Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:
7PM: Dal LaMagna
Dal LaMagna, a successful entrepreneur, well known backer of progressive causes, and Poulsbo resident, is running for the Democratic nomination for President. Really. LaMagna joins us by phone to tell us why. Later, I’ll talk a bit about my meeting this week with another presidential hopeful, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
8PM: Was Norm Maleng the last sane Republican?
King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng died suddenly Thursday night, after serving 28 years in the office… a popular Republican in a very Democratic county. In addition to being remembered as a kind man and an effective prosecutor, Maleng has been eulogized as one of the last of the moderate Republicans, a dying breed that used to dominate WA politics. What will the KCGOP look like without Maleng as a moderating force? Can Republicans possibly hope to hold the seat?
9PM: Are hate crimes “thought” crimes?
That’s what right-wing opponents of hate crime legislation want you to think, but David Neiwert of Orcinus argues that hate crime laws protect our basic civil liberties, rather than threatening them. Neiwert, the foremost authority on the Northwest’s right-wing militia movements, joins me in the studio for the hour.
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
Well lookee here! Roger Rabbit is posting on HA while Goldy talks on the ray-dee-oh!! Another Xmasghost theory is blown to hell.
rogergoldy…it’s called a break and an assistant…good try though.
me thinks the weazel doth protest too much….heh heh heh
Oh?? Then who am I?
Back Dave Neiwert, of course hate crimes limit speech. But, like any law, the issue is whether such laws are misused.
I wonder when cheap labor democrats are going to start paying their political volunteers? I guess it doesnt matter, everyone knows that the dems are hypocrites.
Did the Moslem who opened fire at the LA airport on passengers in line at the El Al ticket counter get prosecuted for a hate crime?
Did the Moslem who drove a car into a crowd of infidels get prosecuted for a hate crime,(in North Carolina)?
Let me explain hate-crime laws to our wingnutty friends this way.
Justice Holmes famously wrote, “Even a dog knows the difference between being stepped on or kicked.”
If you step on a dog, you may be civilly liable to the dog’s owner for its veterinary bills based on negligence, but you did not commit a crime. However, if you kicked the dog, you committed a felony under the Pasado Law — even if the dog’s injuries are the same. Hating dogs is not against the law, but kicking them is.
Likewise, hate-crime laws do not outlaw hating; they only outlaw kicking, punching, stabbing, shooting, burning, dragging, and other deliberate acts of violence.
@2 Xmasvapor — follow these instructions exactly. Remember, it’s important to follow these instructions exactly, and in the correct sequence.
1. Step outside your trailer.
2. Look up.
3. Do you see a black helicopter hovering overhead?
4. If so, go back inside your trailer, pick up the phone, and call your county mental health agency immediately.
@3 Golda Meir?
@4 The relevant question is when McDonald’s and Burger King are going to start paying THEIR volunteers.
The problem with hate crimes is simple, we have liberal judges. We need to get rid of all the liberal judges. Util that happens we will continue to have injustice.
Adolf Hitler was vegetarian who forbid people from smoking cigarettes in his presence. To get himself elected he promised to nationalize health care and to nationalize daycare. His strategy worked, in fact Nazi is an abreviation for the word nationalization. Who does this sound like? Look at the poles taken in Germany in the 30’s. He was running away with the single female vote, which tends to support socialist policies in the USA also.
I think Jenny Durkan should be prosecutor. Then we’ll have fewer dangerous felons like Lori Sotelo running loose on our streets.
@11 A “Republican” is someone who believes that cutting out his enemy’s heart, eating it, and drinking his blood is healthier for you than spinach.
9
Never!!!!! As long as they have willing people working there. You dems have no excuse for not paying political volunteers. You cant call McDonalds or Burger King hypocrites, but as usual you dems take that title. CHEAP LABOR DEMOCRATS.
@10 The problem with hate crimes is the people who commit them.
The Hitlers among us belong in jail, not in power.
DOOFUS @ 14
BEEN TO THE ACVR WEBSITE LATELY?
LOSER.
15
No!! It’s that we have liberals who dont apply hate crimes to Muslims,Jew Killers and union thugs. Hate crime laws are just a way for liberals to coddle criminals while looking like they are tough on crime. It is a sham.
Meet you at the next Bund meeting, there, DanRather. Or maybe you want to meet at the next KKK meeting. Either/or there pal.
DOOFUS:
DID YOU KNOW THE POSTER BOY FOR YOUR PARTY IS KLAUDT. HE RAPED KIDS AND YOUR PARTY IS RAPING ALL OUR KIDS WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR STUPID WAR.
CUNNINGHAM, NAKED IN HIS HOT TUB OF POLLUTED WATER FROM THE POTOMAC WHILE EVERYONE ELSE AT THE PARTY ON THE DUKE-STIR IS CLOTHED AND GRUBBING FOR EARMARKS IS ALSO A FITTING IMAGE FOR YOUR CORRUPT PARTY.
YOU’RE A LOSER DOOFUS.
Or maybe you want to meet at the next KKK meeting. Either/or there pal.
Why would I meet you there??? I am not running as a democrat for the Senate.
@18 Well let’s see. In three notorious black-against-white murder cases:
1. The Carr brothers were sentenced to death.
2. Colin Ferguson got six consecutive life terms.
3. The suspects in the Christian-Newsom case are charged with dozens of felony counts, including murder, felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, and theft.
I wouldn’t call that “soft on crime.”
Of course, a simpleton like Dufus wouldn’t understand that the reason prosecutors don’t charge hate crimes in cases like these is because you don’t need penalty enhancement when the prosecution is already seeking ultimate penalties, and a hate crime charge would only serve to make conviction more difficult to obtain because it adds another element that must be proved.
@3 “Back Dave Neiwert, of course hate crimes limit speech.”
Actually, they don’t. They only enhanced penalties for violent acts that already are crimes.
22
The fact that dems even have to talk about “penalty enhancement” shows that they are not to be trusted in making the rules for society. Liberals have always been soft on crime; hate crime legislation is just a symptom of this softness.
It’s you guys running the meetings these days, my friend. You tell me.
And then get a life. Right wing guys persitstenly commenting on left wing blogs is a sign of mental illness. Hope you have good insurance and good meds.
25
Only democrats elected a KKK member. Try again racist.
uh, huh. So why are all the racists, like Trent Lott, for example, now in your party? And how the hell do you get away with calling me a racist, asshole? You dont know me. It’s because Goldy has no filters to keep jerks like you out of here. But I’m a big guy. Open minded and liberal. Let’s see who the hell you are. Link your email and website.
The Bushistas are going down.
You got your goddam “emergency funding” and now all the Faux News propagandists can’t lay the blame for all the bad shit that goes down in Iraq this summer on the Dems.
And, by the way, for all the dead soldiers who can’t speak for themselves, all you Bush supporters and this whole administration can go blow Osama’s cock when you finally find him.
You can finally say at that point: “Mission Accomplished!”
Religious Right = White Southern Racists
Southern Baptists = anti-abortion and God hates gays
Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative.
uh, huh. So why are all the racists, like Trent Lott, for example, now in your party?
Oh that tired worn out myth. The facts support my position. No one on the republican side voted the likes of Robert KKK Byrd into office. Your side votes him every term. Like I said, democrats are the real racists.
28
Why do you care about the soldier? If only your side would care about the soldiers right to vote as much as the other crap they spew they may actually be halfway believable. Hehehehe
I must say I am in good form tonight. Can you liberals just form a line as I beat the crap out of you one by one. Hehehehehe. Its like shooting fish in a barrel. heheheheehe
@24 Bullshit. (No more need be said.)
33
Good advice. Like I said “fish in a barrel” heheheheehe
@31 “If only your side would care about the soldiers right to vote … ”
Republicans care so much about soldiers’ right to vote they spend millions of dollars to keep soldiers from voting.
Here it is again, Dufus … every time you spew your “liberals-block-military-votes” bullshit, I’m going to repost it:
“The Republican National Committee has a special offer for African-American soldiers: Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.
“A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election, virtually all of them cast by residents of Black-majority precincts.
“Files from the secret vote-blocking campaign were obtained by BBC Television Newsnight, London. They were attached to emails accidentally sent by Republican operatives to a non-party website.
“One group of voters wrongly identified by the Republicans as registering to vote from false addresses: servicemen and women sent overseas.
“Here’s how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, ‘Do not forward’, to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as ‘undeliverable.’ The lists of soldiers of ‘undeliverable’ letters were transmitted from state headquarters … to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters’ registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted.
“One target list was comprised exclusively of voters registered at the Jacksonville, Florida, Naval Air Station. … [See this scrub sheet at http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.g.....038;size=o ] …
“A soldier returning home in time to vote in November 2004 could also be challenged on the basis of the returned envelope. Soldiers challenged would be required to vote by ‘provisional’ ballot. Over one million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 race were never counted; over half a million absentee ballots were also rejected. The extraordinary rise in the number of rejected ballots was the result of the widespread multi-state voter challenge campaign by the Republican Party. …
“The BBC obtained several dozen confidential emails sent by the Republican’s national Research Director and Deputy Communications chief, Tim Griffin to GOP Florida campaign chairman Brett Doster and other party leaders. Attached were spreadsheets marked, ‘Caging.xls.’ Each of these contained several hundred to a few thousand voters and their addresses. A check of the demographics of the addresses on the ‘caging lists,’ as the GOP leaders called them indicated that most were in African-American majority zip codes.
“Ion Sanco, the non-partisan elections supervisor of Leon County (Tallahassee) when shown the lists by this reporter said: ‘The only thing I can think of – African American voters listed like this – these might be individuals that will be challenged if they attempted to vote on Election Day.’ …
“The Republican National Committee in Washington refused our several requests to respond to the BBC discovery. … The party has refused to say why it would mark soldiers as having ‘bad addresses’ subject to challenge when they had been assigned abroad. … Setting up such a challenge list would be a crime under federal law. … While the party insisted the lists were not created for the purpose to challenge Black voters, the GOP ultimately offered no other explanation for the mailings. …
“Soldiers sending in their ballot from abroad would not know their vote was lost because of a challenge.”
__________________________________
“For the full story of caging lists and voter purges of 2004, plus the documents, read Greg Palast’s … bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, Armed Madhouse: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ‘08, No Child’s Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete article and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/jv9nf
Roger Rabbit Commentary: What kind of slime suckers would take advantage of soldiers’ deployment to a combat zone to block them from voting? Troop-hating Republican traitors, that’s who.
Dufus and other wingnuts have to keep repeating the lie that Democrats block military votes to distract the public from the fact Republicans are blocking military votes.
Roger Rabbit Recent History Quiz
Here’s a little “recent history” quiz for you wingnuts. Besides getting stuck in the middle of a civil war, the current administration has done all of the following to our soldiers:
Tried to cut combat pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Failed to provide troops in combat zones with body and vehicle armor;
Cut veterans benefits;
Dumped wounded soldiers in mold-infested buildings;
Most recently, objected to a 3.5% military pay increase approved by Congress, holding out for a smaller amount.
The current administration is:
[ ] 1. Republican
[ ] 2. Democrat
Think carefully before marking a box, Dufus … you get only 1 shot at this.
Here’s an interesting article from a blog with the intriguing name “Cup O’ Joe”:
“Republicans Hate Soldiers
“For years, the Republican Party has talked about how much they love the military and how they support the troops, and they’re so good at these lies that many people believe them. But those of us in the working class, many of whom (like myself and Jessica Lynch) joined because the Republicans wrecked the economy, know that the truth is that, to Republicans, soldiers are just fodder for their wars. Republicans use soldiers for photo ops and propaganda, but when it comes down to doing things for the soldiers, they can’t be bothered.
“The US spends more on defense, almost, than the rest of the world combined, over a billion dollars a day. Where does all that money go? It sure as hell doesn’t go to the soldiers, who languish in underfunded hospitals, or have their combat pay lowered or their veteran’s benefits reduced. …
“With more … reports of attacks on US soldiers in Iraq … it’s going to be harder … for Rove to get away with the spin. The soldiers are beginning to question, not just whether the civilian leadership knows what they’re doing, but whether they even care about them. …
“When … liberal Democrats … ran the show, they rewarded the valor of our troops by giving them the GI Bill, which gave them a college education and helped them to make the best of their lives after they sacrificed years in the service of their country. They knew the value of the soldiers.
“Under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, money for the military swelled, and anyone who complained about things like waste was accused of being ‘soft.’ … But the lives of the soldiers weren’t necessarily better for all the money that was getting spent. Most of it went to new toys for the higher ranks, not to improved conditions for the working soldier. …
“It’s time we stopped letting the Republicans get away with this garbage. They love the money they make from the military …, but they hate the soldiers who fight the wars and make the sacrifices that make them rich.”
http://cupojoe.blogspot.com/20.....chive.html
This, by the way, was written by an actual honest-to-God veteran (as opposed to the rightwing pretenders who populate HA’s comment threads).
Here’s another relevant essay from a blogger with the fascinating name “T. Rex”:
“Republicans Hate Soldiers and Veterans
“Yes, I did title this essay: ‘Republicans Hate Soldiers and Veterans.’ No, clearly not all of them, but certainly the Republicans in office hate soldiers and veterans.
“This idea dawned on me when I saw a homeless man sitting on the side of the road with a sign that said ‘Homeless Vet.’ It was far from the first time I’ve seen such a thing … The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that on any given night, there are 275,000 homeless veterans …. Almost one-fourth of all homeless people are veterans and veterans are twice as likely to become homeless as are non-veterans.
“Now what does that have to do with Republicans? A number of things. The biggest is that everyone seems to think that Republicans love veterans and do whatever they can for our vets and soldiers while the Democrats hate those who have served their country and don’t do anything for them. This is, of course, ridiculously wrong (with the exception of people like Bill Clinton, who didn’t do a whole lot for veterans either). I’m not going to get into how good or bad Democrats are on this issue other than to say that they are better than the Republicans.
“What have the Republicans done that is so bad?
“The Republicans have had partial or total control of the federal government since 1994, holding the House of Representatives the entire time, the Senate all but a year and a half and the White House since 2001 … they could’ve easily gotten any programs to help veterans and soldiers passed. They could’ve increased funding for veteran’s programs and they could’ve improved the quality of life for active soldiers who are in harm’s way. Have they done so? Clearly not.
“Starting with the homeless vets, … there is absolutely no reason that America, with the biggest economy in the world, should have even one person who served his or her country be without a home. This is morally wrong and should be instantly corrected. Creating housing for 275,000 people is not even that difficult or expensive. But what would Republicans rather spend money on? … B-2 bombers and huge tax cuts for the rich. …
“What have the Republicans (and to be fair, Bill Clinton) done to help these needy veterans? Definitely not enough. Needs for mental health care for veterans has risen by 26% since 1995, but funding for the programs has only increased 9%. These are people who served their country, many who served in combat, and they are people that can’t help themselves. It is immoral that even one of these people goes without the help they need.
“And it isn’t just homeless veterans who are receiving the short end of the budget stick because of Republicans, it’s all veterans. In 2003, the Republican House cut the budget for veterans health care by $844 million and other programs by another $463 million. ‘This could mean the loss of 19,000 nurses, equating to the loss of 6.6 million outpatient visits or more than three-quarters of a million hospital bed days. But that is not all of the devastation that will be caused by the proposed cuts. Congress will be reaching into the pockets of our nation’s service-connected veterans, including combat disabled veterans, and robbing them and their survivors of a portion of their compensation. Ninety percent of VA’s mandatory spending is from cash payments to service-connected disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans, and their survivors,’ said Edward Heath, National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. House Democrat Lane Evans (IL) explained why we got these cuts: ‘These cuts must be made, so that our government can afford to provide a tax cut which will benefit only the wealthiest Americans, many of who never served in the military. This is utterly humiliating to every veteran and every active duty service person. On the verge of war, the Republicans are stabbing veterans of earlier wars in the back.’
“The budget that the president pushed for 2004 included a $28.8 billion dollar cut in funding for veterans programs. The budget was opposed by Democrats and veterans groups. Virtually every Republican in Congress favored the bill. It took a public campaign by veterans groups to get the cut scaled down to only a $6.2 billion dollar cut. … Republicans cut $5.1 billion in VA medical care by not allowing ‘Priority 8’ veterans to enroll in the medical program. He also instituted a enrollment fee for ‘Priority 7 and 8’ veterans in medical programs, ‘saving’ another $1.3 billion.”
[Roger Rabbit Note: Priority 7 and 8 veterans are low-income veterans with non-service connected medical conditions.]
“By 2013, the Republican House Budget proposal would have cut almost $30 billion from veterans programs. A Democratic motion killed the cuts, but the Veterans’ Affairs Committee has been directed by the Republican leadership to still find $3.9 billion in cuts to veterans’ programs. In a moment of actual care for our veterans, the Congress in 2002 wanted to eliminate an old rule that cut retirement benefits for veterans with disabilities … President Bush opposed getting rid of the rule, hoping to deny benefits to 600,000 disabled veteran retirees.
“Bush’s 2004 budget proposal cut $206 million from the Impact Aid program that helps make sure children of those fighting overseas receive quality education. The new Republican tax refund also made a point to exclude some military families by not allowing combat pay to be included in the income that can go toward claiming the credit. Many of those who don’t get to claim the extra income won’t get the tax credit. Additionally Bush sought to cut $150 million from aid to schools that attended by the children of enlistees and further cuts to VA budgets.
“The U.S. Supreme Court, dominated by Republican appointees, rejected a lawsuit by Korean and World War II veterans who had been denied health care promised to them by military recruiters. The promised health care, which was not delivered, would have gone to as many as 1.5 million people and totaled $15 billion in benefits. The Court ruling means these veterans won’t get any of this money. ‘It is not enough to hold parades or tie yellow ribbons,’ the court was told by the Military Officers Association of America, one of the groups supporting veterans in the case. ‘We must honor their commitment and sacrifice by assuring that the government honors its commitments to them.’ The Republican Court didn’t listen, despite the fact that the military basically lied to these soldiers to get them into the wars they fought on our behalf.
“None of this is new, Republicans have been attacking the budgets for veterans since at least the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan issued a proposal to cut 20,000 medical personnel in the VA and proposed to scrap a counseling program for veterans, during the middle of a surge of Vietnam veterans suicide attempts. The first President Bush cancelled burial benefits for veterans and cut $600 million from the VA.
“The theoretical reason that Republicans give for these cuts is to cut fraud, waste and abuse. Joe Fox of Paralyzed Veterans of Americans said ‘the reduction will slam the poorest disabled veterans and cut GI Bill benefits for soldiers who are currently serving in Iraq.’ It could also eliminate 9000 doctors from an already taxed system. Fox said it was ‘an in-your-face insult to the veterans of this country.’…
“Due to a shortage of funding there is a backlog in claims from Gulf War veterans of almost 500,000 (a third of veterans of that war) and another 500,000 compensation and pension cases backlogged. Also because of budget cuts, the VA has had to treat more than 1.4 million additional veterans in the last seven years with 20,000 fewer staff employees. According to VAIW this means hardships for any veterans who need new benefits in the future: ‘Some will have to stand in line, others will be refused, and still others may face new $250 enrollment fees,’ and ‘a quarter-million vets [will have] to wait up to 10 months for specialized treatment and surgery.’
“This has also meant that clinics and hospitals have had to stop accepting new patients and that veterans whose income is more than $35,000 have been cut off from all health benefits (about 164,000 vets).
“The cuts are particularly devastating because soldiers are amongst the lowest paid people in our society. Take an example like Pat Tillman. Tillman was a safety for the Arizona Cardinals set to make $3.6 million over three years who quit the NFL to serve his country in the Army. His reward? $13,000 a year. Most employees in fast food joints who work full time make more than this. And there are more than two thousand active soldiers and their families that currently have to accept food stamps in order feed themselves.
“It isn’t just military salaries that are insulting: ‘[Base housing is] in poor condition,’ Army General Robert L. Van Antwerp testified before Congress. ‘Much of the housing is old and built to standards that met lifestyles of 30 to 50 years ago. On-base housing is still preferred by many soldiers, with waiting times averaging 10 to 15 months.’
“And it’s not like we couldn’t afford to make soldiers amongst the highest paid in society, like they should be. It would only take $75 billion to raise every soldier’s salary to more than $50,000 a year, the least we could do for those who put their lives on the line for Americans. Republican President Bush, however, suggested only a 2% raise for low-ranking soldiers in his 2003 budget. …
“It isn’t just monetarily that Republicans are insulting our soldiers and veterans. Republican Larry Craig of Idaho decided by himself to block 850 Air Force promotions in order to get four C-130 cargo planes for his home state. Craig’s stance is basically no planes, no promotions. Republican Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that drafted soldiers offer ‘no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time.’ … Republican matriarch Barbara Bush recently said ‘But why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it’s going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Oh, I mean, it’s, not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?’ …
“The clearest way you can insult or hate someone is to either kill them or put them in situations where they might lose their lives. … The soldiers in Iraq are ill-equipped, undermanned and are often placed in situations they have no training for. More and more of them are becoming disillusioned with why they are there:
“‘What are we getting into here?’ asked a sergeant with the U.S. Army’s 4th Infantry Division who is stationed near Baqubah, a city 30 miles northeast of Baghdad. ‘The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn’t in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?’
“‘The way it seemed is, once Iraqis got over being grateful for getting rid of Saddam, they found out quickly they don’t want the Americans, either,’ said Sgt. Nestor Torres, a military policeman with the 3rd Infantry Division in the restive town of Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad. …
“‘I don’t know why they’re keeping us around here,’ said Cpl. Anthony Arteaga, 25, of Hammond, La., who is assigned to the 588th Engineer Battalion. …
“At a checkpoint on the outskirts of Baghdad set up to search for illegal weapons, a soldier sweating in the 110-degree heat told a reporter, ‘Tell President Bush to bring us home.’
“On a skylight atop Fallujah’s city hall, a soldier has scrawled in the dust: ‘I’ll kill for a ticket home.'”
http://quinnell.us/politics/es.....diers.html
If our soldiers and military families LOVE the “commander guy,” why is his approval rating only 28%?
GOP = troop hating bastards
Hmmmm … looks like I ran Dufus off the board tonight (again).
Holy crap, Mr. Rabbit, I didn’t know about that deal with the votes. I’d heard some allegations of disenfranchisement, but this is the first time I’ve come across the particulars of what was done.
I can’t say I’m entirely surprised. The GOP has shown their moral turpitude on numerous occasions. This one just reinforces what we already know: neo-Cons are rat bastards.
Mr. Rabbit
Burning a Cross on someone’s lawn is punisheable as a hate crime, no? That males sense, by your lettuce ridden reasoning because littering is also punisheable.What OTHER crime in implicit in the cross burning? Trespass … not unless their is a sign or understanding that the lawn is not used for pubic access.
So, hate crimes limit speach in somewhat the same way as flag burning would or laws against harassment of poiticians would.
ANY such law is tricky because they all open the way to more restrictive laws. E.g. in the USoA the Nazi party is legal as it is legal to deny the holocaust. In Germany neither is legal. Do Germans have less free speech than we do?
Personally, I think it is necessary to have some laws that do limit speech if only to enable speech that would itself be limited by untrammeled free speech. Some of my views on this matter may strike you as extreme:
1. Fair Use Policies for all Public Media, including Faux.
2. Blasphemy: Teaching of antiscientific notions should be banned even in private schools.
3. Flag Burning: I would outlaw it as a form of hate speech. There are enough other ways of expressing one’s dislike for the USoA
4. Hype in Advertising I would like to see criminal penalties for intentional misrepresentation in advertising.
5. Bad Music … well that is going too far.
Enjoy the lettuce my bunny.
Hate crimes? No doubt the Bush regime is guilty of them. They hate freedom. They hate the US Constitution. They hate the American people. They hate anyone who isn’t exactly like them.
ROGER @ 41
EXCELLENT WORK. DOOFUS HAS ONCE AGAIN CRAWLED BACK UNDER HIS ROCK.
BUT HE’LL BE BACK OUT AGAIN TO SPEW THE SAME, OLD, TIRED, RIGHT-WING LIES. HE ALWAYS COMES BACK.
WHAT A LOSER!
SeattleJew @ 43
Fair use policies for blogs on the public internet as well? How about radio shows broadcast to the public, like the David Goldstein show?
Rabbit gets his spew from other liberal blogs. Here is the real truth:
A recent report issued by the National Defense Committee, a nonprofit organization that supports the U.S. military and encourages veterans to run for elective office, recently found that 25 percent of ballots cast by military personnel in the 2004 presidential election went uncounted. Incredibly, that rate of disenfranchisement could be even higher due to the fact that the study relied on voluntary disclosure of information from local election officials.
Unfortunately, the issue of soldiers being disenfranchised during an election is nothing new. We all remember the 2000 Florida recount fiasco and the events surrounding it. During that election, the rate of uncounted ballots cast by members of the armed forces was even higher at a staggering 29 percent nationwide.
In Florida, which turned out to be the pivotal state in determining the winner of the 2000 election, around 1,400 military absentee votes were left uncounted, largely because of the role of lawyers working for the Democratic Party at local canvassing boards who followed a directive from the party to challenge all military ballots on the premise that they likely were votes for Republican nominee George W. Bush.
Although many lawmakers vowed that the level of disenfranchisement seen in the aftermath of that election would never happen again, it looks like it did.
According to the committee’s study, “Military and Overseas Absentee Voting in the 2004 Election,” the largest problem in managing military absentee ballots is not hostile attorneys, but rather what military historians call “the tyranny of distance” – the unavoidable difficulties inherent in getting ballots to our deployed military people serving overseas.
During the election in 2000, the study found that, 30 percent of military personnel did not receive their ballot in time to cast a vote. When you combine that figure with the number of votes that were tossed out for various reasons – including arriving to the absentee voters via snail mail past voting deadlines – you can see that the scope of the problem is enormous.
The challenge of getting ballots to soldiers was even worse during the 2004 election due to the post-9/11 deployments of military units to Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries in support of the Global War on Terror, the committee found. Units frequently on the move and mail delays caused by local threats such as the danger of roadside bombs made the task of getting ballots to the troops even more daunting.
However, military absentee voters once again in 2004 found themselves the target of partisan political maneuvering as had happened in Florida four years earlier.
Recognizing the fact that more time would be needed to count all of the military ballots arriving from overseas, the Pennsylvania legislature in 2004 requested that Gov. Edward G. Rendell authorize a two-week extension for the acceptance of military ballots to compensate for the issues surrounding the wartime situation in which our soldiers are now engaged.
However, in Pennsylvania in 2004, as in Florida in 2000, political operatives were motivated by their longstanding knowledge that a strong majority of military voters generally supports Republican candidates.
Rendell, a Democrat, initially refused the request to assist military absentee voters. But it later was discovered that he had launched an aggressive “get out the vote” information campaign within the state’s prison population, informing inmates of voting rights and providing them with absentee ballots for the election. Other studies have shown that a majority of the prison voting population supports Democratic candidates. The adverse publicity prompted Rendell to approve the extension for military overseas voters.
In Washington state, the U.S. Justice Department threatened to sue less than a month before the 2004 election because election officials had yet to even mail out absentee ballots to military personnel overseas. What may have been bureaucratic incompetence may well have altered the outcome of that state’s gubernatorial election.
The Washington state governor’s race between Republican nominee Dino Rossi and Democratic nominee Christine Gregoire turned out to be even tighter than the Florida presidential vote count in 2000. The Republican candidate won the first two re-counts but ultimately lost the third by 128 votes. With a total of 31,910 overseas ballots mailed out for that election, it’s easy to see that even a few lost, late or missing military votes made a huge impact in the election, ultimately deciding the race.
When it was time for Congress to ratify the 2004 election results and electoral vote count for the offices of President and Vice President during a joint session last December, two Democratic legislators challenged the results on the basis of voting irregularities and disenfranchisement. Was someone finally going to raise the issue of one-fourth of our deployed military men and women not having a voice in the democratic process? No.
The challenge concerned votes cast in the state of Ohio, which turned out to be the pivotal state in 2004 with enough electoral votes to swing the election and the Presidency to John Kerry. The challenge centered on disqualification of a newly created provisional ballot, not the military vote, and was nothing more than a symbolic protest by the party that had lost the presidential election.
It appears that once again the rights of military overseas voters are no longer an issue within the political establishment.
We should not have to still be struggling with this issue. Before the 2004 election, the Department of Defense launched an online voting system called the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE), designed to give military personnel deployed around the world the ability to vote instantly online. This would have obviously corrected the problems surrounding the reliance of postal mail for balloting, and put an end to the partisan shenanigans we saw in Florida with Democratic Party lawyers targeting military voters for ballot rejection.
Alas, DoD officials opted to shut down the SERVE program before the election due to security concerns dealing with the sensitive nature of the data and the possibility of illegitimate votes being tabulated. Since DoD manages to send thousands of classified messages daily around the globe, many of them stamped “Top Secret,” it is hard to imagine that these security and privacy concerns cannot be resolved.
It is ridiculous to have our troops filling out paper ballots and placing them in the mail in a day and age when publicly available technology allows you to take a picture and send it to someone on the other side of the world with a small cellphone. The disenfranchisement on the scale that we have seen in recent years is unacceptable, but it is definitely correctible.
If DoD officials take the time to develop a secure and dependable electronic voting system, some election results may be drastically different in the years to come – but unlike the number of contested elections we have seen since 2000, the results will more likely reflect the judgment of all of the voters – including those serving in harm’s way to protect our freedoms.
If our soldiers and military families LOVE the “commander guy,” why is his approval rating only 28%?
05/27/2007 at 1:05 am
That’s easy. Because they are liberal polls. Next.
Publican defines liberal poll as any poll where OTHER than Faux News viewers are asked the questions.
Don’t like the poll results? Attack the poll – Publican Playbook Page 1
Well Publican – I bet you HATED those polls that cost your side Congress AND the Senate. How’d that feel bitch?
HE HE!
DOOFUS @ 47
YOU’VE POSTED THAT PIECE OF RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA BEFORE.
RIGHT HERE. AT COMMENT 20.
AS DOOFUS F. K. LOSER HIMSELF!!! LMAO!!
Hey Pope-A-Dope keep it up – you’re on track to say something ELSE that violates your Publican party line. We’d LOVE to have the David Goldstein show subject to fair use policies. That would mean the same would apply to all the various right wing hate radio shows by your buddies Lush Flimbaugh, Handjob Hannity and their ilk. Be careful what you wish for you stupid little cum-drunk asshole.
DOOFUS – GO CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK. YOU MIGHT DROWN IN THE LIQUID SUNSHINE.
AND THEN WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE PLEASURE OF SEEING YOUR STUPID ASS SKEWERED IN NOV 2008!!!
LMAO!!!
Democrat Playbook, Chapter 1, Part IV.
The peoples tax money is to be refered to as “revenue”. After all, just like a business, we need to grow government. Use Business terms.
Since citizens will most likely be unwilling to part with their hard earned money, especially to fund projects like high tech toilets that turn in into crack houses and drunk hotels, lie about what the money is for, or threaten to cut back critical services. This will get the money flowing.
Ex. “The point is, I need cash, and so I’ve decided to do what I first should have done a couple years ago, and hold an online fundraiser. That’s right, I’m asking you, my loyal readers, to help me continue my hard work, by forking over a little or your hard earned cash.
I won’t be spending the money on fancy computer equipment (though I’d love a new MacBook if anybody has one to spare)… just the mortgage, health insurance, maybe a trip to the dentist and stuff like that. Just the nuts and bolts of getting by.”
Then of course, immediately go on vacation to Florida. Thank you David Goldstein for the clear example!
This tactic works everytime, so please use it liberally!
Here is the formula
Lie about need + overstate and exaggerate critical nature of “revenue”+ threaten to pull essential services = The peoples money flowing for pet projects
I don’t blame Goldy, he’s only acting on instict as a Liberal Democrat.
RR hero Chavez at work.
CARACAS (Reuters) – Tens of thousands of Venezuelan protesters marched on Saturday to the Caracas headquarters of an anti-government television station, which is being forced off the air after President Hugo Chavez’s administration refused to renew its broadcasting license.
This is the kind of tactic Rabbit endorses.
His dream ticket = Castro/Chavez.
Hate crimes.
There is a part of me that absolutely agrees. Somehow the penalty for burning a cross on someone’s lawn or spray painting a swastika on a Synagogue should be more than that for simple vandalism.
Additionally, weak penalties for that sort of thing seems to encourage it. I imagine that if the head of the local KKK branch was convicted of vandalism and malicious mischief, and sentenced to thirty hours community service, he’d probably have the conviction framed and mounted.
But… there is little doubt here that we’re convicting for a thought crime, and that is a very slippery slope.
We’ve had posters here that have accused most of us of treason, simply because we oppose the Iraq war. Senior government officials have actually made that claim in public.
No, I’ve got to defend freedom of speech, even (especially) when I’m offended by it. If someone tears down the flag flying in front of my home and burns it (assuming I don’t catch him at it and punch out his running lights) then the crime is petty theft (I paid about $20 for the flag) and vandalism.
The penalty for burning a cross on my neighbor’s lawn is the same, except that the perpetrator gets to see my entire neighborhood come together and help re-sod the lawn. (Somehow I think that would be the greater penalty.)
I think the solution to hate crimes is primarily to refuse to continue the hate. Sentence enhancement for the vandals is to require them to help clean up the damage.
If a violent crime is committed, and the court has reason to believe that the perpetrator is both unrepentant and likely to re-offend, there are already procedures available to deal with the situation. It seems to me that this is the only issue that courts are really qualifed to deal with.
Dan
I should just go back to the last time you posted that bit of partisan tripe, then cut and paste the responses here, but I’m not going to bore everyone with the same stuff again.
I suppose you’re hoping that some newbie or occasional reader will just assume that this is the first time we’ve seen it and are simply dumbfounded on your brilliance, but the fact is that the National Defense Committee may be non-profit, but is certainly not non-partisan.
Yes, they encourage (Republican) veterans to run for elective office. They are amazingly quiet about the many Democratic veterans that run for office. Their “analysis” is laughable, not just for the highly selective way they choose their data, but for the incredible leaps they take in making their conclusions.
Essentially, they make the claim that if a service member requested an absentee ballot, then didn’t return it, he or she must be the victim of some foul conspiracy to deprive them of their vote. There was no attempt to compare ballot return percentages between military and non-military voters, even leaving out the fact that (as I know from my own service) voter registration forms are often handed out at morning quarters, with names checked off a list when they are returned.
(No, this isn’t some sort of violation. At least in my commands, the registration forms are returned sealed, and if someone simply declares (as some did) that they were either already registered or did not want to vote, then that was supposed to be the end of the matter.)
Still, there was a certain amount of pressure to register, and many did out of nothing more than a burning desire not to annoy the Chief, who tended to scowl at people. Said Chief had to answer to a Commander, who was strongly in favor of having a 100% voter registration rate onboard his ship.
Get real “Dan”.
WRONG STUFF – YOU’RE AS MUCH A LOSER AS DOOFUS. AT ONE TIME YOU THOUGHT ROGER RABBIT AND GOLDY WERE THE SAME PERSON. THIS “CONCLUSION” WAS COMPLETELY INDICATIVE OF THE KIND OF DELUSIONS UNDER WHICH YOU SUFFER.
YOU’RE A CRAPPY HUMORIST. ARE YOU TRYING TO BE FUNNY? RESTROOMS FOR THE HOMELESS? DO YOU WANT THEM TO SHIT AND PISS IN ALLEYS AND STAIRWAYS? WHAT’S YOUR SOLUTION? FORCED RELOCATION?
EVERYONE HERE WHO IS SANE WANTS GOVERNMENT TO WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY AND MAKE THE BEST USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
A SHITTY WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR BULLSHIT REASONS THAT’S BURNT THROUGH OVER 400 BILLION IS NOT IN THE OPINION OF A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, A WISE USE OF TAXPAYER MONEY. NOT TO MENTION THE COSTS IN LIVES, LIMBS AND SHATTERED MINDS.
GOLDY HAS DONE AN INCREDIBLE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND EVEN TO THE NATION BY EXPOSING THE INCOMPETENT FRAUD, MICHAEL BROWN AND THE VIOLENT, PSYCHOPATHIC LIAR DAVID IRONS JR. HE CALLED THE 2004 ELECTION CONTEST 100 PERCENT RIGHT IN CONTRAST TO THE DELUSIONAL DEMAGOGUE, STEFAN SHARANSKY.
I DON’T BEGRUDGE HIM A DIME.
OH WRONG STUFF. ALMOST FORGOT. EVERYTIME YOUR KIND GETS PUT IN CHARGE, WHAT DO THEY DO? DO THEY SHRINK GOVERNMENT? NO, THEY BORROW AND SQUANDER, LINING THEIR POCKETS AND THOSE OF THEIR FRIENDS. GOVERNMENT FOR THEM IS A CHANCE TO LOOT THE PUBLIC TROUGH FOR THEIR SELFISH GAIN.
SEE ABRAMOFF, SEE CUNNINGHAM, SEE SAFAVIAN, SEE NEY.
SEX PERVERTS AND HYPOCRITES HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. SEE FOLEY, SEE KLAUDT, SEE TED HAGGARD.
THE ANGER THAT IS RISING IN THE PEOPLE WILL TOTALLY OVERWHELM ANY KIND OF VOTE SUPPRESSION AND FRAUD YOUR KIND CAN MUSTER IN 2008. JUST WAIT AND SEE.
@47 Richard Pope
Yep Goldy shows balance. hell, heven POLITELY allows conservatives to talk on his show.
Now that we have seen that 1.7% of the airtime in liberal Seattle is fair and balanced, what should happen to the rest?
@56 John
I think we agree with where the knofe edge is but I am not sure how best to rule.
E.g. someone who burns a cross on my fornt yard may be trying to deny me free participation ion our society by intimidation. Same is with swastikas. Somehow I do see the trade off in re free speech.
Similarly, I think that promoting creationism is borderline. depending on where an dhow this blasphemy ispracticed.
@48 “National Defense Committee”
Bwa-ha-ha ha har! We’ve plowed this field before! “Nonprofit” my ass, this gang of rightwing militarists is just another GOP front group with people like the notorious ex-Gen. Singlaub on its board.
They got this right, though: “However, military absentee voters once again in 2004 found themselves the target of partisan political maneuvering as had happened in Florida four years earlier.” See #35 above.
@48 “The Washington state governor’s race between Republican nominee Dino Rossi and Democratic nominee Christine Gregoire turned out to be even tighter than the Florida presidential vote count in 2000. The Republican candidate won the first two re-counts but ultimately lost the third by 128 votes. With a total of 31,910 overseas ballots mailed out for that election, it’s easy to see that even a few lost, late or missing military votes made a huge impact in the election, ultimately deciding the race.”
A “few”? We don’t need to guess or speculate here, Dufus. I can furnish exact numbers.
Number of military/overseas ballots mailed by King County: 15,289
Number mailed late: 0
Number returned: 12,694
Turnout Rate: 83%
Compared to statewide civilian turnout rate: 82%
Number of these that were counted: 12,474
Validity rate: 98.3%
Number received too late to be counted: 16
Number of Federal Write In Ballots received: 1,342
Number of FWIB validated and counted: 1,081
http://www.metrokc.gov/electio....._01_05.htm
As you can see, when you look at actual facts and figures, Republican claims that King County disenfranchised military voters are pure unadultered BULLSHIT.
The truth is, Washington makes it easier for soldiers to vote than ANY OTHER STATE. You don’t even have to be a registered voter. You don’t even need a stamp. You don’t even need to know the candidate’s name. If, for some reason, you can’t get a Federal Write In Ballot from your unit’s Voting Assistance Officer (e.g., you’ve been pinned down by enemy fire in a Baghdad alley for six continuous weeks) — all you have to do is rip the lid off an MRE carton, write “GOP candidate for governor” on it, put your name and home-of-record address on it, address it to “King County Elections, Seattle WA” and it will be counted as a vote (unless the mail truck gets blown up by an IED — and King County ain’t responsible for that).
What wingnut lairs like Brian Suits and Dufus Rather are trying to do is identify problems within THE MILITARY MAIL SYSTEM and transform them into King County elections department “election fraud.” This is an interesting transformation considering that King County disqualified only 16 overseas ballots for late arrival (the rest of the 400-some disqualified ballots were ineligible voters) out of 14,000-some ballots received. ONLY 16 BALLOTS!!!
And it’s possible NONE of those ballots were mailed by election day. It’s possible NONE of those ballots were eligible voters. It’s possible NONE of those ballots were military votes. It’s possible NONE of those votes were for Rossi.
Let’s review: OVER 98% OF THE OVERSEAS BALLOTS RECEIVED WERE COUNTED. That’s the statistic Republican liars are relying on to say King County “disenfranchised military voters.”
Bullshit. The facts speak for themselves.
The math is simple. Even if we make the extremely dubious assumption that every single one of those 16 late ballots was a Rossi vote cast by an eligible military voter — whose vote was delayed in the military mail system (over which King County has no control) — Gregoire still won. 133 – 16 = 117. Those 16 ballots don’t even come close to changing the outcome.
And, since the election wasn’t certified until mid-December, if those 16 ballots were mailed by election day, they took over 6 weeks to arrive in Seattle. Sounds a little dubious to me. There’s a good possibility here that some folks who didn’t bother to vote, hearing how close the election was, may have sent in ballots after election day. If so, those aren’t legal ballots, and shouldn’t be counted under any circumstances.
57
Yeah sure. Rabbit post BS from liberal blogs, do you call him on that? The liberal media doesnt make a big deal out of disenfranchised military voters for a very simple reason, a overwhelming majority of our fighting men and women vote republican. Everyone who has an ounce of truth in them realizes this.
@49 “Because they are liberal polls. Next.”
Try this “liberal poll” on for size Dufus: Nov. 2, 2006
The “next” so-called “liberal poll” is scheduled for Nov. 4, 2008. I can hardly wait.
Man they just can’t give up their threadbare talking points, can they?
@48 “If DoD officials take the time to develop a secure and dependable electronic voting system, some election results may be drastically different in the years to come’
No doubt! You’d have a 125% military turnout, and 125% of them would vote Republican.
“few”? We don’t need to guess or speculate here, Dufus. I can furnish exact numbers.
Number of military/overseas ballots mailed by King County: 15,289
Number mailed late: 0
Number returned: 12,694
Turnout Rate: 83%
Compared to statewide civilian turnout rate: 82%
Number of these that were counted: 12,474
Validity rate: 98.3%
Number received too late to be counted: 16
Number of Federal Write In Ballots received: 1,342
Number of FWIB validated and counted: 1,081
http://www.metrokc.gov/electio ns/news/2005_01_05.htm
Ah this will be good. So rabbit who audited these facts from the KCRE?
If anyone uses the term “exact numbers” and KCRE in the same sentence, they can not be taken seriously. Hehehhehe
@51 You forgot to mention that Chad Miles was the GOP candidate running for Congress against John Conyers who took an 85% to 15% ass-whomping last November.
Hell, that’s no better than Mark Griswold got in the 43rd L.D. running against Frank Chopp.
And Miles sounds a lot like Griswold, too.
Visualize two crows sitting on a fence squawking about “election fraud! election fraud! election fraud!” Funny how the GOP election fraud machine overlooked helping these guys out. What an oversight. Maybe even the GOP doesn’t want them to win.
@54 Goldy is a liberal propagandist. Got a problem with it? Write your complaint here [ ] and send it here __.
@55 Why should Chavez help gringo imperialists turn his people into serfs?
Rightstuff’s heroes are the CIA assassins who kill elected South American leaders and install dictators like Pinochet to protect American corporations’ business interests in South America.
RS, why don’t you read up on how our government props up foreign-owned monopolies that charge poor South Americans two-thirds of their income for electricity and drinking water, then get back to us with a report on what a great job the U.S. government is doing of helping poor South Americans realize their aspirations via the “miracle of free enterprise.”
That’s right folks, drinking water is not free in South America, you have to pay monopolists 25% of your annual income for the right to drink water.
Now you know why they sell cocaine to gringos to survive.
@56 “But… there is little doubt here that we’re convicting for a thought crime, and that is a very slippery slope.”
Sure didn’t take you very long to slide off the slope, John.
No, we’re not convicting people who burn crosses or paint swastikas for their thoughts. We’re convicting them for the physical acts of trespassing, arson, and vandalism.
It ain’t a crime to think about burning a cross or painting a swastika. It only becomes a crime when you do it. And note that, even in the absence of hate-crime legislation, the acts of trespass, unlawful burning, and vandalism would still be punishable crimes.
Burning your own flag is free speech. Stealing and burning someone else’s flag is an offense, and we don’t need to amend the Constitution to punish people for doing it. We can punish them under existing laws.
@65 Dufus, the difference between liberal media and rightwing propaganda is the same as the difference between facts and lies.
Anyone who claims liberal commentary and Republican propaganda are qualitatively the same isn’t thinking and/or isn’t honest.
There is only one political party in this country that systematically lies about absolutely everything — and it ain’t the Democrats.
@69 “So rabbit who audited these facts from the KCRE?”
Why don’t you? They’re public records, and open to everyone. Audit them, then get back to us.
P.S. – your pal Stefan spent hundreds of hours auditing them, and doesn’t even make the claim anymore that military voters were prevented from voting.
@70 I do take those numbers seriously because neither you, Stefan, Reagan Dunn, Chris Vance, Diane Tebelius, the GOP’s lawyers, their hand-picked Republican judge in their forum-shopped Republican county, or anyone else has ever provided any reason not to.
Sorry you don’t like the numbers, Dufus. Here’s another number for you to not like: 28%
That’s how much of the public still supports the leader of the Crooks and Liars Party.
To paraphrase P. T. Barnum, you can fool 50% of the people some of the time, and 28% of the people all the time, but you can’t fool 72% of the people all of the time.
It was a democrats liberal county who could not get the vote count rigt in the 2004 election, not a republican county. You dems have problems with basic math. Like I said anyone who trusts liberals and their numbers deserve the lies they are being fed.
This article by a Duke University law professor may help shed light on the “hate speech” issue:
“The Court’s Recent, Controversial Cross-Burning Ruling, And Why It Was Correct
“By ERWIN CHEMERINSKY
“Thursday, Apr. 17, 2003
“On April 7, in the case of Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held that cross-burning with intent to intimidate is not protected by the First Amendment. However, such intent cannot be inferred from the act of cross-burning itself; it must be separately proven.
” … The Court’s decision struck exactly the right balance in this difficult area. The First Amendment should not protect the right of people to intimidate or threaten others. But the government cannot eliminate any symbol, however offensive. Speech may be made illegal if it threatens, but not because it offends.
“The Divisive Issue of ‘Hate Speech’
“Few topics in constitutional law have generated as much scholarly debate in the last fifteen years as the extent to which the First Amendment should protect ‘hate speech.’ (Hate speech is speech that expresses animosity on the basis of race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.) Some argue that hate speech perpetuates discrimination and wounds those who long have been victims. Others argue that it is wrong for the government to deem any viewpoint, however vile, outside the bounds of the First Amendment.
“In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court returned to the issue of hate speech in a context with tragic history: cross-burning in the south. In essence, cross-burning operates as a message of hatred towards, and an implicit threat against, African-Americans.
“The Relevant Statute, and the Facts of the Two Cases
Recognizing that cross-burning very often sends a threatening message, Virginia decided to prohibit cross-burning with the intent to intimidate. Such cross-burning, the Court correctly held, is not protected by the First Amendment.
“Virginia also tried … to make the intent to intimidate easy to prove. Its statute provides that ‘[a]ny such burning . . . shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group.’ … Under the Virginia statute, then, once the burning itself is proven, the burden shifts to the cross-burner to show that he did not in fact have the intent to intimidate when he burned the cross.
“Before the Court were two separate Virginia cases …. In one, a cross was burned at a Ku Klux Klan rally on a farm. The farm was fairly isolated and apparently relatively few people saw the incident. In the other, individuals burned a cross in the yard of an African-American family’s home.
“The Court’s decision allowed both prosecutions to go forward – but required specific proof of the intent to intimidate in each. Such proof will likely be easy to provide in the case of the cross-burning in the family’s yard – plainly a threatening tactic …. But the requisite may be much harder to provide in the case of the Ku Klux Klan rally, since rally attendees, far from being intimidated, were probably there voluntarily to support the cross-burning.
“The various opinions in Virginia v. Black are difficult to interpret and their upshot may be confusing to decipher – especially since Justice O’Connor wrote an opinion for a majority of Justices as to some issues, but only for a plurality on other issues. Nonetheless, this much can definitively be said: A majority of the Court supported three basic conclusions.
“The First Principle: Some Cross-Burning Is Free Speech
“First, cross-burning is not automatically exempt from First Amendment protection. Previously, in the case of RAV v. City of St. Paul, the Court struck down a city ordinance that prohibited burning a cross or painting a swastika in a manner likely to anger, alarm, or cause resentment. It implicitly made clear that the government cannot outlaw such symbols of hate, however offensive they may be. …
“This seems exactly right. Many symbols may be terribly disturbing. For example, burning a flag is perceived by many as deeply offensive, just as burning a cross conveys the worst of America’s legacy of racism. But under the First Amendment, it is not for the government to prevent particular views from being expressed.
“Under the First Amendment, people may convey even racist views, however much the expression wounds and divides. Even highly repugnant messages may be expressed so long as they do not threaten others. Nor can the government outlaw the most powerful ways of expressing those opinions.
“Indeed, governments seek to ban burning of flags or crosses precisely because these symbols are so widely understood and so effective at conveying particular messages. The Court has held in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning, on its own, cannot be prohibited. The same should be true of cross-burning on its own.
“But in reality, cross-burning rarely exists on its own – it often comes with a hateful, racist threat. And that is what the Court recognized when it set forth its second principle.
“The Second Principle: Cross-Burning Proven to Be Threatening Can Be Made Illegal
“Second, the Court held that cross-burning with the intent to intimidate is not protected by the First Amendment. Thus, as long as the government can prove a particular act of cross-burning was intended to intimidate, or reasonably perceived as a ‘true threat,’ it may be made illegal.
“This, too, seems exactly right. The Supreme Court previously had ruled that true threats are not protected under the Constitution – in cases such as Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, and United States v. Watts. These decisions supported a strong principle, and Virginia v. Black continues it: Freedom of speech does not mean anyone has the right to make others feel their safety is threatened.
“People have the right to express themselves, including by burning a cross, but not in a way that is intended to threaten and intimidate.
“The Third Principle: Intent to Intimidate Must Be Proven, Not Inferred From the Act
“Third, the Court … ruled that cross-burning could not be taken as ‘prima facie’ evidence of the intent to intimidate. Instead, the government must prove more than the act of cross-burning to punish a person under the First Amendment. Through other evidence, the government must demonstrate the speaker’s wrongful goals.
“How might that work? In the case of the cross being burned on the African-American family’s lawn, prosecutors might point … to the fact that the cross-burners trespassed … crossing property lines to imply that other lines, too, might be crossed. Proof will differ in different cases – and that is as it should be.
“Sometimes cross-burning is free speech, however reprehensible; at other times, it is a threat to life and safety, and thus may be made illegal just like any other such threat.”
http://tinyurl.com/yo7ee6
Roger Rabbit Commentary: The Supreme Court’s approach to cross-burning is very consistent with long-standing assault law, and also conforms with Baseball Rules: You can stand six inches from the umpire’s face and vehemently argue the runner was safe (or out), but you can’t touch the umpire or use threatening language (or you’ll get ejected from the game and fined by the league). Likewise, you can argue with another driver about who had the right of way, and even flip obscene gestures — but you can’t touch him or use threatening language. As Prof. Chemerinsky wrote, in analyzing how this might apply to hate speech, the Court got it exactly right.
@86 Bullshit. Ballots were misplaced in several counties, and there were counting problems in many counties. Just because the news media focused on King County doesn’t mean there were no problems elsewhere. In fact, by far the worst problems were in Snohomish County, where voters in over 75% of the precincts complained of touch screen voting machine malfunctions, and where voting anomalies that strongly point to vote-rigging in favor of Dino Rossi are presently the subject of an ongoing lawsuit.
DOOFUS: CONSIDER YOURSELF SHREDDED. YOU CAN CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK NOW. COME OUT AT YOUR USUAL HOUR FOR ANOTHER ASS-WHUPPIN’.
AND IN NOV 2008? OH YEAH, I CAN HARDLY WAIT.
WHILE YOU’RE UNDER YOUR ROCK, VIST THE ACVR WEBSITE.
http://WWW.AMERICANCENTERFORVOTINGRIGHTS.COM
HERE’S A TASTE:
Allegations of widespread fraud by malevolent voters are easy to make, but often prove to be inflated or inaccurate. Crying “wolf” when the claims are unsubstantiated distracts attention from real problems that need real solutions. Moreover, these claims are frequently used to justify policies – including restrictive photo identification rules – that could not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters.
HOW DO YOU LIKE IT?
LMAO!!!
Doofus intends to ride that ACVR horse all the way to the glue factory.
ROGER,
THE ACVR WAS PART OF ROVE’S PLAN TO CODIFY REPUBLICAN VOTE SUPPRESSION INTO THE LAWS OF BATTLEGROUND STATES. THESE REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES WOULD WRITE THEIR BULLSHIT WHITE PAPERS AND THEN APPEAR BEFORE STATE LEGISLATURES TO PUSH PHOTO ID AND OTHER VOTE SUPPRESSION STRATEGIES.
IT WAS SUCH A LOSER THAT THE GUY AT THE HEAD OF IT TOOK IT OFF HIS RESUME AND REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. THESE ASSHOLES WERE SO INCOMPETENT, THEY FORGOT TO PARK THE WEBSITE DOMAIN NAME. A DEMOCRATIC LAWYER TOOK IT OVER AND HANDED IT TO THE BRENNAN CENTER AT NYU!
HOWEVER, ROVE HAS NOT GIVEN UP BY A LONG SHOT. HE’S COUNTING ON THE NEW (AND REMAINING) USA’S TO BRING BULLSHIT CASES AND THEN PROD THE STATE LEGISLATURES ANOTHER WAY, PROBABLY THROUGH OTHER RIGHT-WING STINK TANKS.
ALL IN TIME FOR 2008. IT’S GOING TO BE INTERESTING.
#86. The REST OF US (72% OF US AMERICANS) DO NOT DESERVE TO HAVE TO EVEN HEAR THE LIES THAT YOU NEO CONS ARE BEING FED.
@86 Bullshit. Ballots were misplaced in several counties, and there were counting problems in many counties. Just because the news media focused on King County doesn’t mean there were no problems elsewhere. In fact, by far the worst problems were in Snohomish County, where voters in over 75% of the precincts complained of touch screen voting machine malfunctions, and where voting anomalies that strongly point to vote-rigging in favor of Dino Rossi are presently the subject of an ongoing lawsuit.
Bullshit. Name me a county who added ballots to any of their two recounts???? Hehehehehe
Liberals will always claim voter fraud with touchscreens for the very reason that they are not able to cheat like they do with paper ballots. The last thing the liberal wants is an honest vote count.
Just because the news media focused on King County doesn’t mean there were no problems elsewhere.
No the problem with King County is they did not do a good enough job rigging the election on the first count and they got caught. hehehehehehe
they are not able to cheat
BULLSHIT DOOFUS. THAT’S A LIE THAT IS SO TYPICAL OF WINGNUTS LIKE YOU. THOSE VOTE MACHINES ARE SO EASY TO HACK AND MANIPULATE, IT’S PATHETIC. YOU’RE OBVIOUSLY COMPUTER ILLITERATE.
IT’S BEEN PROVEN!
Had to turn Goldie off at the Norm Section . Sometimes for a liberal he can be quite articulate and caring of others besides his political superior thought processes . Norm was a good man , who happen to be a republican . Many good and fair minded people in the republican party by the way .
If you took the rapid right wing republican party in this state as Goldie tries to make an issue using the death of another man , and compared it some democratic state parties down south , except maybe for abortion rights and some other issues , it would be pretty close . You took this state democratic party down south , you would be loosing every election . Watch C Span instead of the BBC you would see.
This is a liberal state , liberal and independent also .
That was so callous Me Goldstein using Norm like that I had to turn it off . You lost me as a listener . No matter I know . Obviously you don’t have independents or republicans listening anyway .
Wonder why liberals are looked upon as they are ?