The short version:
- Hillary Clinton stayed in front of the Democratic field and won the endorsement of Wesley Clark, the NATO commander during her husband's administration.
- The U.S. Senate finally held a vote on Iraq, pulling troops... sorry, condemning MoveOn.org for running an ad about General David Petraeus, just as America's Crazy Grandpa hoped they would. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against it, while Barack Obama and Joe Biden found somewhere else to be. MoveOn claims they've raised about a million bucks since the controversy started.
- 10,000 people marched in Louisiana to protest the railroading of six black men who beat up a white kid.
- Rep. Jerry Weller, announcing his retirement from congress,* pushed a reporter down the stairs. Or maybe his aide did. Come on, like it matters?
Everybody Hates Republicans (Except McCain): Judging by the way they whacked at Hillary Clinton's milquetoaste reaction to Gen. David Petraeus, Republicans are convinced both that she'll be their general election foe and that her high unfavorablity numbers will make her beatable. A problem with this: With one exception, Republicans' favorability numbers are hurtling down the mineshaft.
Check out this week's Gallup poll, which includes the trend lines of GOP candidate favorability ratings from January to today. In January frontrunner Rudy Giuliani was still basking in his 9/11 aura with 62 percent of people saying they liked him and only 20 percent saying they didn't. That's dropped to 52 and 38 percent. In April Fred Thompson's favorable numbers were 65 and 24. Five months of bumbling and dithering later he's at 39 and 38 percent. Mitt Romney's fall has been the farthest, from 65 and 18 percent favorable/unfavorable to 38 and 35 percent.
The only candidate's who's grown a little more popular? John McCain. He'd been suffering all year, bottoming out at a 42/41 favorable/unfavorable rating in August, but a great month of Iraq news has bumped him back up to 53/34. People like an underdog and people like a guy who sticks to his guns, and McCain's been loudly convincing people that he fits both descriptions.
This answers a couple of long-running campaign questions. Will Rudy's 9/11 halo fade? Yes. Did Fred Thompson's dithering pre-campaign hurt him? Yes. Can America learn to love Mitt Romney? Nope.
Below the fold...
- Ryan Sager wonders what the hell Rudy Giuliani meant when he said stuff like the MoveOn ad "shouldn't be allowed." He gets an answer from the campaign.
- Whenever Patrick Toomey needs to be convinced that Congressional pork is a problem, he visits the International Peace Garden.
*fixed a typo
The Friday Political Thread
Comments to "The Friday Political Thread":
Cesar | September 21, 2007, 9:23pm | #
Hillary Clinton stayed in front of the Democratic field and won the endorsement of Wesley Clark, the NATO commander during her husband's administration.Wesley Clark=VP nominee under Hillary.
SIV | September 21, 2007, 9:36pm | #
Wesley Clark=VP nominee under Hillary.That might cost her the New York Money People vote.
Cesar | September 21, 2007, 9:39pm | #
That might cost her the New York Money People vote.Shes the Senator from New York. Who are else will they vote for?
Note: I don't mean Jews. I really do mean people with money in New York, Jew or gentile. I'm pretty sure they vote 90%+ Democratic.
SIV | September 21, 2007, 9:43pm | #
10,000 people marched in Louisiana to protest the railroading of six black men who beat up a white kid.Sure sounds like they were over-charged and poorly represented but "railroaded" suggests that they somehow aren't guilty.
If a 6 on 1 beatdown/stomping is a "schoolyard fight" then why isn't the unrelated hangman's nooses in the schoolyard tree considered a "harmless prank".
Cesar | September 21, 2007, 9:51pm | #
If a 6 on 1 beatdown/stomping is a "schoolyard fight" then why isn't the unrelated hangman's nooses in the schoolyard tree considered a "harmless prank".It was. The student who did it was recommended for expulsion, but the sentence was overturned by the school board.
SIV | September 21, 2007, 9:53pm | #
Weigel,Those numbers you cite for the Republicans sound like an insurmountable problem- if the election were held today.Of course the election isn't being held today, or the first tuesday in November.13 months and change is a lotta time to close the gap.
Cesar,
Wesley Clark is a bit of a loose cannon as evidenced by his allusion to jews among other things.I'd say Bill Richardson would be a more likely choice. If I was her (shudder, gag) I'd strongly consider Harold Ford Jr.With good ods I'd even bet on it.
Cesar | September 21, 2007, 9:57pm | #
Wesley Clark is a bit of a loose cannon as evidenced by his allusion to jews among other things.I'd say Bill Richardson would be a more likely choice. If I was her (shudder, gag) I'd strongly consider Harold Ford Jr.With good ods I'd even bet on it.A woman won't choose a minority running mate. Its just not politically smart. Sad, but very true.
I thought our former governor Mark Warner would have been a good choice for her. He was extremely popular, and a charming guy that could trick conservatives into voting for him. Pro-gun, too. But hes running for Senate now.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 21, 2007, 9:57pm | #
"If a 6 on 1 beatdown/stomping is a "schoolyard fight" then why isn't the unrelated hangman's nooses in the schoolyard tree considered a "harmless prank"."I have to say, I totally agree with SIV here. I can't believe the obtuse stupidity of current civil rights leaders. There are numerous cases of African-Americans that were totally innocent being railroaded, but they choose to go all out for 6 thugs who brutally beat some kid seemingly at random (his dad was on NPR today and said his son had his eye swollen shut and blood coming out of both ears!). Hanging nooses is a stupid, class-less neanderthal thing to do but hardly amounts to a prosecutable offense in my opinion, hardly comparable to a gang beatdown...Since I get accused of shilling for the Democrats a lot, let it be said by me that the race hustlers leading this farce, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ray Nagin, etc., are all warmly embraced by the Democratic party. Sickening!
SIV | September 21, 2007, 10:04pm | #
A woman won't choose a minority running mate.Bill Richardson can "pass".
Friday Night....I'm outta here.
Anybody seen "Eastern Promises" yet?
I might go tomorrow. I try to see all of David Cronenberg's movies on the big screen.
Hugh Akston | September 21, 2007, 10:19pm | #
I should note that, according to the NYT story, only one of the guys has even been tried, and his convictions were tossed out by the appellate court (though it fails to mention why).The DA has yet to bring the others to trial, either because he doesn't have enough evidence to convict them, or he is unwilling to bear the scrutiny the trials will incur.
My favorite line in the story is this one:
She could not understand why the students who hung the nooses were not punished severely; the students were suspended briefly from Jena High School, and on Wednesday, the district attorney, Reed Walters, said the act appeared to violate no state law.
Miller Smith | September 21, 2007, 10:38pm | #
Let me see if I got he arguement correct: A young black male with three criminal convictions for violent attacks-one of which he was already on probation for a previous conviction of attacking people-knocks the hell out of a white boy in the back of the head knocking the white boy completely out, and then kicking that white boy in the head and body while on the ground out cold while five other black males who all conspired before the attack to commmit the attack, IS OKAY FOR THE BLACK MALES TO DO BECAUSE some other white boys put some nooses in a tree THREE MONTHS EARLIER?Is that your argument Jesse Jackson?
Attempted murder in the second degree is a charge that covers cases where the actor intended to do bodily harm and planned it ahead of time and the injuries could have lead to death. Kicking an unconscious person the head and body while you are the person who made that person unconscious IS ATTEMPTED MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
The charge was correct. The age and previous record made it correct to put him on trial as an adult.
How about this AL Shparton: Since some white male did some things to some black males a long time ago, any black male NOW should be alllowed to coldcock any white male they feel like and kick them around on the ground for awhile, and so long as the white male doesn't spend too long in the emergency room, the black male GETS A FREE PASS!!!
Mr. Nice Guy | September 21, 2007, 10:40pm | #
They hung a noose, from a tree. Again, it really is neanderthal behvaior, but should it be illegal? WTF? On the other hand, beating a man warrants something stiff (though attempted murder is too high; I've read that the DA actually tried to meet the element of attacking with a weapon by saying the attackers TENNIS SHOES were the weapon when he kicked the victim!!!!).Someone may, and should, point out that there were some incidents prior to the beating that warranted stiffer responses and the Jena authorities blew it off. From what I read there is merit to that argument. However, the quotes from the protestors suggest that their big beef is the nooses and non-prosecution. That's stupid in my opinion.
TLB | September 21, 2007, 11:33pm | #
I only heard about jena a few days ago, and what I read above is about all I know.If those comments are an accurate portrayal, then this would seem to be a good opportunity to discredit JJ and AS as well as the "progressive" blogs. So, why isn't anyone doing that?
As for the ClintonRichardson ticket, please, no! That's the one I fear the most. If she selects BR, we probably won't even have to vote she'd be such a shoo-in.
John-David | September 21, 2007, 11:33pm | #
It would be nice if someone mentioned item 8 in this post:http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002629.html
John-David | September 21, 2007, 11:35pm | #
Rep. Jerry Weller, announcing his retirement from congressman, pushed a reporter down the stairs.Huh?
matthew hogan | September 22, 2007, 12:47am | #
It is odd in Jena that in a town with enough blacks to have these incidents, there was an all-white jury. A question that remains unanswered, though there may be a good one.Mike Laursen | September 22, 2007, 1:12am | #
He gets an answer from the campaign.More like he gets a backpedal from the campaign.
Hunter | September 22, 2007, 1:25am | #
"It is odd in Jena that in a town with enough blacks to have these incidents, there was an all-white jury."I read somewhere or other that when the potential jurors were summoned, no blacks showed up. If true, that's really amusing in a way...
Rick Barton | September 22, 2007, 1:57am | #
The Bush administration is planning to attack Iran before it vacates office unless we exert political pressure to stop them! Thousands of innocent lives are at risk! The Bush administration must be stopped from initiating another needless war!American Conservative...
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_04/index1.html
and the libertarian (not lefty), Antiwar.com...
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11599
...both do a fine job covering the machinations behind the planned attack, as well as the arguments in opposition.
Government does lots of stupid things but needless war is the worst government program of all. I've been commenting here for like 7 yrs so a lot of you know me pretty well and I don't mind admitting that I'm pleading with you to get involved in the effort to stop our government from attacking Iran.
Each of us should contact our representative and senators and tell them that we oppose an attack on Iran and that we also favor impeachment of the president if the administration completely ignores our constitution and orders an attack on Iran sans congressional approval:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Please join the fight. You may well help to prevent the destruction of thousands of innocent lives, stop mopre needless American troop deaths, as well as forestall untold blow-back from this tragic government insanity.
Rick Barton | September 22, 2007, 2:01am | #
...make that: "stop more needless American troop deaths"Stooz | September 22, 2007, 2:05am | #
The black community leaders really need to watch themselves. Their antics of the past 10 years or so have converted people a bunch of people I know from self-hating white liberals to people who don't even want to see a black person ever again.They are doing more than anything else to drive a wedge between blacks and ALL other races in this country. People don't want to be around blacks because they're afraid some misunderstood word or comment is going to result in a trip to HR, a lawsuit or even a physical attack. I'm serious. It's getting really bad down in the trenches of the real world.
Especially several of my Asian and Hispanic coworkers. They come right out and tell me they've had it. They'll deal with blacks when forced to, but they will NEVER have any voluntary relationships with any American black person. They don;t care if it's probably just a "few bad apples". It's just not a type of life roulette they are willing to play.
BakedPenguin | September 22, 2007, 8:53am | #
I can't believe the obtuse stupidity of current civil rights leaders. There are numerous cases of African-Americans that were totally innocent being railroaded, but they choose to go all out for 6 thugs who brutally beat some kid seemingly at random...Imagine the good they could have done by speaking up about Cory Maye - but them they would have to explain his situation to the media. It wouldn't have been the flashpoint this situation is, and they wouldn't have gotten the media coverage and donations they have.
Fuck you, Al Sharpton. Fuck you, Jesse Jackson.
wayne | September 22, 2007, 8:55am | #
in Louisiana to protest the railroading of six black men who beat up a white kid.I always like to flip these sort of incidents 180 degrees to see how they sound....
in Louisiana to protest the railroading of six white men who beat up a black kid.Gosh, now it sounds like a hate crime punishable by life in prison, with the Klan marching and demanding their release.
J sub D | September 22, 2007, 9:59am | #
They hung a noose, from a tree. Again, it really is neanderthal behvaior, but should it be illegal? WTF?I believe it's called communicating a threat in most jurisdictions, and HELL YES it should be illegal. Should a 6 on 1 beating be illegal? HELL YES it should and is. Jena LA is obviously a redneck shithole town that I wil endeavor to never visit. A whites only shade tree, give me a fuckin' break. If you're looking for saints here, you're wasting your time.
J sub D | September 22, 2007, 10:18am | #
- Whenever Patrick Toomey needs to be convinced that Congressional pork is a problem, he visits the International Peace Garden.Damned good link, David. Bravo Zulu.
G | September 22, 2007, 10:56am | #
Not to nitpick too much here, but "six black men who beat up a white kid" is a rather loaded way to say "six black high school students who beat up a white schoolmate".Because this case is so emotionally loaded, it is important (especially for those who seek to let reason be their light) to state the facts as clearly as possible. The juxtaposition of men and kid is especially dangerous in this example, since one of the chief complaints is that students are being charged as adults.
As J sub D has noted, one should not look for saints among the alleged criminals or their victims; the problem with Jena is the response of the adult community and the justice system.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 22, 2007, 11:23am | #
J sub D-I see your point, I guess it is the equivalent of calling someone and saying "hey buddy, I'm going to kill you if keep coming to the tree." I do think though that when it comes to a threat being criminal that we should keep the idea of imminence in mind. If I'm across the parking lot and I say "hey buddy, I'm coming over to kill you now" that strikes me as illegal. I'm not sure about "hey buddy, I'm gonna kill you" over the phone or insinuated by a noose in a tree or something like that. How is that different than a person saying to their ex-spouse over the phone "you drive me crazy, I wish you were dead, I could kill you right now?"I also stand by the assertion that even if this should be a criminal offense (and like I said there is a good argument there), it's nowhere near akin to gang beating a kid into unconsciousness.
SamB | September 22, 2007, 11:40am | #
I get the sense while reading about the Jena 6 that the protesting and demonstrations are not as much about seeing justice done as having the opportunity to imitate personal heroes from the civil rights movement. A lot of the protesters, it seems, are from liberal arts or traditionally black colleges and all the quotes from these kids are something along the lines of "It's great to march for justice just like ______ (MLK, Malcom X, take your pick)".These kids are not the Scottsboro Boys; there is no ambiguity about the fact that they beat another classmate into unconsciousness, scarring him physically and emotionally for the rest of his life.
The DA might have been a little excessive when charging the boys, and whoever hung those nooses might have gotten off a little light, but if this is the flashpoint of the modern civil rights movement then that says a lot about the modern civil rights movement.
G | September 22, 2007, 12:07pm | #
Mr. Nice Guy, your analogy of an ex-spouse saying, "I could kill you right now," is a fair one. That IS the communication of a threat and grounds for a domestic violence order of protection (restraining order), at least in NC (where I live).It's important to remember that less than fifty years ago, whites were getting away with murder-by-noose. The Klan has certainly gone underground and isn't nearly as powerful as it used to be, and things have changed in the South, but a specter of the past is still there.
When I was a kid (in NC in the 1980s), the KKK still marched down Main Street once a year. When I was in college (in NC 15 or so years ago), the local Klan called in a bomb threat to my school when Spike Lee was scheduled to talk. And just a couple of years ago I got to know some very well respected folks in Black Mountain, NC (church elder, boy scout leader, etc), only to find out that they were very plugged in to the Christian Identity movement (i.e. Aryan Nations, etc).
These are just examples, but it doesn't hurt to keep in mind that they all happened in North Carolina, which has always been one of the more moderate Southern states. Things are getting better, but the threat of violence is still under the surface in the South. It's simply more subtle and less prevalent than it used to be.
The best explanation of Jena that I've read is on the Nation's website: Jena Is America
capelza | September 22, 2007, 12:20pm | #
A few days before the white boy was attacked one of his alleged (because there havebeen no convictions except for those of the one boy (who was 16 at the time and that was overturned and sent back)) attackers went ot a party in the white part of town.He was attacked, one ADULT was arrested for it, using a beer bottle as a weapon. Others were involved, but Justin Sloan, 22, was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor crime and given probation..an adult attacking a legal child with a beer bottle. The victim says others were involved, but when the police arrived the black kids were just told to get back to their side of town and no firther arrests were made.
So when one of the people who had been there/participated in the attack on the young black kid (Bailey) was bragging about the attack, he (Barker, the white kid) was set upon, allegedly by six black kids who were charged with attempted murder.
It's a bit dodgy here...the DA to get the case into adult court had to charge attempted murder to remand a juvenile. The acutal charge he wanted to lay would not remand the kids. But once he got it into adult court, he then lowered to charges to the aggravated assault that he could have charged the kids with in juvenile court..but with the much stiffer penalties.
The higher court threw out the conviction, saying this should have been kept in the juvenile system.
It isn't just about the nooses and the attack on the white boy. It's messy.
capelza | September 22, 2007, 12:23pm | #
And yes, the line " six black men who beat up a white kid." is so wrong."Six black kids beat up a white schoolmate" is the correct sentence.
joe | September 22, 2007, 12:59pm | #
That might cost her the New York Money People vote.No, actual Jewish voters aren't suckers, and have consisted avoided falling for the race-card pandering of the neoconservatives throughout the Bush presidency.
joe | September 22, 2007, 1:03pm | #
It's disgusting how Jesse Jackson said those six black high school students are heros!Oh, wait. He didn't? He said they should be convicted of assault, carry criminal records, and be put on probation? He called the crime a crime, but criticized the charge?
Just too good to check, I guess. These things usually are. Damn civil rights leaders!
VM | September 22, 2007, 2:14pm | #
One of the accused students, Mychal Bell, 17, was convicted in June of aggravated battery and conspiracy. Those charges were tossed out by two different appeals courts, most recently last Friday, but Mr. Bell has not been released from jailwhy is that? (emphasis added)
Syloson of Samos | September 22, 2007, 2:28pm | #
VM,Well, he might be in jail awaiting a new trial?
SIV | September 22, 2007, 2:53pm | #
They hung a noose, from a tree. Again, it really is neanderthal behvaior, but should it be illegal? WTF?I believe it's called communicating a threat in most jurisdictions, and HELL YES it should be illegal.
Even if it is your tree on your property?
I can understand the school punishing minors hanging nooses in a tree on school property. Considering the ongoing racial tensions at the school in Jena they likely weren't punished enough.
The State making a legalcharge of "Communication of a Threat" based solely on a knot tied in a length of rope sounds like a thought crime.
SIV | September 22, 2007, 3:01pm | #
I intended to seperate the words legal and charge.That is a typo and not an intentional coinage like IllegalMexican.I assume this is an open thread so what does anyone think about the FOMC rate cut last week?
Reading around it seems displeasure with monetary policy is a "non-partisan" issue with people of all political persuasions upset.
Quite a few Democrats vehemently disagree with their Party's proposed legislative fixes for the housing/mortgage/credit mess as well.
joe | September 22, 2007, 3:07pm | #
Even if it is your tree on your property?Maybe. How about "Hey, Darkies, I'm going to kill you!" sign on your front lawn? I'd say that pretty clearly constitutes a threat.
There is a line somewhere, but I don't think it's drawn at who owns the property, but whether the threat is conveyed.
SIV | September 22, 2007, 3:13pm | #
joe,Are you saying that the knotted rope in of itself is a threat rising to the level of legal sanction?
What if it is a Halloween decoration?
Weigel linked to some leftist site called Crooks and Liars.I read the lefty blogs on occasion but that C&L site is crazy stupid.
J sub D | September 22, 2007, 3:18pm | #
The State making a legalcharge of "Communication of a Threat" based solely on a knot tied in a length of rope sounds like a thought crime.If lapdancing is speech, hanging a noose at the "whites only" tree, certainly is. And if it wasn't a threat, what the hell was it? An Arbor Day decoration? Let's get real here.
Even if it is your tree on your property?
Depending on the context, yes.
Obviously, a noose as part of a Halloween display is not a threat.
A noose with a sign that says "you're next" in Jena today obviously would be.
Just a noose, on your tree in your yard? Prosecutors would have a very difficult time getting a conviction.
Let's just all admit that Jena, LA, is a fucked up, racist, redneck, shithole of a town. Let's all admit that 6 on 1 beatdowns, are, in spite of legitimate grievences, a serious criminal matter.
Goddamit, I viscerally dislike being in agreement with you, joe. But I guess you can be reasoable about somethings.
SIV | September 22, 2007, 3:25pm | #
Damn civil rights leaders!Well these folks want ALL charges dropped against the six students. The group was founded by some guy who worked for Moveon.org
I found the link at the C&L site.
Another amusing item there is they believe Fred Thompson can't win the GOP nomination because James Dobson doesn't like him.
SIV | September 22, 2007, 3:35pm | #
joe,There is a line somewhere, but I don't think it's drawn at who owns the property, but whether the threat is conveyed.
So you would advocate criminal punishment for anti-war protesters who displayed the noose with an effigy of Bush or General Petraeus?
prolefeed | September 22, 2007, 3:40pm | #
We've had a few commenters here who've maintained that the Democrats can't be blamed for the Iraq war not ending, that it's all the fault of the Republicans plus a few Democratic turncoats, and ifAny of you care to
J sub D | September 22, 2007, 3:54pm | #
So you would advocate criminal punishment for anti-war protesters who displayed the noose with an effigy of Bush or General Petraeus?SIV - Too easy, it wouldn't be perceived as, or be, a threat. You know it. Are you done being obstinate?
VM | September 22, 2007, 3:55pm | #
thanks, Hak!Prole - um. I think you're on the wrong site with those questions.... um...
you'll find that most hier don't want "socialized medicine" any more than faith-based government programs, NCLB, or idealistic nation building exercises... so um. huh?
J sub D | September 22, 2007, 3:58pm | #
Any of you care to rationalize explain the 28-70 vote to cut off Iraq war funding in the Senate? That means 28 Democrats in favor of cutting off funding, 23 against.Again, too easy. It's harder to get out of a war than it is to get into one. You'd have thought Dick Cheney would have explained that to GWB.
prolefeed | September 22, 2007, 4:03pm | #
For those who use terms like "climate change deniers", care to discuss the article and temperature graph here:Mr. F. Le Mur | September 22, 2007, 4:06pm | #
Mr. Bell has not been released from jailHere's why:
"Again, [Judge] Mauffray pointed out that Bell now has either been adjudicated or convicted of five crimes of violence.
...He cited Bell's presence on probation and the fact that there were three other cases — not including the case Bell is currently in jail for — awaiting disposition."
prolefeed | September 22, 2007, 4:16pm | #
VM:I agree that, overwhelmingly, people who visit here are against socialized medicine, but due to a vocal minority of left-statists, the number of posts pro and con on any of these theads about socialized medicine is generally split down the middle.
I was particularly interested in how certain left-statists here, who keep repeating the mantra that about 90% of the Democrats in Congress are intent on ending the war, intend to spin this evidence that they are *ahem* wrong.
Fluffy | September 22, 2007, 4:43pm | #
Prolefeed:I think the most charitable way to frame the Democrat predicament is that there are a lot of cowardly Senators who would choose to end the war, but who are unwilling to challenge the President politically by defunding the war.
If they can get Bush to march out they'll do it, but they're - for some reason - deathly afraid of being accused of "abandoning the troops".
And there's something to that. Upon passage of a defunding bill, a prudent President would withdraw the troops. A petulant bitch would leave them in place to run out of fuel, food and ammo. Which type of President do you think we have right now? When dealing with Bush, it's important to at least consider the possibility that he might be willing to let the troops play a few rounds of Stalingrad rather than accept the will of the Congress.
SIV | September 22, 2007, 4:48pm | #
The only reason most Dems pretend to be against the War is because they aren't running it. Until they are they will play politics with our National Security. Once they have the levers of power expect it to continue.Does anyone seriously believe that if Gore won in 2000-or had succeeded in stealing the election-that we wouldn't be in Iraq right now?
SIV | September 22, 2007, 4:53pm | #
Flemur:I asked on the foot fetish thread if it was genetic like many people believe homosexuality is.If you are still around, Do you think foot fetishism is a disease spread by an unidentified
bacterial or viral infection?
Mr. Nice Guy | September 22, 2007, 5:12pm | #
In the accounts I read there was much conflicting testimony as to whether the black student had indeed been hit with a beer bottle. Was the hitting with bottle actually proven in court? Also, I read that the DA explored charging a federal hate crime, but that there are certification issues with juveniles he deemed too fraught with difficulties. I will be the FIRST to admit that the US in general, the South more so, and many small towns therein in particular are hotbeds of ugly racism and that their justice systems need serious cleaning up and monitoring. But in this case the equation of hanging nooses with gang beatings is in my opinion crazy.The charge of attempted second degree murder supposedly encompasses doing things to someone that could have killed them, and gang kicking an unconscious boy seems to fit the bill...
Joe-did someone say Jesse called these kids hero's? My point was that they are indeed a unsympathetic face for such a march. I could think of numerous incidents of blacks being railroaded by Southern justice systems that did not involve the brutal gang beating of a kid. I'm certainly for the vigorous defense of unsympathetic characters charged with crimes, but my point is this is one stupid move politically. It makes Jesse et al seem unconcerned with the white victims of such beatings. Chants of "hey, the Jenna 6 are brutal, cowardly attackers who deserve convictions and criminal records, but not second degree murder convictions" don't exactly inspire me of thoughts of the march on Washington...
J sub D-I agree with you the hanging of a noose or joe's hypothetical sign are clearly speech and conveigh threats. I only submit that in a context that does not invite imminence that a crime warranting state intervention seems uncalled for. If someone expressed the ugly sentiment of joe's hypo on a webpage should he be charged with a crime? What is the difference?
prolefeed | September 22, 2007, 5:58pm | #
Upon passage of a defunding bill, a prudent President would withdraw the troops. A petulant bitch would leave them in place to run out of fuel, food and ammo. Which type of President do you think we have right now? When dealing with Bush, it's important to at least consider the possibility that he might be willing to let the troops play a few rounds of Stalingrad rather than accept the will of the Congress.Fluffy -- I think we're dealing with a petulant bastard (not "bitch", unless Bush had a hushed-up sex change operation that I haven't heard about) who nonetheless wouldn't leave the troops to be slaughtered. Bush likes the troops. They're his kind of people. No, he'd pull them out, then claim that the U.S. was THIS close to winning, but the Democrats snatched victory from defeat.
Too many of the Democrats want it both ways -- they want to hang the war around the necks of Republicans, while continuing it as long as they keep on picking up seats in Congress. The Republicans, with a few exceptions like Governor AH-nold and Ron Paul, are frickin' clueless on this issue. They just keep downing the hemlock and asking for seconds (and thirds, and ...)
I suspect the war will end only when the Democrats start losing seats in Congress over this issue -- say, after the 2010 elections. I hope I'm too pessimistic, but that 28-70 vote says it all.
BakedPenguin | September 22, 2007, 6:05pm | #
[Jackson] said they should be convicted of assault, carry criminal records, and be put on probation.Gee, probation, huh? Is he running for office on a law-and-order platform? I have to wonder if he think that would be appropriate punishment for six whites who perped the same crime on a black.
Having said that, I'll admit it has been a long time since I lived in the Deep South. Some of the posts after mine reminded me of the racial tension that was palpable everywhere. I don't think letting 6 thugs off just because they have to live in that climate is an appropriate response, though.
J sub D | September 22, 2007, 6:50pm | #
Since I haven't addressed the issue of two honorable reverends', Jackson and Sharpton, involvement yet, I will now.These two hypocritical, lying, bottom feeding, race baiting, money grubbing, bigoted charlatans disgust me. Completely, absolutely, entirely disgust me. They make me want to blow chunks. In their faces. That these two hucksters are considered "Men of God" is one more reason I'm proud to be an atheist. Anybody who believes that they are in Jena for anyone other than themselves is too naivee too be let outside alone.
Compare that diatribe with my previous posts on this subject on this thread and tell me, am I a bigot? I ask this because if I were to become a public figure (Odin forbid) the aforementioned would get thrown in my face, repeatedly, and completely out of context. That tendency to play gotcha rather than calmly discuss the issues today, keeps a lot of good thoughtful people silent.
Shit that just depressed me. Bartender, make that a double.
BakedPenguin | September 22, 2007, 6:53pm | #
Does anyone seriously believe that if Gore won in 2000...that we wouldn't be in Iraq right now?Um...yes. If Al Gore had won in 2000, we would not be in Iraq.
What do you believe? Gore would have had a "neo-liberal" administration - have the CIA fake evidence of massive carbon emissions coming from Iraq and use it as a pretext to invade to promote global ecology?
Mo | September 22, 2007, 7:02pm | #
I agree that the Jena 6 aren't the most sympathetic case, but I think they are getting railroaded.The way the nooses hung from the "whites only" oak tree is being brushed off as a length of rope with some knots is ridiculous. This isn't "ZOMG! There's a square knot tied to an elm," nooses have some historical (in their parent's generation) context.
I'm sure if someone spray painted swastikas on a school, people would wonder why people are getting up in arms about painting ancient Indian symbols.
Mad Max | September 22, 2007, 7:35pm | #
"I will be the FIRST to admit that the US in general, the South more so, and many small towns therein in particular are hotbeds of ugly racism and that their justice systems need serious cleaning up and monitoring."There are plenty of white racists in the US, and, yes, that includes some in the South. There are other kinds of racists, though. There are the racists who vehemently object to the Lacrosse players in Durham being declared innocent. Yes, maybe they are not guilty of the minor crimes of rape, sexual assault and sodomy, but they *are* guilty of the grave crime of white maleness!
Not to mention Jackson and Sharpton, who (a) believe in discrimination against whites and Asians ("affirmative action"), and (b) support double standards in the criminal justice system depending on the race of the defendant. If that's not racism, the word is too malleable to have any real meaning.
SIV | September 22, 2007, 7:35pm | #
Mo,Depending on where the "facts" are coming from the nooses don't have anything to do with the beating attack.They serve to show disparate punishment for White and Black students for the "narrative" however.The rope hanging students were punished by the school as this does not rise to the level of a criminal offense according to the LA DA. The perpetrators of the beating were charged by the judicial system.
Ruthless | September 22, 2007, 7:35pm | #
In a former life for which I'm still atoning, I spoke "Wall Street."So forgive me for saying McCain is having a "dead cat bounce."
SIV | September 22, 2007, 7:42pm | #
re the Racist Ol' SouthI'm old enough to remember vicious angry whites attacking Black children just for trying to go to school in a previously segregated system.
It happened in BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS in the 1970s.
I remember Howard Beach as well.I don't recall any high profile incidents of White on Black racial violence in the South as they were before my time(really young or before I was born).
SIV | September 22, 2007, 8:49pm | #
Take the Civic Literacy Quiz. This was in the News last week. Test showed Harvard students score worse as seniors than they do as incoming freshman.I scored %95 bitches ! That was taking the test casually at maximum speed(avg 15 seconds per question timed) without considering all multiple choice answers -- just reading the question once and filling in the first answer I thought was correct.Not my usual standardized test strategy.
The average college student fails this miserably.Test was challenging and fun.
Cesar | September 22, 2007, 8:59pm | #
Flemur:I asked on the foot fetish thread if it was genetic like many people believe homosexuality is.If you are still around, Do you think foot fetishism is a disease spread by an unidentified
bacterial or viral infection?
SIV wins this the thread.
KingHarvest | September 22, 2007, 9:23pm | #
care to discuss the article and temperature graph here:Yes. That's an adjustment to the United States temperature trends. The global trend still shows an increase with this correction.
Any of you care to rationalize explain the 28-70 vote to cut off Iraq war funding in the Senate? That means 28 Democrats in favor of cutting off funding, 23 against.
Remember the less aggressive proposal by Jim Webb (D-VA) requiring troops as much time at home as abroad (supporting the troops), simultaneously causing a troop drawdown given current roster levels? It received 56 votes (50-D + 6-R). Unfortunately, John Warner, whose voting record I (as an ex-Virginian) generally approve of,
"...announced dramatically on the Senate floor that he was withdrawing his support for the proposal based on information provided by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other senior military officials.
'I endorsed it,' Warner said of the Webb proposal. 'I intend now to cast a vote against it.'" (here)
J sub D-I agree with you the hanging of a noose or joe's hypothetical sign are clearly speech and conveigh threats. I only submit that in a context that does not invite imminence that a crime warranting state intervention seems uncalled for. If someone expressed the ugly sentiment of joe's hypo on a webpage should he be charged with a crime? What is the difference?The difference is imminence of committing the crime. An "I could kill you" during a phone call from NY to CA isn't likely to happen. A blog's hoarse threat won't mobilize computer screens. A schoolyard noose replete with hazing youngsters? A threat.
Ruthless | September 22, 2007, 9:42pm | #
"SIV wins this the thread."Cesar,
In spite of your nom de plume, you hereby lose the power to annoit this the, that the or the other the as winner of any thread.
Sorry about this the that.
prolefeed | September 22, 2007, 10:26pm | #
KingHarvest:The global temperature has not been adjusted to fix the errors found in the U.S., and in addition to that is generally less reliable. If you look at the temperature chart for the U.S. here (look at the blue lines for the year by year data), the climate scientists were predicting a new ice age when the temperatures troughed in the 1970s, and are now predicting a global warming catastrophe now that the temperatures have climbed back to around the range reached in the 1930s. Five of the last ten warmest years in the last century occurred prior to WWII.
We do have anthropogenic global warming data -- that is, we do have humans coming up with shaky data from which they extrapolate a shaky thesis of global warming driving an even shakier political agenda of statist intervention in the economy.
Here's a picture of one of those temperature sensing stations, located next to recently relocated air conditioning units venting waste heat onto the sensors.
Mr. F. Le Mur | September 22, 2007, 11:43pm | #
SIV: I asked on the foot fetish thread if it was genetic like many people believe homosexuality is.If you are still around, Do you think foot fetishism is a disease spread by an unidentified bacterial or viral infection?Of course not, nor do I think homosexuality is a disease, and never made that claim. But I do think your reading comprehension is rather lacking.
SIV | September 23, 2007, 12:27am | #
F Lemur,I could have sworn you put forth the idea that homosexuality was biological in that it was caused by an infectious agent.
Without researching it, I considered the idea intriguing and put looking into it on the stove, albeit the backburner. I am open to the idea because I believe many "non-infectious" diseases may be unrecognized infectious conditions(stomach ulcers for ex.).Much as parasites can change the behavior of their hosts for their own benefit I would assume microbial infections could possibly do the same.I still havn't looked into what I thought you were referecing.
Excuse me for distorting your views if that is the case.
SIV | September 23, 2007, 12:39am | #
Whooops! Didn't mean to post the above link by itself.I was going to include it with more such as Patterico's on Glenn Reynolds and Balko
Patterico points out what Balko doesn't.I know he is a hopeless law enforcement apologist but he certainly informs the story here.
Brian W. | September 23, 2007, 6:55am | #
It would be nice if someone mentioned item 8 in this post:http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002629.html
More proof that there is no God, or if there is, he's an evil mf.
crimethink | September 23, 2007, 9:51am | #
I'm watching Press the Meat right now, and, following Hillary's dodge-a-thon, Alan Greenspan is saying that the Iraq war was justified because we had to keep Saddam from gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz and thus the global oil supply.Strangely, Russert forgets to ask how Saddam would have been capable of doing any of that.
joe | September 23, 2007, 9:57am | #
SIV,Neither of the cases you bring up would cause a reasonable person to perceive a threat.
That's the standard here - is it actually a threat, or is it an action which, in some other context might be considered a threat, but in its real context is not.
Yup, the meaning of a message depends on context. I believe they teach this in elementary school.
Considering that Al Gore gave a much-covered speech decrying the invasion of Iraq as a terrible mistake, and laying out a different global strategy for fighting terrorism, months before the war was launched, it seems somewhat short of Pascal's wager to conclude that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
SIV | September 23, 2007, 10:13am | #
joe,You hanging a noose in my tree might be a threat.If I hang one in my own tree it doesn't matter how you perceive it or try to define the context.
joe | September 23, 2007, 10:16am | #
Nonsense. I can easily come up with contexts that make that a clear threat.If black kids walk back and forth to school in front of your house, and you've gotting into racial-slur-lader shouting matches with them, hanging a noose in your tree most certainly would convey a threat.
SIV | September 23, 2007, 10:21am | #
Considering that Al Gore gave a much-covered speech decrying the invasion of Iraq as a terrible mistake, and laying out a different global strategy for fighting terrorism, months before the war was launched, it seems somewhat short of Pascal's wager to conclude that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.joe,
Invasion of Iraq was not an option for Gore at that point as he lost the election.The administration he served in nearly went in in 1998 and was obsessed with those WMDs that ultimately proved lacking. Gore would have had the same Pentagon, CIA and State Department as Bush did.
joe | September 23, 2007, 10:30am | #
Sure, but backing the administration or remaining silent - as he had on every other issue that had come up to that point of the Bush presidency - were options for him.He didn't take them. He broke his self-imposed rule against denouncing the way the President was governing for that one specific case.
Yet more evidence of how strongly he was opposed to invading Iraq.
he administration he served in nearly went in in 1998 and was obsessed with those WMDs that ultimately proved lacking Actually, what they "proved" was that there were WMDs in Iraqi in 1998, which were destroyed by the Saddam regime after Operation Desert Fox. This has been confirmed by the military and the ISG.
But let's set that aside; yes, Gore and Clinton were concerned with the WMDs and had a history of taking action to protect us from the problem. AND YET they didn't invade the country - they only, as you say, nearly went in, meaning they didn't go in, they dealth with it some other way.
Some other way that was much less definitive and satisfactory than having a couple hundred thousand troops on the ground to guarantee that they threat they were concerned about was eliminated.
Demonstrating that they didn't go into Iraq when they were concerned about its WMD capabilities - that they took other action instead - is yet another argument against the thesis that Gore would have invaded Iraq. They showed us what they would do in that situation - bombing runs, coercive inspections under the UN mandate, and other containment actions.
You know, exactly the ones Al Gore was urging in that speech he gave.
SIV | September 23, 2007, 10:32am | #
joe,Does the noose only convey a threat to Black people?
What other "symbols" should be prohibited on private property?
joe | September 23, 2007, 10:33am | #
It's funny to me to see conservatives and Republicans arguing that Democrats would have done exactly the same thing in regards to Iraq after 9/11, and working so hard to spread the blame.That certainly wasn't what they were saying in 2002 and 2003.
What was it Benito said to his mobbed-up police chief at Ground Zero? Thank God Al Gore isn't the president?
joe | September 23, 2007, 10:34am | #
SIV,I'm not going to play dumb with you anymore about the noose.
My point is made, and your weaselling isn't going make your position look any more reasonable.
joe | September 23, 2007, 10:36am | #
Nah, that's not true. Beating up on you is so much fun.Are you arguing that the threat implied in hanging a noose from a tree near the property line between a white family and a black family depends on which limb it is hung from?
Sadly, you are.
joe | September 23, 2007, 10:40am | #
What other "symbols" should be prohibited on private property?Whichever ones convey an overt threat to do bodily harm to another person.
Once again, there are rather obvious answers to these questions you keep throwing out as if they were trump cards.
SIVhh | September 23, 2007, 10:59am | #
What other "symbols" should be prohibited on private property?Whichever ones convey an overt threat to do bodily harm to another person.
Who defines that? Would you suggest the Duke University Liberal Arts Faculty?
SIV | September 23, 2007, 11:05am | #
I'm not going to play dumb with you anymore about the noose.Why not? you are doing an excellent job of "playing" dumb.
Ruthless | September 23, 2007, 11:25am | #
"Alan Greenspan is saying that the Iraq war was justified because we had to keep Saddam from gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz and thus the global oil supply."crimethink,
I'm disappointed Greenspan, of all people, wouldn't have "faith" in the fact that those with control over the oil over there would find a way to SELL IT! Strait of Hormuz or no Strait of Hormuz.
(I have "faith" the price of oil is much higher now than it would have been if the US had never tried to "protect" it in the first place.
People anthropomorphize oil like they do guns and certain drugs. They give inanimate substances power that they simply don't possess.
crimethink | September 23, 2007, 11:44am | #
Ruthless,I don't think the problem would be the oil not being sold -- the problem would be who it would be sold to (China) and in what currency (not US$).
I think the Hormuz being closed would be a problem, but there's no way Saddam had the capacity to threaten it before the invasion. If anything, our current saber-rattling with Iran is far more dangerous in that regard.
J sub D | September 23, 2007, 11:54am | #
SIV,I can hang a sign "on my own property" that say KILL SIV AND YOU GO TO HEAVEN! GOD WANTS YOU TO KILL SIV!? WTF are you saying? After all, letters, even spoken words, are "symbols". Other symbols also possess meaning. If you can't see or won't admit this, I dub thee, fool.
SIV | September 23, 2007, 12:03pm | #
JsubD,Who defines the meaning of the symbols?
Can you find any example of a noose hung on one's own property-in any context-constituting a legally sanctionable threat in of itself under any law within the United States?
You and joe are racing to create new categories of thought crimes.
J sub D | September 23, 2007, 12:12pm | #
"Alan Greenspan is saying that the Iraq war was justified because we had to keep Saddam from gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz and thus the global oil supply."Sorry, Mr Greenspan, Saddam had no, repeat no capability to close the Strait of Hormuz. Talk about grasping at straws.
Gosh, joe, we're defending each other. They're curling in Hell as we speak. ;-)
iih | September 23, 2007, 12:20pm | #
Check out another of Rudy's "Rudyness" moments during an NRA speech. Here:http://youtube.com/watch?v=hB0qjvi9kLE
P.S. I am not sure if this has been brought up on H&R.
Mr. F. Le Mur | September 23, 2007, 1:05pm | #
SIV: I could have sworn you put forth the idea that homosexuality was biological in that it was caused by an infectious agent.Now you're closer. Pinker phrases it: "Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?"
Without researching it, I considered the idea intriguing and put looking into it on the stove, albeit the backburner...
It sounds like you're familiar with the so-called "New Germ Theory." The idea is easy, and stems from basic evolutionary ideas: if a condition interferes with reproduction, it's either rare (and genetic)* or the result of infection by a disease organism or some other injury, and not necessarily some exotic unknown organism (even though, IIRC, biologists estimate that less than 1% of possible pathogens have been identified). Reproduction rates are like compound interest: small differences become quite significant over many generations.
* Known genetic diseases (=any condition that interferes with reproduction) typically occur in 1 out of thousands of births, not 1 out of dozens or hundreds.
This paragraph from a pop-psych article explains the idea:
"What caused Seth's anxiety, his tics, his obsessive-compulsive behavior? Astonishingly, it was probably that minor sore throat, his doctors concluded. Today, scientists are increasingly coming to recognize that the bacteria and viruses that frequently invade our bodies and cause sore throats and other minor ailments may also unleash a host of major mental and emotional illnesses*, including anorexia, schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder."
*From an evolutionary viewpoint, any physical (including the brain, of course) condition that interferes with reproduction can be considered an illness. This'd include things like arthritis, etc., not just "mental" problems, although the latter's been open to confusion thanks to psychs placing the blame on silly things like toilet training and bad parenting.
And note that nobody's claiming that there's an "obsessive-compulsive" virus or bacteria, just that some people, a small number, react differently to common, or perhaps unknown, disease organisms: e.g. 99.9% of the kids get a sore throat, .1% might get some additional symptoms, some long-term. The differences in reactions appear to have a partially genetic basis.
Excuse me for distorting your views if that is the case.
No problem. If you're interested there's plenty of nitty-gritty at gnxp.com.
Fluffy | September 23, 2007, 1:16pm | #
Joe -I think the question about the noose really isn't whether or not it's a threat. The question is whether it's a legally actionable threat.
Words have meanings. Symbols have "possible" meanings.
If I stand in the street in front of your house and shout, "I'm gonna kill you!" I am making a threat and you should be able to have me arrested. If I hang a noose from a tree in my yard, maybe I'm making a threat and maybe I'm not. The fact that the noose is not an explicit, unambiguous, non-debatable threat should mean that it's not actionable.
Some would argue that a jury should be allowed to determine what it thinks the noose must have meant, but I think that's crap. Only the person who hung the noose can ultimately state what it meant.
now for somethig IMPORTANT. do I start Drew Brees or Jake Delhomme in Fantasy Football this week?
I'm not sure who could control the Strait of Hormuz, but I am sure it would make little difference if all Middle East oil were first sold to China and priced in rupees.
iih | September 23, 2007, 1:26pm | #
If I hang a noose from a tree in my yard, maybe I'm making a threat and maybe I'm not.To joe it may not, but to an African American it may. One also has to ask: How often do people hang nooses in their yards and not mean it in a threatening way? If it is socially known that hanging a noose means something that is non-threatening, then I agree with what Fluffy says. But it is not a widely spread act.
Still, I do have trouble with not being able to express what you want, especially when what one is expressing is on one's own property. But, as someone on H&R once quoted George Bernard Shaw:
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
So, to my noose-hanging-in-their-yards friends I say, you are free to say/express what you want, but just be responsible. It is good for all.
SIV | September 23, 2007, 1:30pm | #
Only the person who hung the noose can ultimately state what it meant.joe, J sub D,
What Fluffy said.....
Johnny | September 23, 2007, 4:38pm | #
"10,000 people marched in Louisiana to protest the railroading of six black men who beat up a white kid."Funny...here's is a republican paper editorial, the Chicago Tribune, with a slightly different take on it than yours.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0920edit2sep20,0,5070694.story
Can't see any reason why liberals might think that the state rights crowd (as opposed to state powers crowds) might think that states rights crowds are less than concerned that those of African descent might not enjoy the same citizenship privileges as their European cousins.
I thought that they were protesting that if pointing a gun at someone isn't attempted murder, than kicking them with gym shoes on certainly isn't, especially if the kicked went to a party 4 hours after getting kicked.
Funny me, must be my "liberal" sensitivities that makes me think that whites in that town should have the same legal structure as the blacks. Just a dumb ole liberal here I guess. Just like the republicans over at the Chicago Tribune.
Fluffy | September 23, 2007, 7:02pm | #
Since this is an all-purpose weekend political thread, I'd just like to point out that Ron Paul came in third at the Mackinac Republican straw poll this weekend, beating out both Giuliani and Thompson.Usually Dondero's thug avoids all straw polls so he can say the results don't mean anything, but in this instance both Giuliani and Thompson attended the event and solicited votes.
You can't hope to stop Ron Paul, you can only hope to contain him.
Sauce for the gander | September 23, 2007, 7:37pm | #
How about "Hey, Darkies, I'm going to kill you!" sign on your front lawn? I'd say that pretty clearly constitutes a threat.Officer, arrest that website!
stephen the goldberger | September 24, 2007, 1:23am | #
dont tase me browayne | September 24, 2007, 1:52am | #
"Again, [Judge] Mauffray pointed out that Bell now has either been adjudicated or convicted of five crimes of violence.Given this background, do any of you really think attempter murder is unreasonable. Do any of you really think this was a school yard scuffle?
...He cited Bell's presence on probation and the fact that there were three other cases — not including the case Bell is currently in jail for — awaiting disposition."
I have not read much of the news coverage of this. Was the white kid who was beaten unconscious the one who put a noose in a tree three months prior to his beating?
rationalist | September 24, 2007, 7:30am | #
They should have beat up the noose instead, those idiots.wayne | September 24, 2007, 8:32am | #
"I'm not sure who could control the Strait of Hormuz, but I am sure it would make little difference if all Middle East oil were first sold to China and priced in rupees."
What if Saddam had kept Kuwait and simply cut production by 50%? Is that OK?
By the way, you are wrong about the "little difference" reasoning.
joe | September 24, 2007, 9:20am | #
SIV, Fluffy,Who defines that? Would you suggest the Duke University Liberal Arts Faculty?
In our legal system, we use the "reasonable person" standard.
BTW, this is not a new law or concept. Both the crime of Threatening and the Reasonable Person standard go back centuries.
Fluffy | September 24, 2007, 10:11am | #
Joe, I know what you're saying, but to me that still requires a verbal or written threat that employs words.Only the meaning of words can be reasonably evaluated. Symbols are by their nature so ambiguous that in almost every instance I can imagine, a directed verdict of not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt would be in order.
A noose may mean "I'm gonna kill you." But given how frequently a noose appears in just these contexts but no actual lynching ensues [i.e. 99.9% of the current instances], it can just as reasonably mean "I hate black people and want them to be unhappy."
joe | September 24, 2007, 10:18am | #
Fluffy,You don't think a finger drawn across the throat, followed by a finger held in front of pursed lipe, can convey a perfectly clear threat?
de stijl | September 24, 2007, 10:49am | #
Here is an actual timeline of the Jena affair (bottom of page - scrolling is kind of funky) as reported in the hometown newspaper, so, you know, people can actually read and understand the facts instead of projecting them based upon a pre-existing sociopolitical framework.Mr.Nice Guy | September 24, 2007, 10:53am | #
Joe-I won't quibble that a noose in a tree or the gesture you mention are threats, I think they certainly are. My only point is that we should hae an imminence recquirement for that to be illegal.
If someone puts a sign up in their yard that says "I'm gonna get you [fill in the racial group here]" how is that different from a website that says the same, or for that matter different from someone who posts a sign in their yard with Jefferson's quote that we need to water the tree of liberty with some blood every now and then. I think with threats we need a clear and present danger type of test or else we start punishing sentiments. In 1st Amendment jurisprudence they used to disqualify speech that was "threatening" government overthrow or revolution. The court rightly then decided that there must be some imminence to the threat.
joe | September 24, 2007, 11:00am | #
"the media fanned the flames of racial tension""raided the fair Barn Party"
Perhaps not the best source for one looking to avoid the projection of a pre-existing sociopolitical framework onto the facts?
joe | September 24, 2007, 11:03am | #
MNG,I could see how a non-imminent threat could qualify more as disorderly conduct than a specific threat to a person or group of people.
Fluffy | September 24, 2007, 11:21am | #
"You don't think a finger drawn across the throat, followed by a finger held in front of pursed lipe, can convey a perfectly clear threat?"OK, I have to give you that one.
Although I would say that the gesture as described above would count as tampering if it was, say, directed at a witness to a crime. Whether it would rise to the level of menacing if you did it to someone talking in a movie theatre is a different question.
de stijl | September 24, 2007, 11:28am | #
Perhaps not the best source...It was the most comprehensive and complete timeline that I could find. And I noted that it was the hometown paper. Yes, there is some editorializing, but it is actually pretty slight. And it cuts both ways; I love that way they keep mentioning that the authorities did not find a racial basis for the initial hangman's noose as if that was at all believable.