When a Blogger Jumps the Shark
Familiarity does indeed sometimes breed contempt, but I’ve had a case of the ass lately over Captain Ed Morrissey, whose usually thoughtful and reliably conservative musings at Captain’s Quarters command my respect, if not necessarily agreement.
In the Captain’s carefully proscribed orbit, Democrats are always ducking responsibility and the corner is just about to be turned in Iraq. Monotonously inaccurate, but then my glasses have clear lenses.
But the Captain crossed the line today in a post on the just-passed hate-crimes bill, which President Bush says he will veto because, in so many words, it’s okay to beat up on gays.
So where does the Captain stand on this most serious issue? Well, he’s running for cover. His hiding place: The beyond stoopid assertion that if gays are protected, then
. . . while we’re at it, let’s add in gender identity, because transsexuals get hated, too. In fact, let’s put gender on the list, too, because some men hate women, some women hate men, and some hate their own kind. Do people actually hate others based on disability? Well, just to be safe, we’ll put that on the list too.
But wait — we haven’t fully explored hate yet. Why not class hatred? Poor people hate rich people; why can’t we make that a federal crime, too, as well as in reverse? How about the obese? Some people really have irrational hostility to the obese and act upon it. Why won’t Congress ppotect the overweight? Short people? The elderly? Republicans? Democrats? Postal carriers?
The Captain’s argument that gays are covered under existing laws misses the point that they are routinely discriminated against in the application of existing laws. Perhaps this was an attempt at having a good laugh, but I think not. Beating up people because of their sexual orientation is a singularly unfunny matter.
53 Responses to “When a Blogger Jumps the Shark”
doma,
I don’t know if cosmo agrees with me on this but I don’t oppose a remedy for improper local law enforcement being an appeal to the feds. But what I’m saying is that the process should then be that the case gets federal jurisdiction and if there is evidence that the local cops/ DA/ witnesses/ whoever were not properly investigating the case then there would be charges levelled against them as well.
My point is that when the normal crime laws aren’t enforced properly due to bigotry in some locales, the remedy would then be that the victims (or families of victims) could seek justice via the federal system AND the local corrupt law enforcement community would be penalized- but the perpetrator of the crime wouldn’t be found guilty of an additional crime because he’s already being tried for the violent crime itself.
As to the comment about this new proposed legislation being no different than the laws on the books except being applied to gays; if that’s true then I was unaware of it. I can see the argument that it shouldn’t be opposed for that reason so I guess my position is that I don’t agree with the existing law either if it’s being accurately portrayed.
Doma: Please refrain from filling my mout w yr words. Not force of persuasion, but force of law. We need to hire and seek out Eliot Nesses not Al Gonzaleses.
[...] was working and the erectile dysfunction of congressional Democrats was not so obvious, I took a shot at Captain Ed Morrissey for what I called his “beyond stoopid†assertion that if hate crime [...]