Carolyn Euell, 38, mother of two of the defendants, Erika Stroud, 21, of Dorchester and Felicia Stroud, 18, West Roxbury, told reporters the alleged attack “can’t be hateful” because both her daughters are lesbians.

This refers to a case in Boston where the two lesbian girls assaulted a gay man.

the victim, who suffered a broken nose, told cops he believed the attack was “motivated as a crime because of his sexual orientation” since the three women “called him insulting homophobic slurs.”

Now as I’ve said before the whole idea of “hate crimes” is to me an absurdity. Hate is a thought and/or emotion and to charge a person based on it is the ultimate in playing “thought police”. If these ladies assaulted this man, the law should punish them based on the assault, not based on if they hated him for any reason whatsoever, even if it was something as egregious as being a Yankees fan.

But given the existence of hate crimes laws the idea that due to their lesbianism the attack “can’t be hateful” doesn’t just create an incredible double standard but flys in the face of reality.

My friend Cynthia has talked in the past about the horrible vitriol that was directed against her and her partner when she veered from or critiqued actions of “official lesbianism” for example she got grief for being part of a group called the “lesbian ladies society” for lesbians who are feminine and like to be.

in the late 1980’s, when I ran a group for feminine lesbians — who are NOT the same as femmes! — in Silver Spring, Maryland, which is a suburb of Washington, D.C., a pre-op male-to-female trannie attended one of my meetings and infuriated pretty much every woman there so much that I had to tell him/her not to come back or I would not have had a group. After that, I caught hell for stipulating that to be allowed to attend the meetings, you had to be born female as well as wear a skirt or dress (the latter requirement was the cheapest form of dyke repellent I could think of).

Now we don’t know all the fact of this case, but the moment you have felony laws on the books that sone people can’t even be charged with, yet alone violate because of the particular race or sexual orientation you’re talking nonsense.

Update: I had trouble finding the above link and ended up calling Cynthia for help in discovering them, it turns out he disagrees on this case suggesting, (like the woman above) that this can’t be a hate crime against gays due to the lesbianism of the women, although we do agree on the absurdity of hate crimes laws themselves.

She argued that phrases these women might have used would not be hate crimes if used by them, but would be if I used them as I am opposed to gay marriage (or as she puts it “gay equality”) but noted that if such an equivalence was made the proliferation of hate crime charges from “black on black” crime would be so prevalent that it would be worth enforcing them to illustrate the absurdity of hate crime laws in general.

Over the last few days I’ve seen a lot of traffic over twitter attacking Rick Santorum as some kind of religious extremest or bigot, we have Alan Simpson calling him a homophobe and Maureen Dowd calling him a Mullah despite his beliefs being consistent with Catholic Teaching. Yesterday morning a clarifying event took place online in an exchange between myself and Doug Mataconis (who I know and like) that I found most interesting.

The word had just gone out that 2 US troops had been shot if Afghanistan by a man wearing an Afghan uniform over the burning of Korans. Doug’s tweet about leaving Afghanistan was read on Morning Joe (congrats Doug!) but in all of the talk about the waste of the war and why we shouldn’t be there I noticed something was missing.

Everybody seemed to accept the idea that it was normal or in fact acceptable for an Afghan to kill over a burned book, nobody seemed to consider the actions and the violence as barbaric or over the line.

It sounded a whole lot like the old “she had it coming” line, so I made a statement

And then my tweets began I found it fascinating that everyone was focusing on the American presence in Afghanistan (which is a debatable issue) but nobody seemed willing to condemn the idea that somebody would kill over the burning of a book, to wit:

and more

And I asked my question:

What really got me was this:

Think about it, saying that killing someone over burning a book is “hateful rhetoric”. And Pam Geller my friend is a spreader of “Hateful rhetoric” for being willing to condemn such a thing. This is being said by a mainline pundit in America in the 21st century.

and after I was done came the kicker:
And there was a point that someone tried to make on Christians, it didn’t work well:

even after I made it easier:

Meanwhile while our friends choose not to condemn murder based on the destruction of a book Radical Islam continues to act:

A judge condemning a defendant for insulting Islam…

Iranian counts condemning a Christian pastor to death

Honor Killings continue:

The goal remains annihilation of the Israel

and of course, you can’t talk radical Islam without mentioning yet another attack on a Danish Cartoonist.

Yet the response of intelligent people in a free pluralistic society is an unwillingness to condemn things like this because they so dislike the people sounding the warning that it preempts what would normally be a natural reaction.

That’s why you see people who make fun of dictators banned from cultural events.

And why Molly Norris is still in hiding.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m outraged by all these acts and most especially the killing of these to US servicemen because I don’t consider Afghans or Muslims inferior and because of this I expect and demand the same civilized behavior as I would expect of anyone.

Some like our president are apologetic but others like Sarah Palin get it:

Ah how DARE she demand civilized behavior from our allies, next thing you know you’re going to start critiquing their treatment of women under Islam. After all honor killings, female circumcision and treating them like cattle are one thing, but not being willing to pay for contraception coverage, THAT’s barbarism.

Today a large protest was held in front of Planned Parenthood in Worcester.

there were people on all sides of the street:

and a lot of school kids:


Continue reading “Planned Parenthood Protest in Worcester today”

This morning on the way home from dropping off my son to school I stopped off at the 5th street diner to see what the Worcester Telegram had to say about the vandalism and threats at Problem Pregnancy yesterday.

There wasn’t a word in the paper, so I checked on Telegram.com online:

Nope not a word there, so I figured I’d check the Fitchburg Sentinel after all local protests had been well covered there.

However the sentinel did have breaking news on puppies being found (I kid you not)

The ninth and final puppy stolen from Sterling’s animal shelter was found with the help of a tip Sunday, Sterling Animal Control Officer Louis Massa said.

Scout is back at Animal Shelter Inc. and is apparently in good health, Massa said Tuesday.

Absolutely riveting! After all how can this

The peaceful left

or this:

Yup breaking windows is pro-woman

…compete with a lost puppy? Maybe if they actually torch the place it might make page B-24.

I called up Problem Pregnancy today and found that the only the Catholic Free Press was preparing to take a look after someone forwarded my story to them.

When you think of it, it’s kinda sad that blogs in New York are covering this but papers in Massachusetts are not.

I guarantee you that if this was Planned Parenthood instead of Problem Pregnancy, forget the papers, this would have made channels 4,5,7 NECN with live shots of news crews talking about the seriousness of threats and violence against those who are trying to help and counsel women and commentary by national figures about the violence of the right.

But Stones through windows and threats of arson against groups that don’t provide abortion or give money to democrats, like death threats against republican legislators in Wisconsin don’t count.

Update: Then again even their own stories are apparently not newsworthy.

Update 2: There is now a telegram story behind a subscription wall

I don’t have much use for Terry Jones, his stunt to burn the Koran was nothing but a stunt to get publicity. He may have had a free speech point but I don’t think it’s something you do. I wouldn’t like it done to a bible so I wouldn’t do it to a Koran (I don’t like burning book as a basic principle anyway).

That being said this is MUCH more outrageous.

No sooner had Jones fired up his Bic than an Islamic “court” in Pakistan found him guilty of the crime of desecrating the religion’s most holy book. The court then issued a fatwa—loosely translated as “death order—against him, as is their wont.

But here is where the story gets interesting. Pakistan’s Jamaat-ud-Dawah, a banned Islamic organization and suspected terrorist group, announced a bounty of 10 crore rupees for anyone who fulfills the fatwa on Jones. In case you’re wondering, that amount is equivalent to around $2.2 million—not exactly chicken feed.

Jones is a pain but nevertheless he is an AMERICAN exercising his free speech rights. It is incumbent on Americans to condemn this and inform Pakistan that any attempt to harm an American citizen excerpting his free speech will mean trouble.

A fatwa on one American is a fatwa on all and like him or not we have to stand with him.

Unfortunately judging from the comments sections I’m seeing the left is angry for people mentioning the Fatwa and blaming Jones for promoting hate. If the Catholic Church was exciting those who desecrated the Eucharist I suspect we wouldn’t be seeing the same response.

The Huffington Post’s decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from its front page for…

Andrew Brietbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched.

I trust you were not drinking when you read that, otherwise your computer would have shorted out from the water.

Lee Stranahan decided that this is the final straw and has quit the Huffington Post:

…as a writer, this latest move by The Huffington Post of banning Andrew Breitbart from their front page (because of comments he made to a different website) is both unprecedented, arbitrary and deeply offensive to the intellectual openness that Arianna Huffington has purported to believe in.

He also comments on the strategy

One very loathsome aspect of this story is something that Huffington Post editor Roy Sekoff told me in a long phone call about Andrew Breitbart several months ago. Roy knows and worked with Andrew and when the issue of Andrew Breitbart being a racist came up, Roy told me “No, of course Andrew isn’t a racist.”

Roy went on to say that while both he and Arianna Huffington knew that the charges of racism being hurled at Andrew weren’t true based on their years of personal dealings with him that they were in a ‘bad position’ to say anything about it.

.
…however it is a question of their base, evidence about Jones not withstanding they will not risk upsetting the liberals who follow them. As Stranahan has already found dissent from the liberal base carries costs.

Dave Weigel notes the absurdity of the statement:

He didn’t write or say any of that at HuffPo, a site he helped develop in 2005. Is the Huffington Post’s standard that contributors can be to some modified limited hang-out if they use ad hominems in other forums? Boy, good thing Breitbart doesn’t have an army of contributors who can comb HuffPo authors’ published and spoken work to see if they’ve done that.

He is exactly right. The number of examples of this kind of stuff that will be dug up this week will be interesting.

In fact Lee Stranahan has already started and the Daily Caller goes long on ad hominem actually at the huffpo:

It will not matter in the closed world of the left its conformity that matters.

Tricking NOW into defending Sarah Palin from Misogynistic remarks. After all as NOW’s rep pointed out:

The National Organization for Women (NOW) refused to comment on Maher’s use of the derogatory term. A rep told FOXNews.com it is a “known fact” that NOW does not correspond with FOX News.

Yeah what a dirty trick of Fox to ask NOW to comment on a story, the next thing you know they might want an actual interview!

How horrible that they were compelled to say this:

“You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc,” wrote Bennett. “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.” …

Yes because we all know a public statement will so disrupt their schedule that they won’t be able to do anything else. Sister ToldJa gives the lie to this nonsense:

Personally, I couldn’t care less about any statement – or lack thereof – coming from so-called “women’s groups” denouncing the sexist treatment of female public figures, no matter their respective party affiliations. In fact, conservative women don’t need any defending by any duplicitous “progressive feminist groups.” But all the same it’s worth pointing out when they don’t. More importantly, it’s imperative to know why they don’t, which I explained above. Simply put: You’re not 100% woman unless you buy 100% into the radical liberal feminist dogma about “reproductive rights.”

Yeah NOW has been busy helping advance women unlike Sarah Palin:

When it comes to politics, who was the one who helped provide a boost to the election of the first female Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, first female Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, or first female governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin? It certainly wasn’t NOW. NOW has asserted that they won’t waste their time defending Secretary Clinton or Governor Palin, both of whom stated just last week that it’s time for a female president. Female candidates and women in general can officially say, “women need NOW like a fish needs a bicycle”.

In my opinion the real reason why NOW is so angry about defending Palin from Maher’s remarks is that they agree with Mahar and would love to be able to say it aloud, but that would give away the game.

I guarantee we will be talking about this on our April 2nd show.

The difference in Wisconsin coverage that is, why yes, Politico wrote about the double standard concerning “signs”:

“The mainstream media’s professed concern with uncivil engages only when it is practiced by conservatives,” asserted the Washington Post’s conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin.

And conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who has made her blog something of a clearinghouse of alleged union misdeeds, boasts she is doing “the reporting the tea party-bashing national media won’t do on the rabid outbreak of progressive incivility and violence at Big Labor protests across the country.”

and Morning Joe is talking about the double standard in the Wisconsin coverage.

They are not touching on the PHYSICAL stuff, nor did they show any extended clip with the union folks actually saying what they are saying but they did do a whole segment on the double standard and objected loudly to it.

It’s interesting to note they Politico didn’t embed any of the actual video, and Morning Joe didn’t play any of the audio.

This is very revealing, this means that the video and audio can’t be hidden, it means that it has spread on social networking sites and blog and getting out there. It means that Politico, forced to cover the story has decided to make it one about the media double standard. (a very valid story) instead of what the Unions and their supports are actually doing.

Even funnier is their defense of the media pointing to a single blog post at the NYT online:

In fact, the New York Times’ Michael Shear did write a blog post about the Wisconsin GOP’s slickly produced video, calling it “striking” for its juxtaposition of incendiary rhetoric from union protestors with liberal accusations about angry conservative rhetoric.

As I mentioned before, look at the actions to see what is happening, this story and Morning Joe’s coverage of it tells you an awful lot about who is actually winning this debate.

Update: It’s worth noting that they only touched on this in the 6 a.m. hour then dropped it like a hot potato.

A Democratic congressman compare republicans to Nazi’s and refuse to apologize at first then finally did.

A liberal talkshow host made oral sex jokes concerning the Republican Female Lt. gov of Wisconsin on the air.

A second lib talker fantasized on air about murdering Rush Limbaugh.

and on the Joy Behar show Sarah Palin was referred to as a Nazi and blamed her for the Tucson Massacre

We could go on but it’s kinda late as I’m writing this.

As Jim Treacher says “This ‘New Tone’ sounds a lot like the old one.”

Stacy McCain wrote about the Florida killings in the American spectator yesterday, there is a quote at the end that is worth repeating:

Duke’s Facebook page quoted a statement that Tea Party Leader Sarah Palin recently made to Fox News: “There’s political warfare, all right, and it’s the Washington political class, the liberal class, that’s making war, and they’re winning.” On his Facebook page, Duke also described his religion as “traditional Christian” and referred visitors to the Web site, The Tea Party Mind.

It’s a real shock that today on Morning Joe that this person was not mentioned and what had apparently radicalized him not condemned. That’s likely because that is not what the paragraph actually said. Here is the real paragraph with the bold italic words replaced with what was actually written:

Duke’s Facebook page quoted a statement that investor Warren Buffett recently made to Ben Stein: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” On his Facebook page, Duke also described his religion as “humanist” and referred visitors to the Web site, The Progressive Mind.

I am more than willing to concede that this man is a lone nut and I’m not willing to blame Claire “take up the pitchforks” McCaskill et/al for his actions, but imagine what the media coverage would have been if this guys statement has been the first paragraph rather than the second.

One final note from McCain’s blog:

Checking SiteMeter just now, I’m getting a lot of Google search traffic based on the simplicity of the title, but I’ve also gotten at least one visitor who was searching for “Clay Duke connected to Tea Party.”

Nope nothing to see here. Nothing to see here either.