Selective Politicization
By Mitch Berg
In this past month, we’ve seen amply on display the left’s forbearance at jumping to conclusions…
…at anyone who’s not a conservative.
Chicago mayor Richard Daley – mayor of the city with the toughest gun control laws and among the highest gun crime and murder rates in the US – on Fort Hood:
“Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group.”
Unless that group is law-abiding gun owners and the NRA, of course. Or talk radio, or Michele Bachmann or Michael Savage or Glenn Beck or Karl rove or “neocons” or “teabaggers” or Christians or pro-lifers. Other than that, you don’t blame a group.
It should go without saying that not only is Chicago a “gun free zone” (for the law-abiding) but so was Fort Hood; the Army doesn’t allow private carry of firearms on base. A base full of soldiers who’ve not only trained to use firearms under excruciating pressure, but have largely done so through multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, had no more means to protect themselves from Hasan’s alleged onslaught than a bunch of high school kids or Chicago shoppers or anyone unlucky enough to live in a place throttled by wahhabi liberalism that values ideology over human life.
The legitimacy of any government body that tries to thwart your absolute human right to defend yourself and your family should be questioned.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:48 am
On the way to Ohio, the roads in Chicago suck more than any other, and you still have to pay a toll every few miles (and have for decades).
What party dominates Chicago politics again?
November 11th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Except the tollways you’re driving aren’t built or maintained by the city.
And from 1969-2003, Illinois had a GOP governor for all but four years.
Responsibility for crumbling and crowded infrastructure isn’t as black & white or red vs. blue as that.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Excellent point, Charlie! In Illinois, rampant political corruption is a completely bipartisan thing. But I would say this: the most powerful politician in Illinois is not the governor; it’s the mayor of Chicago. It’s been that way since before Daley’s dad sat in the office on the 5th floor.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:49 am
And for most of those years the governors were the kind of “Republican” that Lori Sturdevant would approve of.
Party philosophy isn’t as black & white or red vs. blue as that.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:24 am
509…..the number of murders in Chicago in 2008
314…..the number of US troops who died in Iraq in 2008
November 11th, 2009 at 10:25 am
If Hasan was specifically targeting non-Muslims then his actions constituted a hate crime and he should be charged accordingly.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am
every crime is a hate crime apathyboy. Besides a minority cannot commit a hate crime, as the ACLU has proven over years of litigation. Besides he’s going to be tried in military court anyway.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Gotta disagree with you on one point, Ben; most crimes are not driven by hate. Property crimes, fights that get out of control, crimes of passion – they’re not driven by long-standing, culturally-based hatred. Even most murders are more stupidity than hatred.
MPR yesterday said he’ll be tried in a military court (he shot soldiers on a base, so they have jurisdiction). I don’t think “hate crimes” have entered the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Someone correct me if necessary).
November 11th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I hate to disagree with you Mitch and I agree with Ben, hatred isn’t just long-standing and culturally-based. If you kill someone you have to hate them unless it’s self defense. I’ve always thought that the term “hate crime” was an oxymoron like the left says “military intelligence” is, only more so.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“If you kill someone you have to hate them unless it’s self defense.”
What brings you to this conclusion?
November 11th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
It sure wasn’t a “love crime”.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I would rather have the State of Texas take the good Major to trial than the Military.
In the USN we were banned from carrying knives on board ship. May have been limited to my command.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
If you kill someone you have to hate them unless it’s self defense.
PM, you touch on two questions:
1) What is hate?
2) What does the law recognize?
Even without “hate crime” laws – which I believe are wrong (I think laws against terrorism and pre-meditated mass murder apply here), the law recognizes three different kinds of homicide; manslaughter (deaths caused by negligence and indifference), crimes of passion, and premeditated crimes. Leaving out manslaughter, it’s hard to picture most “second degree murder” – husbands shooting their wives’ boy toys in the heat of the moment, people killed in stupid bar fights, whatever- having anything to do any meaningful definition of “hatred”.
As to what is hate? Laws have to be very specific; for purposes of a hate crime law (which, again, I oppose) it has to be something fairly definable…
..which is, of course, part of the conservative case againt hate crime laws. Most people have a hard time explaining what hate is.
At any rate, I find it hard to believe that the laws against premeditated spree killing, killing people on federal property, and possibly terrorism (to say nothing of attempted murder of a cop in federal service, resisting arrest, and the inevitable gun crime) won’t be enough to earn Hasan the death penalty.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“I’ve always thought that the term “hate crime” was an oxymoron like the left says “military intelligence” is, only more so.”
I like using the term “government efficiency” as an oxymoron. The military intelligence thing pisses me off actually. It’s like saying anyone who joins the military is dumb or military is incompetent, the government is a lot more incompetent than the military is.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I prefer the term “thought crime” instead of “hate crime”. Hate is not an action, it is the thought that results in an action.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
K,
That would actually be a more-descriptive label. Because that’s what “hate crime” laws really are.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Merriam-Webster defines hate as: a) intense hostility and aversion usually derived from fear, anger or sense of injury. b) extreme dislike or antipathy. I stand by my comment. And you, apathyboy, the dictionary brings me to that conclusion. I will restain from calling you appropriate derogatory names that are well deserved.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“The military intelligence thing pisses me off actually. It’s like saying anyone who joins the military is dumb or military is incompetent, the government is a lot more incompetent than the military is.”
It’s also a lot like saying that all conservatives are autistic or that all liberals suffer from a mental disorder. How mean! I can’t believe that anyone would judge millions of individuals within a given category like that.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“I will restain from calling you appropriate derogatory names that are well deserved.”
I’ll tell you what: if you answer my question, I’ll let you call me whatever you want. I didn’t ask what hate was, I asked why you think that hate and self-defense are the only possible motives for murder. [And I was asking because I was curious, not because I think you were wrong.]
November 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Oopps, clumsy fingers, I meant refrain.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
K – It sure wasn’t a “love crime”.
Sure it was! Love of Jihad!
Burgmeister – Hasan’s alleged onslaught emphasis mine.
et tu? Never thought I see you turn all PC.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
You’re kidding, right? Did you read M-Ws definition?
November 11th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I think you are all arguing two sides of the same coin. If you kill somebody deliberately – it is a hate crime ’cause you have to hate someone enough to kill them, pure and simple. Thus, Hate Crime legislation is a complete redundant pile of steaming you-know-what used to elevate certain groups of people above others. However, there are indeed plenty of instances of crime, where deliberation is not applicable yet people end up dead – manslaughter in other words.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Daley is posturing in anticipation of the upcoming SCOTUS – McDonald v. City of Chicago case……..POS
November 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
So Mitch, will you approve of Hasan being executed?
November 11th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Sure, presuming he’s found guilty.
It’s the not-so-clear-cut cases that are the problem. And they are a huge percent of death penalty cases.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Now it seems, according to a story in the WSJ, that the Army was never informed of the intelligence investigation of Hasan. Let’s be real: remember the infamous flying imams? Detained after behaving in a suspicious manner by concerned airport employees. A DB judge ruled in their favor in a suit they files against the MAC and others. If Hasan had been cashiered because of his wacko behavior, there would have been a suit filed against the Army faster than you can say Mohammed Atta.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Good.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Mitch., you support the DC sniper being offed last night too right? I’m just checking
November 11th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I don’t see any reason not to. There seems to be no ambiguity in that case.
Which would seem not to be the case with a whole lot of other death penalty cases.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Which is why “kill the death penalty” is too extreme, you right wing kook.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“There seems to be no ambiguity in that case.”
Mitch, how do you separate the cases with no ambiguity from the cases with a little bit of ambiguity?
A trial, with a lengthy multistage appeal process, perhaps?
November 11th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Mitch, how do you separate the cases with no ambiguity from the cases with a little bit of ambiguity?
That’s a great question, isn’t it?
Because every single one of the 200-odd people who’ve been released from Death Row were “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, originally.
And Cameron Todd Willingham, it seems, was innocent, even though he was executed after being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
A trial, with a lengthy multistage appeal process, perhaps?
Nick Yarris, among others, was released 21 years after being sentenced to death for a rape/murder he never committed. His process was lengthy, all right – and had many, many stages of appeals. And at the end of the day, the Innocence Project had to prove that the police had tampered with evidence and that the jailhouse snitch that the conviction was based on was not, in fact, credible. 21 years after the fact.
The little known fact about capital trials is that they are MORE prone to error than non-capital trials; the crimes often involve little or no physical evidence; the crimes are often rife with emotion (because they are often so horrible) and political opportunism (because executions mean votes, everywhere from Texas to New York) that are absent when no death penalty is involved.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
But for you to agree that Hasan should be put to death, implies that there should be some human process that separates the “clearly guilty” from the “not quite clearly guilty”.
What is that process?
I don’t think there is one that can be 100% accurate. So you must either accept the idea that sometimes an innocent person will get executed, or disagree with capital punishment entirely.
I thought you leaned towards the latter.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Does an assassin who kills for money hate his target? Does a woman robbing a liquor store hate the clerk she kills so he’s not a witness?
Hate is not the only reason to kill someone.
And that is that the liberal Army not allowing guns on base? Or do they have a reason for it?
November 12th, 2009 at 3:21 am
MON is onto something here.
If you kill in self-defense you are acting as judge, jury, and executioner. There is some slight chance that you are acting wrongfully. Examples are not too difficult to imagine.
You can’t be in favor of using deadly force in defense of yourself or others and still be against the death penalty.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:13 am
“You can’t be in favor of using deadly force in defense of yourself or others and still be against the death penalty.”
Not even close to what I’m driving at, but I see your point. Decisions get made all the time that have the potential to lead to the death of an innocent person. Such as: gusset plate design, light rail, driving through a yellow light. But usually the decisions have some benefit to offset the potential cost. Defending yourself with deadly force is one of those decisions.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:48 am
DS, as said on Savage last night, it was Carter who banned guns on bases because before that EVERYONE who was a soldier on base carried if not an M16 at least a 9MM. Carter did it for supposed “noble” reasons because the poor soldiers were killing themselves (mostly because of Carters incompetent, half-assed, ‘leadership’ and the RoE were tightened to the point of insanity) but here’s the real reason (tin-foil hat on) fear of a military coup. He was SO UNPOPULAR in the country and especially military (see: current occupant) that he thought (probably accurately) that the military would rise up against him if he continue to allow guns on bases. Because remember this part of the oath, one that people are paying a lot more attention to now “I promise I will defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC,” that domestic part is pretty damn important.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Look, Ben commented that all crime is hate crime. Mitch disagreed but his point, uncaracteristically, strayed off point and was rambling. I disagreed with Mitch, though it pained me, to point out that all crime is indeed hate crime. My example of killing was maybe not perfect but my point was not all about killing but rather about the nature of crime. Do I need to cite M-W here? So, Patheticboy and Discordboy I hope that clarifies the example I used.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Burglary/ theft doesn’t involve hate. Robbery, as I said, doesn’t have to involve hate. I suppose rapes are motivated by hate. So I’ll agree that all rapes are hate crimes.
Ben, thank you for answering a question with information without insulting me or calling me a stupid name.
I’m giving you a “We don’t know that” because a. It comes from Michael Savage and b. I’ve found people saying this was also a Clinton rule. I’m waiting for the e-mails claiming Obama banned carrying guns on base, and how it’s all his fault.
Any idea where one could find the original rule? I am truly interested in why guns aren’t allowed to be carried on military bases. JoelR, maybe?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
According to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action – which has a general bipartisan reputation for accuracy, even among those who disagree with the NRAN – it was Clinton.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
DS, you can’t discount it just because you don’t like the source. Besides he has more listeners than all of the AirAmerica affiliates combined. And as it being a Clinton rule… I cede my statement because after 30 minutes of google searching I can’t find anotyher related to the Carter military base ban.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
If Savage says it, I will assume it is wrong until I can find a better source. I simply don’t accept Savage as a valid source for anything except maybe good San Francisco restaurants. I don’t know what his listener numbers have to do with anything. Do you assume I listen to Air America, or that being popular equals being right?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
DS – I’m no Savage fan. But I did in fact cite a reliable source.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
“509…..the number of murders in Chicago in 2008
314…..the number of US troops who died in Iraq in 2008”
Wow, I just re-read this. Do you think those numbers are comparable? Maybe compare the number of total murders in both places, or better yet, a per-capita comparison. Or, to use your comparison, the per-capita deaths of soldiers in Iraq is 1 in 477 vs. 1 in 5500 for unarmed civillians in Chicago.
Sorry.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Ah. So Chicago is only 10% as bad for noncombatants as Iraq – a war zone – is for soldiers.
You might get better results comparing Chicago to Iwo Jima.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Less than 10%. Where would you rather be living?
I didn’t make a comparison. Golfdoc was making a dishonest comparison, and I called him on it. That is all.