|
|
Calling a Spade a Spade
|
I followed what was hopefully the last Clinton scandal (fat chance) - The
Clinton Pardons - with much anticipation and fascination because it was fun
to watch a number of liberals finally admit that "Well, if he did do that,
then it is a very serious thing...". Well, he did and it is. |
|
 |
This is a tired story and I only bring it up because I noted that every news source
had the same theme and the same talking points. Apparently "bribery" is
"very hard to prove" because you must provide "proof of intent" and show
that there was a "quid pro quo". So, therefore, since we cannot possibly
know what Clinton was thinking when he issued those pardons we cannot prove
that he granted them because of any personal gain. So I guess we all just
had better shut up and stop this "right wing conspiracy". Since the
hypocrisy of the Clinton defenders and the liberal media know no bounds this
argument was not applied to anything else. But my thoughts drifted to
another discussion that was hot just a few months earlier during the
campaign: Hate Crimes (as opposed to what? Love Crimes I guess - or
Disinterested Crimes or perhaps Envy Crimes - whatever). My point is this:
If bribery is so "very hard to prove" because it requires "proof of intent"
how can it possibly be that hate crimes are so easy to prove? Hmmm?
Hate crimes are as bad as any other crime but some would have you believe
that because a criminal acted upon stupid ideas based on, say, race,
religion or sexual orientation, etc. that these crimes are worse than crimes
in which the criminal based his actions on "voices in his head", envy, greed
or other motivations. Make no mistake - when you introduce degrees of
crimes based on motivation you are saying that there is a hierarchy of
crimes and that a murder caused by, say, racial hate is worse than a murder
based on something else.
The liberals among us are always quick to point out that hierarchy already
exists in abundance in our legal system - i.e. Murder 1, Murder 2, Murder 3.
This is a specious and ludicrous argument. Brutal, premeditated murder with
an ax is different than, say, manslaughter when a person may accidentally
hit and kill someone with a car in a parking lot. Either way the victims
race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. do not (and should not) enter
into the judgment.
When these traits are entered into the judgment we get into the argument
that liberals live for: Special protection, rights & privileges for a
select few. The problem that I have with the designation of "hate crimes"
is that the judgment is based upon the criminals motivation (and who can
know or prove that?) instead of the criminal act itself. To do this invites
another favorite liberal tool: Divisiveness. Is it more of a crime when a
black man kills a white man or vice versa? I think we all know what Jesse
Jackson thinks. Is it not more equal to punish all criminals using the same
standard? To value all peoples property, lives and rights the same -
equally? To give harsher punishments based on the criminals intent
inadvertently (or perhaps by design) gives lesser punishments for the same
crimes caused by different intent. Can this be called preference?
Another liberal argument is that we need hate crime legislation and laws to
make reparations to long standing injustices. "To heal the wounds of
yesterday" they bleat. "That certain groups have had a history of suffering
at the acts of others and that we need to level the playing field". Well,
welcome to life on planet earth people. Read a history book once and you
will find that every group of people has been enslaved and at the mercy of
others at some period in time. Two wrongs don't make a right and the end
seldom justifies the means. When we start making reparations for the crimes
committed by past generations we are done for. We will be at the mercy of
whoever says they are the victim this week and make no mistake - you can
never put that genie back into the bottle. Talk about divisive!
My other beef with hate crimes is that when you differentiate crimes you
invent a hierarchy that is hard to defend. This is the same problem that I
have with "Date Rape". What the hell is date rape? Some say that most rape
victims know the person who raped them - so what's with the title "date
rape"? Are we surprised that they were on a date with someone they knew?
Do I care that the rapist was on a "date" with the victim? Hell no. What's
next? Picnic rape? Stranger rape? Mere Acquaintance Rape? Guy I Saw
Once, Thought Was Cute But Never Saw Again Rape? Come on! Robbery is
robbery. Arson is arson. Murder is murder and yes, Rape is rape. It is
horrible and needs to be punished severely. Crime is crime. To offer the
title "date rape" implies that it is somehow different than other rape.
It's not. Now, I'm sure the intention was to raise awareness among young
women and tell them that it's ok to say "no" and that you do not "owe" your
date anything. Sounds good to me - but tell them that without inventing a
new form of rape to tell the story. I argue that by differentiating you
introduce the concept that there are other forms of rape, a hierarchy,
different flavors - there aren't. The bottom line is this: I have a son
and two daughters and a wife and God pity the fool that brings harm to them.
If, for example, one of my daughters should ever be raped (God forbid) it
will be of no concern to me that they were on a "date" when it happened.
Regardless of where they were, what they were doing, what religion or race
anybody belongs to, the simple fact is that the authorities better find him
before I do because my form of justice is swift - and blind. Do you feel
the same about your family, your children? Then why feel differently when it
is about someone else's child? Be it hate crimes, date rape or for that
matter all crime, I argue that our courts should be swift - and blind - as
well.
Next week: Haiku of Damien J. Sweeney! - Up Close And Personal! Don't Miss
It!
A Free Sample:
Jeffords has left us
Please come back - you've forgotten
To take John McCain
Some Updates & Stuff:
TouchedMonkey.com WILL be up soon. I promise. We are finishing the overall
layout and are ready to post, um, sometime next week?? Nick and I are
forever discussing color schemes, layout, content - cripes! - it's a good
thing we are only brothers and not married. Come to think of it we could be
both in San Francisco....
This column (along with all of my past rants) made coherent by my lovely
wife (of 10+ years), Editor and all around Hottie Saucetress - Julie Sweeney
- without whom life would have no meaning. Also without whom you would be
subject to endless typos, mixed metaphors, run on sentences and other
"grammar stuffs" that I really know nothing about since it gives me hives
whenever I think about it. With any luck I can get her to contribute to
Monkey and the world will be a better place for it.
|
|
|
