Well, the problem I see with your vision of the "justice" system is that you assume that it functions with the purpose to remedy societal ills. It does not such a thing. The "justice" system has been, and likely will be for a long time, a system of vindication. Its very design serves for this purpose: While in other countries the system works with judges and boards of people whose main aim is to seek the truth in the events, our system functions in an adversarial manner that pits the defense against the prosecutors, often resulting in the withholding of evidence and manipulation of facts and emotions by both sides.

Good thing that you are able to sit over there eating champignons while criticizing a system to which you are contributing nothing to change, though, right?

What to do besides rambling what criticisms you will accept or not (knowing what you accept or not is a must, after all!)...? Oh, I know! Let's write some more letters!

I agree with most of what you say Alex, except…

I think that describing the Democrats as moderate Republicans is not enough. As Gore Vidal says "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

Vidal’s plainspoken rundown on the two parties and their cosmetic differences makes the recent betrayals of our communities, antiwar activists, unionist and other more understandable. The system is rigged against us. The two parties are hand puppets for the ruling rich and have only successfully been challenged once and that was during the Second American Revolution form 1860 -1865.

I think that your point that prisons often churn out sociopathic bigots is correct. Lucrese’s characterization of our criminal judicial system may be bleak but it’s accurate. Neither the courts nor prisons are going to stop violence against us and others.

The US is a cesspool of violent bigotry and has been since before the Republic was carved out of the English Empire. What will put an end to that violence is to suppress those who promote it, feed on it and commit it. In our case that includes businesses who profit from underpaying us, superstitious bigots who promote hatred and the thugs who beat and occasionally lynch us.

We need to build a mass movement to defend ourselves and intimidate the bigots. Although they never entirely went away and are now making news again the number of attacks on Indians and African Americans declined steeply during the last century because the Southern Poverty Law Center almost sued the KKK into oblivion. Just as important, self defense effort by tribes and groups like the Lowndes County Freedom Organization, the original Black Panthers who were led by Stokely Carmichael.

Their uses of the basic principles of self defence were copied all across the US from the mid sixties to today. The LCFO’s example produced a sea change in affairs between bigots and their intended victims as it slowly dawned on them that dressing up in sheets could actually get them hurt. That's a splendid example for us to follow.

We need to demand that churches and businesses that promote discrimination, hated, violence and harassment be taxed to the max, forbidden to use hate speech and shut down if they won’t stop. All very minimalist and perfectly reasonable but it won’t happen while the twin parties of reaction run the country. Which is the point. And we have to insist that they same methods be used to end attacks on imported workers, minorities, women, unionists, and etc. As everyone points out we need allies if we’re going to get what we want.

Bill, you had me agreeing with you until:

We need to demand that churches and businesses that promote discrimination, hated, violence and harassment be taxed to the max, forbidden to use hate speech and shut down if they won’t stop. All very minimalist and perfectly reasonable but it won’t happen while the twin parties of reaction run the country.

Taxing churches? Fine with me. Shutting down churches because they don't agree with us? No way. Forbidding speech? Again, no way.

You've given a good example of just why I'm rather weak on hate crimes. What the hell is hate speech? Is it a crime? If so, what words are hate speech? Is it okay to use them separately if not aimed at a minority? What if I'm talking with my friends and they feel the same way? What twisted road does that take us down?

And shutting down a church because they won't comply with our efforts to stifle free speech? That's un-American to the max and smacks of President Bush's philosophy of "You're with us or you're against us" all-out war instead of diplomacy.

Whether you believe in God, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, little green men in tin foil hats, or Yazmat the half cat-half cow moon goddess of the inner sanctuary, I could give a shit less. Your religion can preach all sorts of crazy things I don't agree with. (You should see the doctrine those crazy Yazmat believers espouse. Really. Like anyone really believes her first litter had 10 children. Everyone knows it was truly 5. Heretics.)

If preaching against the gays is your thing, that's fine by me. If you put guns in someone's hand and send him off with instructions to kill someone else then it's something else.

I don't want to control other beliefs and I don't want to stifle them either. I just want to be left alone to enjoy the same freedom I'm willing to share with them.

Bil, "If you put guns in someone's hand and send him off with instructions to kill someone else then it's something else" is exactly what I'm talking about. I wasn’t arguing in favor of buying lions and renting the Astrodome. Although, if Nero hadn’t been such a tightwad…

I don't care if some demented idiot patiently counts the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. That can be cured with antipsychotics. But statements like the following from Jimmy Swaggart are different. “I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I’m going to kill him and tell God he died… It's an abomination! It's an abomination!"

Bloodshed is a regular adjunct to the gay bashing concerts by Buju Banton and Beenie Man. Buju Banton does more than just sing. 365GAY says “He joined a dozen armed men who forced their way into a house in Kingston last year and beat up the occupants while shouting homophobic insults. Several people were taken to the hospital following the attack.” In England, where they have much better protective laws, the city of Brighton is banning sales of their “murder music” CD’s.

Who hasn’t seen or heard similar incitements. Society is bombarded with them and they have a cumulative effect. They cause violence. If it can be proven why should they be allowed to continue? We should sue that church and its leaders, demand and end to their tax exempt status and, if we can prove it, demand arrests as accessories. We should call press conferences, demonstrate, scandalize them and accuse them of murder.

That may seem unlikely for now but as our movement is transfused by the influx or a radical new generation of activists the kinds of actions I’m talking about will become increasingly practical. The question of violence is critical and we have to get aggressive. Our movement will never grow if we’re always on the defensive. We have enough martyrs and we all have acquaintances that were harassed, intimidated or worse. Getting pushy when we can make the connection between businesses, political leaders or a church is a good way to energize our movement and intimidate bigots.

And as for you idolatrous repetition of the false doctrine of Yazmat the half cat-half cow moon goddess of the inner sanctuary, I’ll pray to the sky pixies to cleanse your soul before the mother ship arrives.

Bill,

I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with that part.

I realize Swaggart's statement is outrageous, but it's his to make. I can call him out for it. I can ridicule him for his out-dated thinking. I can boycott or blog about it. But do I have the right to have him arrested for something I don't agree with? No. His statement may be outrageous, but one of the fundamental rights given to us is free speech. The government shall not interfere. England didn't like the Puritans' religion and they fled here because of it. Just because we may not like their religion doesn't mean we shouldn't stand for their ability to preach what they'd like.

At the same time, Buju Banton should be arrested for the hate crime he allegedly committed. Selling records though, isn't a crime. (Ask Tipper Gore!) We can regulate the content by clearly marking it as homophobic, Christophobic or reviewing it as just plain sucky. We can put warning stickers on the album. But if we nixed all songs that advocate violence, we'd have a hell of a lot of banning to do... "The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" and a lot of hard rock comes to mind right away... He can sell the album though if folks will buy it.

Society is bombarded with a lot of negative influences, Bill. From promiscuity raising teen pregnancy rates and STDs throughout all populations to glorified gun violence in our movies. This doesn't mean we should start banning everything that has a negative influence (in our opinion) on our society. By doing so, we take away an integral part of our free society - the ability to choose to do things the right way or the wrong way. If we start at homophobia as the line in the sand, when do we move on to Christophobia and TBP gets shut down for "hate speech"? When does porn get removed from society for being demeaning to others? When do pictures like Alex's boy pic in the other post get taken down for portraying unrealistic body images?

It's just too slippery of a slope. Once we start taking away others' rights, they're sure to start taking away our own.

Yazmat bless you and give you understanding of her deep inner mysteries. :)

"So you don't think that writing letters is a legit form of activism? And yet you were so upset that an "org" that was nothing more than a letter didn't choose to write another one. Hate crimes legislation failed because of them!"

Way to take the sarcasm out of context, although it does not disappoint my expectations.

For someone that advocates a logical approach to arguments, you seem very fond of strawmen yourself. I was upset for various reasons. I was upset because they didn't write a letter; because they made no mention of the threat even on their websites; because they were not vocal on the issue when we most needed them to. Hate crimes legislation failed in part because of their inaction, not solely because of it. Of course, I invite you to point out where I said they were the only one factor for the legislation's failure. You may proceed to do so whenever you feel like actually addressing others' argument instead of selectively nitpicking bits here and there to take out of context so that you can give your argument some semblance of validity.

"And it's more than just musing - people were asking why some who were outspoken on ENDA weren't on hate crimes leg, and I gave a reason."

I could see why, of all people, inquirers might seek your opinion; what better authority on the topic than someone as experienced as yourself! Nevertheless, your very valuable opinions aside, maybe we could expect those questions to be answered by our supposed "leaders" themselves, just a suggestion.

OK Bil, we'll just have to disagree.

And Lucrece, get a grip. Alex is not the enemy. UnitedENDA is not the enmemy. Retarget.

There's something we can agree on, Bill. Geez. Just argue the merits.

I know who my enemies are, thank you, Bill. Maybe you missed the part in my post where I was simply keeping myself consistent with the tone of the conversation Alex introduced.