The IRS Gets Tough on Terror
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001148
The Internal Revenue Service issues a directive (link in PDF format)
extending deadlines for taxpayers affected by the atrocity. "Taxpayers
who believe they are entitled to relief under this directive should
mark 'September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack' in red ink on the top of
their return and other documents submitted to the IRS."
Not everyone is eligible, however. The IRS stipulates: "The
perpetrators of the attack, and anyone aiding the attack, will not
qualify for relief under this notice."
Joseph Major
:
: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001148
That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
Number is?
(This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified financier,
presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US taxes.)
Joseph T Major
--
Mark Atwood
>
> That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
> Number is?
> (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
> essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified financier,
> presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US taxes.)
Well, technically, IIRC, what he would have would be a TIN.
I doubt he personally would have one, but probably "Usama bin Laden
Holdings, US, Ltd" has one.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Captain Button
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001148
But I assume they are still required to report any illegal income
asscoiated with their acts..
--
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech," - David Brin
Captain Button - but...@io.com
Keith F. Lynch
> Not everyone is eligible, however. The IRS stipulates: "The
> perpetrators of the attack, and anyone aiding the attack, will not
> qualify for relief under this notice."
Captain Button <but...@bermuda.io.com> wrote:
> But I assume they are still required to report any illegal income
> asscoiated with their acts..
Al Capone was guilty of bootlegging, smuggling, racketeering, murder,
and tax evasion.
Three guesses as to which one he was convicted and sent to prison for.
Of course terror bombing isn't quite as profitable as bootlegging.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Rob Hansen
wrote:
> That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
>Number is?
> (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
>essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified financier,
>presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US taxes.)
I sincerely hope that any and all assets found to belong to him are
immediately frozen as they're discovered. In fact, I hope that going
after his finances is one of the ways in which the Feds are fighting
him.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
David T. Bilek
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16 Sep 2001 08:58:51 -0400, Joseph Major <jtm...@shell1.iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
>>Number is?
>> (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
>>essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified financier,
>>presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US taxes.)
>
>I sincerely hope that any and all assets found to belong to him are
>immediately frozen as they're discovered. In fact, I hope that going
>after his finances is one of the ways in which the Feds are fighting
>him.
>
Reports are that he may be financing his attack on the German stock
market. A close associate is said to have massively shorted the stock
of the German re-insurance company that insured the WTC about 4 days
before the attack.
-David
Keith F. Lynch
> A close associate is said to have massively shorted the stock of the
> German re-insurance company that insured the WTC about 4 days before
> the attack.
I stand corrected about terror bombing being unprofitable.
Or perhaps not. The WTC was insured against terrorism. But NOT
against acts of war. And Bush is calling Tuesday's attack the latter.
The insurance company may not be out one cent.
David G. Bell
<big9qtgckrk05h89u...@4ax.com>
r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk "Rob Hansen" wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2001 08:58:51 -0400, Joseph Major <jtm...@shell1.iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
> > That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
> >Number is?
> > (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
> >essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified financier,
> >presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US taxes.)
>
> I sincerely hope that any and all assets found to belong to him are
> immediately frozen as they're discovered. In fact, I hope that going
> after his finances is one of the ways in which the Feds are fighting
> him.
There are times when I despair of bureaucratic niche building, but
somebody, somewhere, in the IRS, will see this as an opportunity. This
time I'll applaud.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
Joel Rosenberg
> David T. Bilek <dbi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > A close associate is said to have massively shorted the stock of the
> > German re-insurance company that insured the WTC about 4 days before
> > the attack.
>
> I stand corrected about terror bombing being unprofitable.
>
> Or perhaps not. The WTC was insured against terrorism. But NOT
> against acts of war. And Bush is calling Tuesday's attack the latter.
>
> The insurance company may not be out one cent.
Seems unlikely, for any number of reasons.
Marilee J. Layman
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16 Sep 2001 08:58:51 -0400, Joseph Major <jtm...@shell1.iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
>>Number is?
>> (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
>>essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified financier,
>>presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US taxes.)
>
>I sincerely hope that any and all assets found to belong to him are
>immediately frozen as they're discovered. In fact, I hope that going
>after his finances is one of the ways in which the Feds are fighting
>him.
We already have lots of his money frozen.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Alison Hopkins
"David G. Bell" wrote in message
<20010916.18...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
>On Sunday, in article
> <big9qtgckrk05h89u...@4ax.com>
> r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk "Rob Hansen" wrote:
>
>> On 16 Sep 2001 08:58:51 -0400, Joseph Major <jtm...@shell1.iglou.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
>> >Number is?
>> > (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
>> >essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified
financier,
>> >presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US
taxes.)
>>
>> I sincerely hope that any and all assets found to belong to him are
>> immediately frozen as they're discovered. In fact, I hope that going
>> after his finances is one of the ways in which the Feds are fighting
>> him.
>
>There are times when I despair of bureaucratic niche building, but
>somebody, somewhere, in the IRS, will see this as an opportunity. This
>time I'll applaud.
>
>
It's how they got Capone, yes?
Ali
Ross TenEyck
>Of course terror bombing isn't quite as profitable as bootlegging.
Mmm... I wouldn't be so sure. Someone with advance knowledge of
what was going to happen could probably have done quite well by
selling short.
(As I write this, the U.S. markets have yet to re-open -- but
it's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll drop sharply.)
I'm sure that this has also occurred to the FBI and the SEC,
who will probably be taking a careful look at last Monday's
trading.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
> Mmm... I wouldn't be so sure. Someone with advance knowledge of
> what was going to happen could probably have done quite well by
> selling short.
Don't count on it. All of the trades are recorded in computer databases,
and anyone who had opened a massive short position of any kind
immediately prior to such an incident would be a prime suspect.
Mark Atwood
>
> Don't count on it. All of the trades are recorded in computer databases,
> and anyone who had opened a massive short position of any kind
> immediately prior to such an incident would be a prime suspect.
I just read that some *very* suspecious shorts were applied in the DE
stock market against at least one of the reinsurers.
Dan Swartzendruber
> Dan Swartzendruber <dsw...@druber.com> writes:
> >
> > Don't count on it. All of the trades are recorded in computer databases,
> > and anyone who had opened a massive short position of any kind
> > immediately prior to such an incident would be a prime suspect.
>
> I just read that some *very* suspecious shorts were applied in the DE
> stock market against at least one of the reinsurers.
If so, very very stupid, as they won't be allowed to profit from this if
it turns out to be OBL or some other group, and they may very well expose
people we didn't already suspect.
Mark Atwood
> In article <m3d74qp...@flash.localdomain>, m...@pobox.com says...
> >
> > stock market against at least one of the reinsurers.
>
> If so, very very stupid, as they won't be allowed to profit from this if
> it turns out to be OBL or some other group, and they may very well expose
> people we didn't already suspect.
I would suspect that, if what I read turns out to be true and leads
back to the terrorists, I would be willing to bet that what it was
that it was someone who was involved but not in the "inner circle",
who let his greed get ahead of his prudence.
Alicat
"Dan Swartzendruber" <dsw...@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.160f0fdf4...@news.supernews.net...
> In article <m3d74qp...@flash.localdomain>, m...@pobox.com says...
> > Dan Swartzendruber <dsw...@druber.com> writes:
*snip*
> > I just read that some *very* suspecious shorts were applied in the DE
> > stock market against at least one of the reinsurers.
>
> If so, very very stupid, as they won't be allowed to profit from this if
> it turns out to be OBL or some other group, and they may very well expose
> people we didn't already suspect.
>
I certainly hope so...I have always watched the "dumb crook" shows because I
do so get great pleasure out of watching people being busted due to their
own stupidity/greediness.
Mary Kay Kare
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> >Of course terror bombing isn't quite as profitable as bootlegging.
>
> Mmm... I wouldn't be so sure. Someone with advance knowledge of
> what was going to happen could probably have done quite well by
> selling short.
>
> (As I write this, the U.S. markets have yet to re-open -- but
> it's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll drop sharply.)
>
Most of the talking heads today seemed to think it would drop sharply and
then pick up later. I've suggested to Jordin he get up early and call our
broker--who's in Philadelphia--long story--and instruct him to do some
buying moderately early tomorrow.
MKK
--
"I love my decadent, cosmopolitan, self-indulgent, racially-mixed, godless,
intellectually dilletante, drug-abusing, promiscuous, queer-loving country.
And its flag is the Stars and Stripes."
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Matthew B. Tepper
news:2f9aqt0ukr2mmgrti...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 19:08:42 +0100, Rob Hansen
><r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 16 Sep 2001 08:58:51 -0400, Joseph Major <jtm...@shell1.iglou.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
>>>Number is?
>>> (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
>>>essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified
>>>financier, presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to
>>>pay US taxes.)
>>
>>I sincerely hope that any and all assets found to belong to him are
>>immediately frozen as they're discovered. In fact, I hope that going
>>after his finances is one of the ways in which the Feds are fighting
>>him.
>
> We already have lots of his money frozen.
Yes, but how much of it is in Switzerland? And what will (or won't) they
do about it?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Phony British opera "star" Charlotte Church: The new white meat?
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Joseph Major <jtm...@shell1.iglou.com> writes:
> >
> > That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
> > Number is?
> > (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
> > essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified financier,
> > presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US taxes.)
>
> Well, technically, IIRC, what he would have would be a TIN.
Glad someone remembered to post this. I was gonna when I had a chance,
but I've been travelling, and it slipped my mind.
Thanks.
- Darkhawk, former tax paralegal
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Just a world that we all must share, it's not enough just to stand and
stare: Is it only a dream that there'll be no more turning away?
--Pink Floyd, "On the Turning Away"
mike weber
<navarroa@bo**Removethis**one.net> typed
>I certainly hope so...I have always watched the "dumb crook" shows because I
>do so get great pleasure out of watching people being busted due to their
>own stupidity/greediness.
>
Wasn't it the last bunch of WTC bombers -- 1993 -- that they got
because one of them tried to get back the security deposit on a van
they had rented?
--
"If you take in a starving dog from the street and feed him
and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the
principal difference between a dog and a man." Mark Twain
<mike weber> kras...@mindspring.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Joel Rosenberg
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 01:24:55 GMT, "Alicat"
> <navarroa@bo**Removethis**one.net> typed
>
>
> >I certainly hope so...I have always watched the "dumb crook" shows because I
> >do so get great pleasure out of watching people being busted due to their
> >own stupidity/greediness.
> >
> Wasn't it the last bunch of WTC bombers -- 1993 -- that they got
> because one of them tried to get back the security deposit on a van
> they had rented?
> --
Yup. And they had made a huge mistake, a few years earlier, as well,
which would have gotten them caught before the previous WTC attack if
the FBI hadn't been slaveringly eager to dismiss the evidence that the
murder of Meir Kahane was not the act of a lone gunman.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
As I've said elsewhere, I heard that the insurance comapnies are going
to pay everything.
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/index.htm
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
David G. Bell
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu "Ross TenEyck" wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> >Of course terror bombing isn't quite as profitable as bootlegging.
>
> Mmm... I wouldn't be so sure. Someone with advance knowledge of
> what was going to happen could probably have done quite well by
> selling short.
>
> (As I write this, the U.S. markets have yet to re-open -- but
> it's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll drop sharply.)
>
> I'm sure that this has also occurred to the FBI and the SEC,
> who will probably be taking a careful look at last Monday's
> trading.
Yes, but markets were dropping anyway.
mike weber
>I would suspect that, if what I read turns out to be true and leads
>back to the terrorists, I would be willing to bet that what it was
>that it was someone who was involved but not in the "inner circle",
>who let his greed get ahead of his prudence.
>
There are always one or two of those.
Orrin Hatch, for instance.
Omega
<db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Sunday, in article
> <big9qtgckrk05h89u...@4ax.com>
> r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk "Rob Hansen" wrote:
>
>> On 16 Sep 2001 08:58:51 -0400, Joseph Major <jtm...@shell1.iglou.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > That's nice. I wonder what 'Usama bin Laden's Social Security
>> >Number is?
>> > (This is only partly silly -- anyone who pays US Income Tax
>> >essentially has to get a SSN. Since bin Laden is a diversified financier,
>> >presumably he has holdings in the US and so is required to pay US taxes.)
>>
>> I sincerely hope that any and all assets found to belong to him are
>> immediately frozen as they're discovered. In fact, I hope that going
>> after his finances is one of the ways in which the Feds are fighting
>> him.
>
>There are times when I despair of bureaucratic niche building, but
>somebody, somewhere, in the IRS, will see this as an opportunity. This
>time I'll applaud.
>
may not be enough to cover rebuilding costs but there sure as hell will
be enough to keep the rescue workers in sandwiches and coffee.
--
Omega
WereGopher From The Black Lagoon
(coming soon... honest... only eight years late)
Omega
Swartzendruber <dsw...@druber.com> writes
WTC short on the German stock market a week ago. I can't remember where
I read it though...
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <MPG.160f032e9...@news.supernews.net>, Dan
> Swartzendruber <dsw...@druber.com> writes
> >In article <9o3ct4$g...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu
> >says...
> >> Mmm... I wouldn't be so sure. Someone with advance knowledge of
> >> what was going to happen could probably have done quite well by
> >> selling short.
> >
> >Don't count on it. All of the trades are recorded in computer databases,
> >and anyone who had opened a massive short position of any kind
> >immediately prior to such an incident would be a prime suspect.
> >
> I heard that someone sold a lot of stock in one of the insurers of the
> WTC short on the German stock market a week ago. I can't remember where
> I read it though...
I'm sure more than a few people have. The problem is differentiating
between those who were simply betting on a US recession, and others, with
rather different motives.
As I'm typing, Robert Mueller is talking about the small number (he
didn't characterize it that way, but he did give some numbers) of hate
crimes against Arab Americans (although he got some of his facts
wrong), and making it clear that those hate crimes will be treated as
such.
Mike Dworetsky
Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:9o3ct4$g...@gap.cco.caltech.edu...
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> >Of course terror bombing isn't quite as profitable as bootlegging.
>
> Mmm... I wouldn't be so sure. Someone with advance knowledge of
> what was going to happen could probably have done quite well by
> selling short.
>
> (As I write this, the U.S. markets have yet to re-open -- but
> it's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll drop sharply.)
>
> I'm sure that this has also occurred to the FBI and the SEC,
> who will probably be taking a careful look at last Monday's
> trading.
Indeed it has, and in German and London markets there were possible
suspicious movements in insurance and airlines in the preceding three market
days, for example, that are being looked at carefully right now, according
to news reports. These look very much like short selling on a big scale.
--
Mike Dworetsky
Nuclear Waste
"Joel Rosenberg" >
Snip
> As I'm typing, Robert Mueller is talking about the small number (he
> didn't characterize it that way, but he did give some numbers) of hate
> crimes against Arab Americans (although he got some of his facts
> wrong), and making it clear that those hate crimes will be treated as
> such.
What a load of crap. Thought crimes. Can any of this be based upon proving
beyond a reasonable doubt? No. You can prove a crime, but you can not
prove a thought.
Jim
Joel Rosenberg
We can go through the previous discussion, but I'll just summarize it
by saying that it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate thing to
consider -- either at the sentencing or at the charging phase -- the
motivation behind somebody who did what would and should otherwise be
considered an illegal act, and that any definition of "thought crime"
that ignores the fact that *all* the hate crimes laws only punish
*actions* is fundamentally cheese-headed.
Nuclear Waste
"Joel Rosenberg"
> We can go through the previous discussion, but I'll just summarize it
> by saying that it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate thing to
> consider -- either at the sentencing or at the charging phase -- the
> motivation behind somebody who did what would and should otherwise be
> considered an illegal act, and that any definition of "thought crime"
> that ignores the fact that *all* the hate crimes laws only punish
> *actions* is fundamentally cheese-headed.
Sorry Joel, I will have to disagree. The actions are against the law, and
carry charges and sentences. Tacking "hate crime" onto the action adds to
the charges, and to the sentence if convicted. It is a punishment for
alleged thoughts. (Think about that one, and don't smile.)
Is a nose more broken if the perpetrator is commiting a hate crime? Are
victims more dead?
Jim
Will Linden
Say I am jumped by four hoods. One shouts "You $!($(!(($! white @#$!!".
The second shouts "You $@#!$@!(#$!@ rich $!$!!!!". The third shouts "You
$!@#@$!#!@ faggot!" The fourth shouts "You @#$!$@#! New York #$!$!@!"
Do the first and third get charged with hatecrime, oops, "hate crime"?
Or only the first, because the third is false? Or all four? Or none of
them, because I am not in any of the protected groups and by definition
can not be a victim of hatecrime? And if the answer to all of these is
"no", how are the authorities supposed to decide what they were THINKING?
--
Will Linden wli...@panix.com
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Say I am jumped by four hoods. One shouts "You $!($(!(($! white @#$!!".
> The second shouts "You $@#!$@!(#$!@ rich $!$!!!!". The third shouts "You
> $!@#@$!#!@ faggot!" The fourth shouts "You @#$!$@#! New York #$!$!@!"
>
> Do the first and third get charged with hatecrime, oops, "hate crime"?
> Or only the first, because the third is false? Or all four? Or none of
> them, because I am not in any of the protected groups and by definition
> can not be a victim of hatecrime? And if the answer to all of these is
> "no", how are the authorities supposed to decide what they were THINKING?
>
> --
> Will Linden wli...@panix.com
All four are charged with hate crimes. Hate does not have to be
accurate to be hate. And never is. Which obviates the question.
--
>^,,^<
Some religion wants to brag that it can steal from me
to drop my civilisation into a hole in the ground?
Well, if that's to be The Game, I can play, too.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Rivka
"Nuclear Waste" <baby...@2z.net> wrote in message
news:9o9e4r$b7b8s$1...@ID-97148.news.dfncis.de...
> "Joel Rosenberg"
> > We can go through the previous discussion, but I'll just
> > summarize it by saying that it seems to me to be a perfectly
> > legitimate thing to consider -- either at the sentencing or at the
> > charging phase -- the motivation behind somebody who did what
> > would and should otherwise be considered an illegal act, and
> > that any definition of "thought crime" that ignores the fact that
> > *all* the hate crimes laws only punish *actions* is fundamentally
> > cheese-headed.
> Sorry Joel, I will have to disagree. The actions are against the
law,
> and carry charges and sentences. Tacking "hate crime" onto the
> action adds to the charges, and to the sentence if convicted. It is
a
> punishment for alleged thoughts.
There are plenty of other situations, other than the category of hate
crimes, in which the mental state, thoughts, or motivations of the
perpetrator are taken into account. The penalty for premeditated
murder is greater than the penalty for manslaughter - the difference
lies in thoughts and motivations. Those who commit criminal acts
because their thought systems are delusional are declared not guilty
by reason of insanity - purely a judgment about mental states. And
self-defense is considered a valid defense - again, allowing different
responses to an act on the basis of motivation.
Do you disapprove of all of these? If not, what's different about hate
crimes?
Rivka
--
"I'm a patriot. I love my decadent, cosmopolitan, self-indulgent,
racially-mixed, godless, intellectually dilletante, drug-abusing,
promiscuous, queer-loving country. And its flag is the Stars and
Stripes." - Patrick Nielsen Hayden, on rec.arts.sf.fandom
Joel Rosenberg
I'll be interested in seeing the answer. Me, I think they nicely
encapsulate the difference I see between, say, Alice burning a pile of
trash on Bob's lawn -- a bad thing, assuming she does it without
permission -- and her burning a cross on Bob's lawn.
McNutt
[snip]
>
> There are plenty of other situations, other than the category of hate
> crimes, in which the mental state, thoughts, or motivations of the
> perpetrator are taken into account. The penalty for premeditated
> murder is greater than the penalty for manslaughter - the difference
> lies in thoughts and motivations. Those who commit criminal acts
> because their thought systems are delusional are declared not guilty
> by reason of insanity - purely a judgment about mental states. And
> self-defense is considered a valid defense - again, allowing different
> responses to an act on the basis of motivation.
>
> Do you disapprove of all of these? If not, what's different about hate
> crimes?
Jim already answered this by saying that premeditation can be ascertained
through action. Sometimes it is discovered through someone saying "I'm
gonna kill that so and so" but more often it is implied by the fact that
the crime must have been planned ahead of time--a matter of forensic
logistics.
Really what makes me sick about a debate on Hate Crimes, is the fact that
I've been in a roomful of Ellsworth Toohey's while they discussed Hate
Crimes Legislation; these were all advisors to legislators who, in fact,
write Hate Crimes Legislation. The discussion here, and elsewhere are on
a much higher moral plane.
This general law and its variations was established baldly as a thrown
bone to a certain group of block voters. Nothing more, nothing less.
While it is a bone of contention here, it is a bone that not only
satisfies this group, it keeps alive the fear and hatred it is intended
to solve. It reminds this block of the fear they must never forget to
feel, it is a reminder to another group which does not often vote, but
when it does votes the other way, that they are responsible for things
they are not responsible for, thus increasing resentment, spelled
h-a-t-e.
The real purpose of it should be plain to many, if Lincoln's Theorem was
correct--or at least to some. While Ellsworth allows for that, he knows
it is unimportant. Those to whom the bread is thrown will not see beyond
the bread-----Commodus's first law of popular rule.
Art
--
Submission
A nation is like a hierarchy, a marketplace, and a maiden.
A maiden wins her husband by submitting to his advances;
Submission is a means of union.
So when a large country submits to a small country
It will adopt the small country;
When a small country submits to a large country
It will be adopted by the large country;
The one submits and adopts;
The other submits and is adopted.
It is in the interest of a large country to unite and gain service,
And in the interest of a small country to unite and gain patronage;
If both would serve their interests,
Both must submit.
Nuclear Waste
"Rivka" <riv...@home.com> wrote in message
news:nRaq7.496$kA.3...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
> "Nuclear Waste" <baby...@2z.net> wrote in message
> news:9o9e4r$b7b8s$1...@ID-97148.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > "Joel Rosenberg"
> > > We can go through the previous discussion, but I'll just
> > > summarize it by saying that it seems to me to be a perfectly
> > > legitimate thing to consider -- either at the sentencing or at the
> > > charging phase -- the motivation behind somebody who did what
> > > would and should otherwise be considered an illegal act, and
> > > that any definition of "thought crime" that ignores the fact that
> > > *all* the hate crimes laws only punish *actions* is fundamentally
> > > cheese-headed.
>
> > Sorry Joel, I will have to disagree. The actions are against the
> law,
> > and carry charges and sentences. Tacking "hate crime" onto the
> > action adds to the charges, and to the sentence if convicted. It is
> a
> > punishment for alleged thoughts.
>
> There are plenty of other situations, other than the category of hate
> crimes, in which the mental state, thoughts, or motivations of the
> perpetrator are taken into account. The penalty for premeditated
> murder is greater than the penalty for manslaughter - the difference
> lies in thoughts and motivations.
You are correct about the penalty, but it is the act of planning the murder
in advance that results in being convicted of premeditated murder, not the
thoughts involved. Conviction for premeditated murder entails evidence of
preparing for the final act, not conjecture about possible thought.
Those who commit criminal acts
> because their thought systems are delusional are declared not guilty
> by reason of insanity - purely a judgment about mental states.
This takes psychiatric testimony by a trained professional. No such
strictures exist to protect the rights of the common citizen from the charge
of "hate".
And
> self-defense is considered a valid defense - again, allowing different
> responses to an act on the basis of motivation.
Self defense is based upon the premise that you are innocent until proven
guilty. You testify as to the thoughts you were experiencing. If charged
with a hate crime, others offer conjecture as to what your mental state was.
> Do you disapprove of all of these? If not, what's different about hate
> crimes?
See above.
Jim
Nuclear Waste
"Joel Rosenberg"
> I'll be interested in seeing the answer. Me, I think they nicely
> encapsulate the difference I see between, say, Alice burning a pile of
> trash on Bob's lawn -- a bad thing, assuming she does it without
> permission -- and her burning a cross on Bob's lawn.
One is a Civil Rights violation, and should be prosecuted as such. The
other is a property crime.
Jim
(Unless we are in the South, then burning trash on Bob's lawn could mean
torching that snake he was caught with down at the local watering hole as
she exits the trailer.)
Terry Austin
>Will Linden wrote:
>>
>> Say I am jumped by four hoods. One shouts "You $!($(!(($! white @#$!!".
>> The second shouts "You $@#!$@!(#$!@ rich $!$!!!!". The third shouts "You
>> $!@#@$!#!@ faggot!" The fourth shouts "You @#$!$@#! New York #$!$!@!"
>>
>> Do the first and third get charged with hatecrime, oops, "hate crime"?
>> Or only the first, because the third is false? Or all four? Or none of
>> them, because I am not in any of the protected groups and by definition
>> can not be a victim of hatecrime? And if the answer to all of these is
>> "no", how are the authorities supposed to decide what they were THINKING?
>>
>> --
>> Will Linden wli...@panix.com
>
> All four are charged with hate crimes. Hate does not have to be
>accurate to be hate. And never is. Which obviates the question.
I hadn't heard that New Yorkers or rich people were legally protected
minorities.
I think you should go find out what hate crime laws say before spouting off
(incorrectly) about them.
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
If you don't use both your left brain and right brain,
you've basically just got half a brain.
-John Rudd
Mark Atwood
>
> Really what makes me sick about a debate on Hate Crimes, is the fact that
> I've been in a roomful of Ellsworth Toohey's while they discussed Hate
> Crimes Legislation; these were all advisors to legislators who, in fact,
> write Hate Crimes Legislation. The discussion here, and elsewhere are on
> a much higher moral plane.
I've noticed that for a great many things.
Ferex, just to pick something totally at random, the discussions about
the WTC thing, the mechnical details, the discussion of airline
security, the discussions about war, and with who, and how; and the
possible motivations of the terrorists...
Even as noisy and bitter and occationally ugly as it all has been on
rasf[w|f], it *still* has been on a MUCH higher plane in insight,
reason, honesty, and general intellegence, than 99.44% of whats on TV,
and 98.6% of what's in the newspapers. (The NYT, for one, looks like
it's unwrapped the articles it ran just before the Spanish-American
War, modernized the grammer, and changed a few names.)
This may be an "internet war" in more ways that one, not only is the
news flowing better online, the good "national discussions" seem to be
happening better here as well.
Unfortunatly, I despare a bit at the weakness of the "connect" between
the national discussion happening in these venues, and the policy
actions of US Executive.
John David Galt
> Sorry Joel, I will have to disagree. The actions are against the law, and
> carry charges and sentences. Tacking "hate crime" onto the action adds to
> the charges, and to the sentence if convicted. It is a punishment for
> alleged thoughts. (Think about that one, and don't smile.)
> Is a nose more broken if the perpetrator is commiting a hate crime? Are
> victims more dead?
The hate-criminal's delusions provide him/her with an increased subjective
reward for committing the crime. Thus a higher level of expected punishment
is needed to provide the same level of deterrence as for ordinary criminals.
Dennis M. Hammes
Try again (please.). Both are property crimes; both are "statements."
Consider: to what extent does prosecuting him for the statement
violate the civil rights of the speaker?
Dennis M. Hammes
...
> This general law [hate crimes] and its variations was established baldly as a thrown
> bone to a certain group of block voters. Nothing more, nothing less.
> While it is a bone of contention here, it is a bone that not only
> satisfies this group, it keeps alive the fear and hatred it is intended
> to solve. It reminds this block of the fear they must never forget to
> feel,
> Art
> --
"That is the question."
So is "To be or to be told what to be."
Rivka
> > of hate crimes, in which the mental state, thoughts, or
> > motivations of the perpetrator are taken into account. The
> > penalty for premeditated murder is greater than the penalty
> > for manslaughter - the difference lies in thoughts and
> > motivations.
>
> You are correct about the penalty, but it is the act of planning the
> murder in advance that results in being convicted of premeditated
> murder, not the thoughts involved. Conviction for premeditated
> murder entails evidence of preparing for the final act, not
conjecture
> about possible thought.
Yes, there are actions that serve as evidence of premeditaton. But
you've glossed over the question of *why* we think that premeditated
murder is worse than spur-of-the-moment manslaughter. They both have
the same effect, yes? Someone is dead. But we-as-a-society consider
premeditated murder to be worse, and we explain our rationale in terms
like "in cold blood" versus "in the heat of anger," or "with malice
aforethought." Those are descriptions of mental states of the
perpetrator. They may be proven by presenting evidence of actions:
setting up an alibi in advance and so forth. But those actions have
significance because of what they show about thoughts and mental
states.
> > Those who commit criminal acts because their thought systems
> > are delusional are declared not guilty by reason of insanity -
purely
> > a judgment about mental states.
>
> This takes psychiatric testimony by a trained professional. No
> such strictures exist to protect the rights of the common citizen
> from the charge of "hate".
Your original assertion was that it was wrong to allow conjecture
about a person's thoughts to affect their punishment for a crime. Did
you mean that only nonprofessional conjectures about a person's
thoughts were inappropriate to consider? If trained professionals
examined people accused of hate crimes, would that satisfy you?
> > And self-defense is considered a valid defense - again, allowing
> > different responses to an act on the basis of motivation.
>
> Self defense is based upon the premise that you are innocent until
> proven guilty. You testify as to the thoughts you were
experiencing.
> If charged with a hate crime, others offer conjecture as to what
> your mental state was.
Again, you've shifted ground with your argument. Are you worried about
the very existence of "thought crimes," or punishments influenced by
the mental state of the perpetrator, as you originally stated? Or are
you concerned about how mental states are to be established and proven
in court? All of your objections to my counter-examples have rested on
questions of evidence and proof. I thought you were philosophically
opposed to the *idea* of hate crimes legislation. Would you approve of
them if there were some way of definitively establishing the
perpetrator's mental states, or would they still seem wrong to you
because (as you initially said) "it is a punishment for thoughts"?
Rivka
Rivka
>
> (Unless we are in the South, then burning trash on Bob's lawn
> could mean torching that snake he was caught with down at the
> local watering hole as she exits the trailer.)
Oops, sorry. I mistook this for a rational discussion between people
of good faith. I'll bow out now.
Michael J. Lowrey
> Self defense is based upon the premise that you are innocent until proven
> guilty. You testify as to the thoughts you were experiencing. If charged
> with a hate crime, others offer conjecture as to what your mental state was.
In one local case here in SE Wisconsin, a nutcase ran down
some teens of a different race, and had notes in his van for
the final version of his declaration of race war. Not much
need for conjecture there, or in many similar cases.
--
Orange Mike
William B. Dennis 2nd
"Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:3BA9F6BC...@uwm.edu...
Fortunately, the law allows the material from the van to be entered into
evidence at trial. No "hate crime" laws are needed.
Those of us opposed to so-called "hate crime" legislation do so NOT because
we think it should be legal for whites to kills blacks, or blacks kill
whites, or whites and blacks kill Arabs. We oppose them because:
1. They are not needed. Laws on the books right now can be used to prosecute
these perpetrators, whether the hate crime is murder, assault, vandalism,
etc.
2. They require the courts to serve an mind readers. Sure, in some cases
there is evidence of someone's state of mind, but in other cases there is no
evidence, just speculation. That won't stop prosecutors from currying favor
with special interest groups.
3. When a white guy kills a black guy he hates, it is supposed to be a "hate
crime." Why isn't is a hate crime when a white guy kills another white guy,
whom he also hates?
4. It cheapens the value of human life. It makes some lives more valuable
than others, if value is to be judged by the relative punishment given the
murderer?
5. "Hate crime" legislation does NOT serve as a deterrent. "Gee, I was going
to go out and blow up a church, but I guess I better not because thanks to
hate crime legislation, I might have to face a few more years in prison than
I would have otherwise." Oh, please.
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
http://billscontent.tripod.com ,
http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com and
http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.com
McNutt
[snip]
>
> In one local case here in SE Wisconsin, a nutcase ran down
> some teens of a different race, and had notes in his van for
> the final version of his declaration of race war. Not much
> need for conjecture there, or in many similar cases.
Which proves that it was just another stupid monkey running over another monkey.
There may well be a special place in hell reserved, but we can't apply a special
punishment, at least not with the present system.
The intent of the law may be different, but the results are the same. Ergo null
result. The fact that so called hate crimes are on the decline IS THE REASON that
such laws were passed, not as you would logically suspect: that they were surely
on the increase. Hate crimes legislation is an answer to a problem that is
receding. It is a meal ticket that is fading. Hate Crimes legislation keeps
Willie Horton in the news, makes the case an election issue, keeps the fear and
loathing alive. ****Keeps people voting*****
And besides, as lame as most reasons are for one monkey killing another, this one
is certainly more despicable than most. So they know they will get past the
obvious incongruities in the public mind.
Mr. Kazinski (or whatever) declared war on the United States of America and to
the nation for which it stands. His were hate crimes that go beyond the events of
September 11th, the group of people HE was attacking perhaps includes all his
species. Was Al Sharpton demanding that he be tried Nuremberg style? Why not?
Nancy Lebovitz
William B. Dennis 2nd <dwill...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Those of us opposed to so-called "hate crime" legislation do so NOT because
>we think it should be legal for whites to kills blacks, or blacks kill
>whites, or whites and blacks kill Arabs. We oppose them because:
>
of them. They're addressing possibly serious threats to third parties.
The US has a history of violence against black people, and a small
but dangerous minority of white people who are in sympathy with that
history. A hate crime (that is, an actual crime with clear information
that it's part of that history) is arguably more of an encouragement
to further crime than personal vandalism, assault, or murder is.
>1. They are not needed. Laws on the books right now can be used to prosecute
>these perpetrators, whether the hate crime is murder, assault, vandalism,
>etc.
>2. They require the courts to serve an mind readers. Sure, in some cases
>there is evidence of someone's state of mind, but in other cases there is no
>evidence, just speculation. That won't stop prosecutors from currying favor
>with special interest groups.
>3. When a white guy kills a black guy he hates, it is supposed to be a "hate
>crime." Why isn't is a hate crime when a white guy kills another white guy,
>whom he also hates?
>4. It cheapens the value of human life. It makes some lives more valuable
>than others, if value is to be judged by the relative punishment given the
>murderer?
>5. "Hate crime" legislation does NOT serve as a deterrent. "Gee, I was going
>to go out and blow up a church, but I guess I better not because thanks to
>hate crime legislation, I might have to face a few more years in prison than
>I would have otherwise." Oh, please.
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Bernard Peek
<jo...@winternet.com> writes
>I'll be interested in seeing the answer. Me, I think they nicely
>encapsulate the difference I see between, say, Alice burning a pile of
>trash on Bob's lawn -- a bad thing, assuming she does it without
>permission -- and her burning a cross on Bob's lawn.
The difference to me isn't in the intention, as both are equally
premeditated and intended to cause distress. The difference is in the
effect on the victim, and it is affecting the victim that is the crime
in both cases.
The penalty for burning a hole in someone's lawn should be a small fine.
The penalty for putting someone in fear of their life should be (and is,
under English law this is an assault against the person) much more. I
don't think it's relevant why the victim should be in fear of their
life, neither is it relevant why someone should put someone else in fear
of their life. So I'm against a special category of hate-crimes because
there are already other ways of escalating the charges from arson into
assault.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Avram Grumer
In article <fXmq7.85478$xb.45...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>,
"William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwill...@home.com> wrote:
> Those of us opposed to so-called "hate crime" legislation do so NOT
> because we think it should be legal for whites to kills blacks, or
> blacks kill whites, or whites and blacks kill Arabs. We oppose them
> because:
>
> 1. They are not needed. Laws on the books right now can be used to
> prosecute these perpetrators, whether the hate crime is murder,
> assault, vandalism, etc.
> 2. They require the courts to serve an mind readers. Sure, in some
> cases there is evidence of someone's state of mind, but in other
> cases there is no evidence, just speculation. That won't stop
> prosecutors from currying favor with special interest groups.
> 3. When a white guy kills a black guy he hates, it is supposed to be
> a "hate crime." Why isn't is a hate crime when a white guy kills
> another white guy, whom he also hates?
> 4. It cheapens the value of human life. It makes some lives more
> valuable than others, if value is to be judged by the relative
> punishment given the murderer?
> 5. "Hate crime" legislation does NOT serve as a deterrent. "Gee, I
> was going to go out and blow up a church, but I guess I better not
> because thanks to hate crime legislation, I might have to face a few
> more years in prison than I would have otherwise." Oh, please.
6. They take a bit of power out of the hands of judges (who are, in
theory at least, impartial) and puts it in the hands of prosecuting
attorneys (who aren' impartial even in theory).
7. They provide yet another weapon prosecuters can use to intimidate
innocent people into pleading guilty to lesser charges.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er va ivbyngvba bs gur Qvtvgny Zvyyraavhz
Pbclevtug Npg.
Nuclear Waste
"Dennis M. Hammes"
> Try again (please.). Both are property crimes; both are "statements."
> Consider: to what extent does prosecuting him for the statement
> violate the civil rights of the speaker?
I will have to think on this one for a while Dennis. I have always looked
at a cross burning as an attempt to limit another person's civil rights
through intimidation, or as a precursor to the ultimate civil rights
violation. I have never considered it as an adjunct to the perpetrators own
civil rights. I will attempt to do so, and come back to answer this, but I
need time to consider.
Jim
Nuclear Waste
"Rivka"
> Oops, sorry. I mistook this for a rational discussion between people
> of good faith. I'll bow out now.
How to put this so that you will understand? It is called humor. Try
reading Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein, or one of the later
Foundation books featuring R. Daneel by Isaac Asimov. Either should be a
good primer, and you can move on from there.
NW
Nuclear Waste
"Rivka" > > You are correct about the penalty, but it is the act of planning
the
> > murder in advance that results in being convicted of premeditated
> > murder, not the thoughts involved. Conviction for premeditated
> > murder entails evidence of preparing for the final act, not
> conjecture
> > about possible thought.
>
> Yes, there are actions that serve as evidence of premeditaton. But
> you've glossed over the question of *why* we think that premeditated
> murder is worse than spur-of-the-moment manslaughter.
Let me interject here. This is a generalization based on single value data,
namely that the law as written is observed to be this way. You should not
generalize based upon a single datum. I, for instance, would not think that
a young girl planning and executing the murder of her sexual abuser was
worse than the drunk at the bar who jumps behind the wheel to run over the
person who just beat him at darts. YMMV
They both have
> the same effect, yes? Someone is dead. But we-as-a-society consider
> premeditated murder to be worse, and we explain our rationale in terms
> like "in cold blood" versus "in the heat of anger," or "with malice
> aforethought." Those are descriptions of mental states of the
> perpetrator. They may be proven by presenting evidence of actions:
> setting up an alibi in advance and so forth. But those actions have
> significance because of what they show about thoughts and mental
> states.
The last two sentences are the most telling. Without proof of the actions
involved, you can not be convicted of premeditation. I again say, the acts
are what is important. A person who thinks to himself, "I am going to kill
this bastard!" but who does not take part in active planning of the crime,
is not guilty of premeditated murder. The fact that he had that thought on
previous occasions may actually be a mitigating factor. See Aggravated as a
prefix for charges.
>
> > > Those who commit criminal acts because their thought systems
> > > are delusional are declared not guilty by reason of insanity -
> purely
> > > a judgment about mental states.
> >
> > This takes psychiatric testimony by a trained professional. No
> > such strictures exist to protect the rights of the common citizen
> > from the charge of "hate".
>
> Your original assertion was that it was wrong to allow conjecture
> about a person's thoughts to affect their punishment for a crime. Did
> you mean that only nonprofessional conjectures about a person's
> thoughts were inappropriate to consider? If trained professionals
> examined people accused of hate crimes, would that satisfy you?
When you show me hate in the DSM-IV, name the axis and show the methods of
treating it. Or are you saying that "hate" is caused by one of the maladies
listed in the DSM-IV already? As to the first part of your statement, not
guilty by reason of insanity is a defense, not a tool of the prosecution.
Again, it entails the only person who can possibly speak to what his
thoughts were testifying to them. (In this case, the testimony is to a
health care professional.)
> > > And self-defense is considered a valid defense - again, allowing
> > > different responses to an act on the basis of motivation.
> >
> > Self defense is based upon the premise that you are innocent until
> > proven guilty. You testify as to the thoughts you were
> experiencing.
> > If charged with a hate crime, others offer conjecture as to what
> > your mental state was.
>
> Again, you've shifted ground with your argument.
No, merely culling bad examples and throwing out poor data.
Are you worried about
> the very existence of "thought crimes," or punishments influenced by
> the mental state of the perpetrator, as you originally stated? Or are
> you concerned about how mental states are to be established and proven
> in court? All of your objections to my counter-examples have rested on
> questions of evidence and proof. I thought you were philosophically
> opposed to the *idea* of hate crimes legislation. Would you approve of
> them if there were some way of definitively establishing the
> perpetrator's mental states, or would they still seem wrong to you
> because (as you initially said) "it is a punishment for thoughts"?
Interesting attempt. Show me how self defense is a thought crime and I will
see where you are coming from.
NW
Nuclear Waste
Those notes would speak to premeditation, and the idiot's life should be
forfeit.
Jim
Nuclear Waste
"John David Galt" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3BA97921...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
Then a poor person who steals $100 to feed his family should be given much
stiffer sentencing than a middle class person who steals a couple of video
games worth $100? After all, the subjective reward for commtting the crime
for the poor person is MUCH greater. Sorry, that is not how the law works.
NW
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> "Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote...
> > Nuclear Waste wrote:
> > > Self defense is based upon the premise that you are innocent until
> proven
> > > guilty. You testify as to the thoughts you were experiencing. If
> charged
> > > with a hate crime, others offer conjecture as to what your mental state
> was.
> >
> > In one local case here in SE Wisconsin, a nutcase ran down
> > some teens of a different race, and had notes in his van for
> > the final version of his declaration of race war. Not much
> > need for conjecture there, or in many similar cases.
>
> Those notes would speak to premeditation, and the idiot's life should be
> forfeit.
In Wisconsin we don't kill to show the wrongness of
killing. We tried it once, back when we were a territory,
and decided that it was a disgusting thing for a civilized
people to do.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
proud immigrant to Wisconsin
Terry Austin
>
> The last two sentences are the most telling. Without proof of the actions
> involved, you can not be convicted of premeditation. I again say, the
acts
> are what is important.
The law, and the entire history of law in the western world, do not agree
with you.
Terry Austin
McNutt
Nuclear Waste wrote:
The thing that gives it weight against the speaker is that it is not only
addressed to the poor SOB in the house, it is addressed to all the poor SOB's
everywhere who have the same color of skin (brown like all of us, but in fixed
a value of darker brown in this case). This is not an attack against his Civil
Rights, because the Civic doesn't grant rights---it is an assault against his
Human Rights, those protected by the Civic. Call these Civil Liberties, and we
are in agreement. But then, this is supposedly what ALL laws are meant to
enforce or protect.
The greater weight is the singular against the many. The power of the
statement becomes general rather than local, rather like the difference between
bombing a basement and plowing into the the 75th floor.
Despite what I have recorded, I understand the basic premise of Hate Crimes
Legislation. Indeed, I agree with it. But I will not tolerate enforcing it only
in those cases where the most votes can be gained or stolen. And I will not
suffer it to be cheapened with the ridiculous title of Hate, when it is
obviously Terrorism to which we refer.
Charles R Martin
> "Nuclear Waste" <baby...@2z.net> wrote in message
> news:9obm1t$c3fij$1...@ID-97148.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > (Unless we are in the South, then burning trash on Bob's lawn
> > could mean torching that snake he was caught with down at the
> > local watering hole as she exits the trailer.)
>
> Oops, sorry. I mistook this for a rational discussion between people
> of good faith. I'll bow out now.
Huh? Rivka, I think you're having a little trouble interpreting the
Southern: in Standard English, he said:
"Unless we are using the metaphor of the South, in which "burning
trash" refers to the woman of uncertain morals with whom Bob was seen
at the local tavern, and some act -- either literal or metaphorical --
that then occurred as she left Bob's mobile home."
Nobody said nothin' 'bout you, nohow.
--
Our enemies are never villains in their own eyes, but that does not make them
less dangerous. Appeasement, however, nearly always makes them more so.
-- Don Dixon
______________________________________________________________________________
Charles R (Charlie) Martin Broomfield, CO 40N 105W
Kyle Haight
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>The US has a history of violence against black people, and a small
>but dangerous minority of white people who are in sympathy with that
>history. A hate crime (that is, an actual crime with clear information
>that it's part of that history) is arguably more of an encouragement
>to further crime than personal vandalism, assault, or murder is.
Are you aware of the ratio of black-on-white crimes versus white-on-black
crimes in the United States today? How far would that ratio have to
skew, and for how long, before it would constitute a "history" in its
own right?
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Nancy Lebovitz
Luke Webber
news:9oequa$e...@netaxs.com...
I'm minded to ask whether the disproportionate number of black people in US
(and Australian) prisons, and espeically on the various Death Rows might not
balance things up just a little. Crime doesn't really count IMO, because
it's not _institutionalised_ violence.
Luke
Dan Swartzendruber
Percentage-wise, my recollection is that the ratio has been skewed the
other way for quite awhile, although I don't have hard numbers right to
hand...
Dan Swartzendruber
lu...@webber.com.au says...
Uh, Luke? The reason there are a disproportionate number of black people
in prison in the US is because they commit a disproportionate percentage
of violent crimes in the US. More specifically, young black men, who are
a relatively small percentage of the population commit violent crimes way
out of proportion to their numbers. Not speculating on why, just
addressing the insinuation that there's something racist in that respect.
The death row issue is also bogus, by the way. I'm glad you, who live
outside the US, don't think violent crimes count, as long as they are not
officially sanctioned. Sheesh.
Joel Rosenberg
"Disproportionate" is one of those words that carries some weight with
it, as it suggests that there is a good proportion, and it depends on
what you're measuring.
Kyle Haight
Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
>
>I'm minded to ask whether the disproportionate number of black people in US
>(and Australian) prisons, and espeically on the various Death Rows might not
>balance things up just a little.
Disproportionate by what metric? Percentage of population or percentage
of crimes committed?
>Crime doesn't really count IMO, because it's not _institutionalised_
>violence.
What constitutes "institutionalized?" Is this a legal criteria, in
which case crimes against blacks haven't been institutionalized in
the United States for quite some time, or is the existence of a
private organization holding hostile views sufficient?
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Charles R Martin
If you were to ask, I'd note that there seems to be a disproportionate
number of crimes _committed_ by blacks, and wonder if the argument
makes any sense.
(Not to argue that blacks are somehow necessarily more prone to crime
-- just that they tend to be poorer than whites, on average. However,
that's a _class_ argument, not a race argument.)
Kevin J. Maroney
>If you were to ask, I'd note that there seems to be a disproportionate
>number of crimes _committed_ by blacks, and wonder if the argument
>makes any sense.
If I were to respond, I might counter that there seem to be a
disproportionate number of convictions of blacks and ask whether there
might be reasons for that.
I might also trim rasfw and afh out of the newsgroups lists.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, The New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Nuclear Waste
"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:9odc8...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Interesting assertion, provide proof or retract. (Hint, the law you refer
to specifically sets out what acts constitute premeditation.)
NW
Nuclear Waste
"Michael J. Lowrey"
> > Those notes would speak to premeditation, and the idiot's life should be
> > forfeit.
>
>
> In Wisconsin we don't kill to show the wrongness of
> killing. We tried it once, back when we were a territory,
> and decided that it was a disgusting thing for a civilized
> people to do.
Yeah, and you guys are doing what you can to kill the Boundary Waters as
well. I am very impressed with both acts of your legislature. I blame it
on a lack of lakes.
Jim
(In MN)
Terry Austin
>
> "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:9odc8...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Nuclear Waste" <baby...@2z.net> wrote in message
> > news:9od8uc$cg67j$1...@ID-97148.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > The last two sentences are the most telling. Without proof of the
> actions
> > > involved, you can not be convicted of premeditation. I again say, the
> > acts
> > > are what is important.
> >
> > The law, and the entire history of law in the western world, do not
agree
> > with you.
>
> Interesting assertion, provide proof or retract.
Or else what, dickhead?
>(Hint, the law you refer
> to specifically sets out what acts constitute premeditation.)
>
The mere existence of the hate crime laws you hate so much.
Duh.
Fucking idiot.
Terry Austin
William B. Dennis 2nd
*plonk*
>
> Terry Austin
>
>
>
>
Luke Webber
news:MPG.161500f11...@news.supernews.net...
US
> > (and Australian) prisons, and espeically on the various Death Rows might
not
> > balance things up just a little. Crime doesn't really count IMO, because
> > it's not _institutionalised_ violence.
>
> Uh, Luke? The reason there are a disproportionate number of black people
> in prison in the US is because they commit a disproportionate percentage
> of violent crimes in the US. More specifically, young black men, who are
> a relatively small percentage of the population commit violent crimes way
> out of proportion to their numbers. Not speculating on why, just
> addressing the insinuation that there's something racist in that respect.
> The death row issue is also bogus, by the way. I'm glad you, who live
> outside the US, don't think violent crimes count, as long as they are not
> officially sanctioned. Sheesh.
There's a chicken-and-egg problem here as well. Black people commit more
crime? Well, they *are* an underclass - that's their job right? A hundred
years ago you'd have been saying the same thing about the Irish. Yes, there
are a lot of negatives in their culture which are operating to keep them
poor and ignorant, but how did they get that way?
In any case, the people who commit the crimes will usually end up behind
bars or bleeding to death in an alleyway, so I guess there's still a kind of
brutal balance in the system. Oh, and isn't there an even higher incidence
of black-on-black crime?
Luke
Dan Swartzendruber
lu...@webber.com.au says...
> There's a chicken-and-egg problem here as well. Black people commit more
> crime? Well, they *are* an underclass - that's their job right? A hundred
Well, no, it's not. It might interest you (or not) to know that 50 years
ago, blacks in the US were far poorer than they are now, and had many
less opportunities than now, without the crime issues we see. There is a
perfectly logical explanation that has nothing to do with "class". You
might want to read up on some of the social pathologies inflicted on
urban blacks in the US by our federal welfare system. What do you think
happens when you have a major segment of young black men with no father
figure? The answer: nothing good. Pat Moynihan (no conservative, he)
predicted the results more than 30 years ago. These boys ended up with
no father figure in many cases because the welfare system would penalize
them if they took responsibility for their children.
> years ago you'd have been saying the same thing about the Irish. Yes, there
> are a lot of negatives in their culture which are operating to keep them
> poor and ignorant, but how did they get that way?
Kindly don't put words in my mouth. You have absolutely no idea what my
beliefs are on the Irish or anyone else of 100 years ago.
> In any case, the people who commit the crimes will usually end up behind
> bars or bleeding to death in an alleyway, so I guess there's still a kind of
> brutal balance in the system. Oh, and isn't there an even higher incidence
> of black-on-black crime?
Please don't shift goalposts here. You're the one who threw out the
original point about a disproportionate percentage of blacks being in
jail - I merely explained why they were there.
Terry Austin
Good riddance.
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
If you don't use both your left brain and right brain,
you've basically just got half a brain.
-John Rudd
Nuclear Waste
"Terry Austin"
> > > The law, and the entire history of law in the western world, do not
> agree
> > > with you.
> >
> > Interesting assertion, provide proof or retract.
>
> Or else what, dickhead?
That was not a threat, perhaps you should learn to read. I would start out
with some basic comprehension.
>
> >(Hint, the law you refer
> > to specifically sets out what acts constitute premeditation.)
> >
> The mere existence of the hate crime laws you hate so much.
Again, learn to read.
>
> Duh.
>
> Fucking idiot.
When you learn how to read, you will be quite embarrassed by this.
NW
Cally Soukup
(followups set to the only group in the list I read, rasseff)
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Terry Austin
>
>"Terry Austin"
>> > > The law, and the entire history of law in the western world, do not
>> agree
>> > > with you.
>> >
>> > Interesting assertion, provide proof or retract.
>>
>> Or else what, dickhead?
>
>That was not a threat, perhaps you should learn to read. I would start out
>with some basic comprehension.
So it was just a butt monkey blowing chunks. Glad you cleared that up.
>
>>
>> >(Hint, the law you refer
>> > to specifically sets out what acts constitute premeditation.)
>> >
>> The mere existence of the hate crime laws you hate so much.
>
>Again, learn to read.
QED.
>
>>
>> Duh.
>>
>> Fucking idiot.
>
>When you learn how to read, you will be quite embarrassed by this.
>
When you finished sucking my dick, you will be quite satisfied by the
experience.