nationalized the auto industry, or was setting salaries for the financial industry, or planning to run it’s own health care plan, or anything like that.
Would that it had nationalized the auto industry, or the banks or health. Instead we have propped up the banks and the auto industry, but let them run their businesses pretty much the way they want. Sure, as the current largest shareholder we demanded the resignation of the GM CEO, but if Warren Buffet had provided that kind of funding, he’d have the same say. And no one is talking about stopping Goldman from providing their millions in bonuses, even though they made a lot of money that was funneled through AIG, which is still in a form of government receivership.
As for health care, have you tried to navigate our “system” recently? I work in the industry, and the private system sucks just as badly as a national system would, but at least a national system would cover everyone. As an economist, I am a firm believer in health care not as a right, but as a public good – we are all better off when we have a healthy productive workforce that does not risk bankruptcy when they have the misfortune of being hit by a car.