PeterDavid.net

You know, the last thing we want on our subways are Jews and Muslims uniting in brotherhood. Can't the MTA do anything about this?

And to watch Fox News, you'd think there's no reason at all for instances of raging anti-Christian sentiment in this country. Violence goes both ways, folks. It's really sad, but, one would hope, fixable. I just don't see any efforts to fix it. So depressing.

How do you teach respect? How do you teach, if not acceptance, at least tolerance? I have three children and I am scared as hell (sorry, pun intended) at the current culture trends in American society.

Well, that's religion for ya.

Whats sad is I know many educated christians that feel the same way.

Peter, can you let us know where to find this news item? I've been googling variations on "news christian mta new york" and not finding it. I'd love to read & forward the article.
Thanks.

"And to watch Fox News, you'd think there's no reason at all for instances of raging anti-Christian sentiment in this country."

"Well, that's religion for ya."

I think what's unfortunate about situations like this is that "Christians" like this seem to have the biggest voice in our society. Based on this story, I'd say there's nothing Christ-like about these individuals, and the Christians that I know certainly are nothing like this. Yet, this stigma is applied to me and my friends despite me completely disagreeing with with the conduct of these people on the subway.

If the pole dancers had been present, this whole situation would have been avoided.

And so if Jesus died during Chanukah, was he born on Good Friday?

I'm confused... so which one of them was gyrating on poles?

:)

Well it's the Jewish kids own fault. By saying something other than "Merry Christmas" they were engaging in the War On Christmas (tm). Acknowledging any holiday other than Christmas is an attack on Christmas and the Christians were defending themselves against a viscious attack.

I had sarcasm tages at each end of my previous post, which didn't post.

Hmmm. It is scary to think that people like that do exist in our society.

[quote]I have three children and I am scared as hell (sorry, pun intended) at the current culture trends in American society.[/quote]

Turn off your TV, read a history book. The world today isn't a scarier place than it was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago... it's just that a person in Iowa or Utah or Singapore or Berlin wouldn't have heard about racial violence in the subway in NYC 50 years ago. Most of the people in NYC wouldn't've heard about it.

I have two kids of my own, I understand where you're coming from, but statistics say crime is DOWN, even though we as a culture are more afraid than ever. Did you go out and play all day away from home as a kid, like I did? Did you walk 2-3 miles to school on your own? I did, and the notion of that scares me with my own kids, which is DUMB, 'cause the chances of something happening to them is LOWER than it was for me. But it'll happen to some kid, somewhere in the world, and we'll hear about it and personalize it and fear even more for our own kids. :(

This summer I turned off my satellite dish, started buying TV shows off iTunes, and read the news selectively instead of being buried under the drama and the sensationalism... and it's helping, little by little. :)

It's really sad and monumentally disgusting. It's conduct of this sort that makes a lot of people sneer at Christianity as a whole, when these lackwits are about as "Christian" as Charlie Manson.

Of course, I agree that the presence of pole-dancers would have almost certainly prevented this. It's tough to argue about holiday greetings with someone twirling half-naked around a pole only a few yards away.

Why exactly was a kid who was about to go to jail for a previous crime allowed to be out in public? Seems like a recipe for disaster--what's his incentive NOT to be the thug he obviously is.

Well, at least they'll be able to find him easily enough for his next trial.

Peter, can you let us know where to find this news item? I've been googling variations on "news christian mta new york" and not finding it. I'd love to read & forward the article.

I googled "subway" and "jewish" and got some good hits:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iWCJyvT0BKYliSAruZ1wUdCJlp8QD8TFI1L82

The lawyer for the "gentleman" who will doubtlessly be spending even more time in jail now claims that his client could not possibly be guilty of this because his mom was Jewish. Not a great defense but you works with what you gots.+

There are those who might be tempted to say "let's just ban religion", but the real culprits - stupidity and ignorance - are a lot harder to deal with.

On that note, I wish you all a
Happy Christmas
Merry New Year
Cheerful Chanukah
(Insert preferred ethnic greeting)
and so forth.

The Daily News had the best coverage of the whole affair

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/12/2007-12-12_muslim_hero_breaks_up_train_beating-1.html

Thanks, Kath. My favorite bit from the Daily News article:

"One of the Jewish victims, Walter Adler, expressed amazement that Askari took the risk to try to help.

"That a random Muslim kid helped some Jewish kids, that's what's positive about New York," said Adler, 23, who suffered a broken nose and required four stitches to close a lip wound."

Applause also to the transit cops who acted quickly and swiftly, and apprehended all ten assailants.

Start the Law & Order clock on this one, too. As long as they don't combine it with the pole dancers...

There's only one reason I hate this time of year and this would be it. I've been around too many people who froth at the mouth because December should be dedicated to Jesus Christ and nobody else, regardless how many world holidays have occurred in December or far longer.

Not that bitching about the Season's Greetings is equal to the behavior of these idiots... I should have said the ignorance at this time of year towards religion and tolerance is the single reason I tend to hate the season.

Something like that.

I'm glad nobody was hurt beyond healing.

And a happy Eid to the good Samaritan (is that a weird wish in this case?)

And Christians who complain about how a few idiots like these give all Christians a bad name should stop and take note how a few terrorists have given all Muslims a bad name.... anyone who uses violence in support of their religion gets painted with the same brush in my sketchbook.

Yipes, talk about the rotten apples in the barrel. Can you imagine how they would have reacted if someone reminded them that Jesus was Jewish? So much for the Peace and Joy of the season...

Kind of makes me understand why I was described at a Yule (pagan holiday) party as "a Catholic, but one of the good ones."

There is a chance that religion was just and excuse. It could have been a guy with the "wrong" sports team cap and this guy may have picked a fight with him. In other words: he may have been a bully looking for an excuse to pick on someone. I knew guys like that back in high school.

Playing devil's advocate (ironic, given this discussion is about violence and religion -- and I'm an Agnostic), this fighting is not about Christians or Christianity. There are millions and millions of Christians who are good people, tolerant of others' differences and supporting the community through their lives and charity work. Unfortunately, moderate and good people don't make for good news: The violent and the extreme do. So you'll see a lot more news stories with Christians doing horrible things or screaming and shouting than you will about Christians behaving, well, like Christians.

Indicentally, I've heard this "the Jews killed Jesus" lots of times. Unless I'm mistaken, according to the Bible Jesus was put to death by Caesar and the Jews only opted not to release him. Shouldn't the ignorant be blaming the Romans (or, going to today, the Italians) for killing Jesus? Or did I miss something?

Wait the Romans killed Jesus?

And the Vatican is situated in Rome.

Therefore: THE CAATHOLICS KILLED JESUS!!!!!!

Wait'll I tell Father Dan at mass. It's gonna be a cruel, cruel sunday.

Oh man, this sounds like the beginning of a really bad "Walks Into A Bar" joke.

*shakes head* I'm so glad I'm an atheist.

The lawyer for the "gentleman" who will doubtlessly be spending even more time in jail now claims that his client could not possibly be guilty of this because his mom was Jewish.

So, the Jesus defense, then?

TWL

*shakes head* I'm so glad I'm an atheist.

Moi aussi.

Favorite exchange on the topic at one of my previous schools:

Me: [something relevant to the already tangential conversation, that happens to include the fact that I'm an atheist]

Student: Wait -- you're an atheist?

Me: Swear to God. Oh ... wait ...

TWL

This is mostly in reply to Matt- I'm a non-observant Jew who's grown up in heavily Christian cities, including one in the deep South which was an experience all its own and then Chaska, MN, which is predominately Lutheran and filled with people who are anti-Semitic by default and lack of education. The result is, most of my friends are Christian, practicing and sincere. Everyone on my Mom's side of the family is Christian, which isn't... actually all that good for Christianity's image, but the point is, I, personally?, in no way think this is an accurate representation of Christians. Accordingly, I attach no stigma. I think most people with half a brain realize that this isn't an accurate representation of most of their friends and neighbors. But these people are Christians. That's one of the faces of Christianity- an unfortunate one, but one that has not been improminent throughout centuries. And violence begets violence- with the shooting at the mission recently, I'm not surprised we're now getting news stories like this. Disheartened and saddened, but not surprised.

What media outlets and genuine Christians need to understand, I think, is that Christianity had a grip on the world for a very long time and a lot of bad things were done in its name, which has affected the modern view of the religion. Not a problem exclusive to Christianity by any means, but because of its importance and numbers, a problem with more wide spread and visible consequences. Non-Christians have had to develop all manner of coping mechanisms and, unfortunately, tools for retaliation and survival, and this increasing trend toward Secularism is part of it and, I tend to think, part of what's spurring a lot of the recent conflict.

And that makes me a sad panda.

Boy, where are the Three Wise Men when you need 'em? :(

The lawyer for the "gentleman" who will doubtlessly be spending even more time in jail now claims that his client could not possibly be guilty of this because his mom was Jewish.

But he's hoping no one finds out he was an immaculate conception.

Between this incident and the one in Baltimore where a homeless white woman was beaten by a gang of black youths, and keeping in mind that it's probably only the racial angles that made these news (as opposed to the ordinary everyday beatings and muggings that go unnoticed),the message seems to be: stay off of mass transit.

Although I'll bet when we see the arrest records of these thugs the real lesson will be to stop giving these idiots second, third, and nineteenth chances.

But he's hoping no one finds out he was an immaculate conception

A common misconception (zing!). Jesus was the virgin birth. Mary was the immaculate conception.

Speaking of religious (lack of) education. Check out what "Balducci's Food Lover's Market" suggests might be "Delicious for Chanukah":http://nancykayshapiro.livejournal.com/35633.html?thread=54321

Merriam-Webster's treats "embryo" and "fetus" as synonyms for "conception."

This does prove something though.No matter what the religion you follow it doesnt mean a damn thing if you dont actually practice the principles it was based on in your life.
The so called "Christians" in this attack were hardly behaving in a manner Jesus would approve of.Also I give a lot of credit to the young Muslim who intervened in the attack.I am sure he didnt see the religions of the players involved he just saw something that was clearly wrong and acted in a manner he felt was in accordance with his personal beliefs.
As far as the attacker who was on the streets while awaiting sentencing.Thats our legal system for you though it is nice to see he has the full set of hates...black,jewish,etc. I am sure he has or will find time to attack someone of gay ,asian or some other diversity before all is said and done .
ASSCLOWN!

>I give a lot of credit to the young Muslim who intervened in the attack.I am sure he didnt see the religions of the players involved he just saw something that was clearly wrong and acted in a manner he felt was in accordance with his personal beliefs.

Actually the story said the jewish kids (young men?) were carrying a menora, so he WOULD have seen the religion of at least one set of players, which makes his actions all the more impressive. (Jews vs. Muslims something-or-other going on over in the middle east.)

Merriam-Webster's treats "embryo" and "fetus" as synonyms for "conception."

Yes. Yes it does.

Anyhoo, the immaculate conception is the doctrine that Mary was born without any stain of sin. The virgin birth is the doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin. The two are commonly confused as being one and the same and both referring to Jesus.

Just a heads up for those who want to get their analogies correct.

Well, for whatever it's worth, I apologize on behalf of true Christians everywhere for the actions of these mindless buffoons who claim the name 'Christian' but don't live up to it. At the very least I apologize for the Christians, like me, who acknowledge our Jewish friends as God's Chosen People, and would never disparage the Jewish people for any reason whatsoever; I publicly acknowledge that that's just wrong. I am deeply ashamed of what those idiots on the subway did.

Anyhoo, the immaculate conception is the doctrine that Mary was born without any stain of sin. The virgin birth is the doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin. The two are commonly confused as being one and the same and both referring to Jesus.

Just a heads up for those who want to get their analogies correct.

How nice for the assailant you won't infer his Christian bias from his immaculate conception.

How nice for the assailant you won't infer his Christian bias from his immaculate conception.

Sorry, you lost me.

Indicentally, I've heard this "the Jews killed Jesus" lots of times. Unless I'm mistaken, according to the Bible Jesus was put to death by Caesar and the Jews only opted not to release him. Shouldn't the ignorant be blaming the Romans (or, going to today, the Italians) for killing Jesus? Or did I miss something?

I prefer Sarah Silverman's take:
"Everybody blames the Jews for killing Christ, and then the Jews try to pass it off on the Romans. I’m one of the few people that believe it was the blacks."

Kind of makes me understand why I was described at a Yule (pagan holiday) party as "a Catholic, but one of the good ones."

I had a similar experience but was the qualifier was "but not an asshole."

So idiots and thugs used religion as an excuse to be idiots and thugs. What’s new? If it hadn’t been religion, they’d have found a different excuse for it. And the fact that they claim to be Christian was actually irrelevant in the same way that many religious terrorists of all stripes claim to be “religious” to excuse their behavior. They’re thugs, idiots and, sometimes, killers and that’s all. The religious aspect was just their rationalization for why they’re “right” and “justified” in their actions. It’s not the religion that’s the problem here; it’s the assholes who declared it their cause.

JamesLynch: “Shouldn't the ignorant be blaming the Romans (or, going to today, the Italians) for killing Jesus?”

Yeah, but who wants to go pick a fight with the mob?

Bill, you’re a science teacher. You know that scientists have only ever found one naturally formed Earthly substance that’s ten times as dense as diamond and you’re about to argue theology with it. You’ve got history, dogmatic law and the facts on your side. It has Merriam-Webster's, an inability to comprehend simple concepts and its own super density on its side. We all know that this is just going to go on for dozens of posts where it shows a complete inability to admit error or to grasp simple concepts that it simply refuses to grasp for density’s sake. Why make yourself suffer? Why not just cut to the chase and review one of your zombie flicks now? We’ll all be happier in the end.

Sorry, you lost me.

I'm just demonstrating a paganistic indifference, Bill. You're just catching me while I'm at work. Thank you for the correction.

Sasha: "I prefer Sarah Silverman's take:
"Everybody blames the Jews for killing Christ, and then the Jews try to pass it off on the Romans. I’m one of the few people that believe it was the blacks.""

I've long had a theory that everything involving Jesus was set up by aliens. They wouldn't even need advanced technology, we can fake immaculate conception today just by drugging a girl unconscious and taking her to a fertility clinic for artificial insemination. Aliens could probably pull that off in an afternoon.

Jerry Chandler,

I was going to make an analogy to gazing into the Abyss, but I couldn't have done it with anywhere near as much rhetorical style. I yield the floor to you.

Well the Bible describes God as being omniscient and omnipotent, and it says that Jesus knew full well what fate awaited him in Jerusalem and even asked God to spare him the suffering. Surely, that means that Jesus was killed by God, no? I'd love to see those idiot kids try to beat HIM up.

Damn, Damn, damn, damn and damn!

I just got an email alert from creatures & Crooks Bookshoppe. Terry Pratchett has just announced that he has been diagnosed with a very rare form of early onset Alzheimer's.

The official statement is here
http://tinyurl.com/2kjt34

and it's confirmed on the Terry Pratchett message board
http://tinyurl.com/2sw5bv

Why make yourself suffer? Why not just cut to the chase and review one of your zombie flicks now? We’ll all be happier in the end.

Has there ever been a Christmas-themed zombie movie, and if there hasn't, isnt it about time?

Has there ever been a Christmas-themed zombie movie, and if there hasn't, isnt it about time?

Haven't you ever seen It's a Wonderful Life?

Apologies to the fans.

"Has there ever been a Christmas-themed zombie movie..."

Ever seen the acting in The Hallmark Channel's Christmas movies? If they're not "zombie" films, they're damned close. And the writing scares the hell out of me.

Hey guys...I have to apologize in advance for this not being related to the topic at hand, but it is a topic often discussed here and it's sort of tangentially related to an old issue of Supergirl.

So basically, I'm having a dispute with a co-worker who is giving me the old "homosexuality is wrong because my religion says so." Now, I'm not gay myself but I can't stand it when people hide their bigotry behind the Bible. One of the best, and most concise, arguments against this line of thinking comes from an old issue of Supergirl where Andy Jones says something to the effect of (mind you I'm paraphrasing from a comic I haven't read for 5 years):

"Sure, the Bible has prohibitions against homosexuality. But it also says that a suspected adulteress should drink poison to test her guilt, and a child who curses his parent should be stoned. Funny how people tossed those aside, huh?"

I'm pretty Bible illiterate myself, so I was wondering if anyone knew where those passages--or others like it--are in the Bible? I think you all know where I'm going with this...it's the fairly text book secular defense against Bible-thumping. Granted, I don't think I can change his world view, but it would be nice if even for a split second it got him thinking about why, in his view of morality, only certain Bible passages make the cut. Passages from the New Testament will probably be more effective than Old (is there anything even about homosexuality in the New?). So...does anyone know any good websites or resources for this? PAD, if you're there, I'd love your input.

Check out Leviticus...it's got all kinds of prohibitions that nobody takes seriously anymore.

At any rate, Jesus recommended turning the other cheek in the face of actual harm so it stands to reason He would not be in favor of doing bad things to people whose "sin", if one sees it as such, does you no harm whatsoever.

But don't expect reason to make much headway.

I'm just demonstrating a paganistic indifference, Bill. You're just catching me while I'm at work. Thank you for the correction.

S'cool. I wonder how many man-hours this blog has cost the economy.

Christmas themed zombies...don't think so...there's a game at http://www.hallpass.com/media/christmaszombiedefence.html but it isn't very good.

Geoff,

Most of the rules are in Leviticus. IIRC, there's no reference to homosexuality in the New Testament, other than that 12 guys traveling around together bit.

Interestingly, the prohibitions are against 2 men, showing that G-d likes a bit of Hot Lesbian Action as much as the rest of us :D

I can't remember any Christmas zombie films, but wasn't there one with a killer Santa? Now if that isn't incentive to be nice instead of naughty, I don't know what would be...

Wasn't there one with a killer Santa? ONE?!? Oh, you poor sheltered girl, you need more DVDs.

Fox News would reports that this is evidence of an ever-deepening pole dancer conspiracy no doubt involving The Golden Compass and the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs' mascot

I wish I could say this kind of thing suprises me but sadly, it dosen't.
I watched "Jesus Camp" last week and thought it was the scariest damned thing I've seen in a long time. You actually see kids' minds being warped before your eyes. I've known people who were programmed like that. These kids are the future concentration camp guards, folks.
There was the Columbine-styled shooting in Colorado a few days. Some folks are so worried
about "fightin' em' over there so we don't fight em' over here" that we don't realize the kind of freak factories that out there in the Heartland.
Everyone should also check out Mike Huckabee's
babblings in regards to his past remarks about
gays and people with HIV/AIDS. Still think the concentration camps are far-fetched?
Jesus, some of Your more clueless followers are really screwing up Your ideas.

Start the Law & Order clock on this one, too. As long as they don't combine it with the pole dancers...

Why not? That could only be an an improvement..

Props for the last line.

What I wanna know is - can't we all just be a little nicer to one another? and maybe exchange a few gifts with our closer friends and loved ones? for just one month before the weather gets really foul? without bringing religion into it?

We all know that this is just going to go on for dozens of posts where it shows a complete inability to admit error or to grasp simple concepts that it simply refuses to grasp for density’s sake.

Speaking of failure to grasp simple concepts: Bill's corretion changed the interpretation of my hypothetical situation -- but my response works with his correction. I literally failed nothing.

And speaking of the inability to admit error: Take notes for your own precedent, Jerry. If one of us has cause to complain on this issue, it ain't you.

Jerry wrote:Oh, you poor sheltered girl, you need more DVDs.

All donations are welcome. :)

I hadn't realized that there was more than one Santa slasher. Just don't tell me if they made one about the Easter Bunny...

Does Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! count as a "don't tell me if" movie?

Ok, I won't tell you about it. Not on DVD anyhow.

"Wait the Romans killed Jesus?"

Somebody hasn't been keeping up with "The View".

According to the newest View co-host, Sherry Shallow, it was the Greeks.

(She was probably really referring to fraternities, but who knows?)

I don't know of any Christmas zombie movies. However, FUTURAMA, when aired on Cartoon Network, frequently cuts out the Professor's exclamation "Sweet zombie Jesus!" This is odd since they don't mind having a killer Santa robot (or Zoidberg pretending to be Jesus), nor do they mind the line that all the videotapes were erased during the second coming of Jesus. This is to say nothing of how Jesus comes off on SOUTH PARK or FAMILY GUY...

Actually, my favorite creepy Christmas story--besides the original BLACK CHRISTMAS which STILL holds up--is the episode of INVADER ZIM "The Most Horrible Christmas Ever".

Mr. Sludgy: That's the story of the most horrible Christmas ever. But Zim and Dib were wrong that day. Santa wasn't destroyed, Santa lives on…
Small Child: In the hearts, and minds, of us all? [giggles]
Mr. Sludgy: No! In space! Gathering power! And every Christmas he returns to Earth, and that's why we all live in this protective dome! [alarm sounds] Looks like Santa's here! Raise the shields, children!

It also has my favorite Christmas song ever:

Bow down,
bow down,
before the power of Santa
or be crushed,
be crushed,
by…his jolly boots of doom!

How nice for the assailant you won't infer his Christian bias from his immaculate conception.

Lingster, is that you?

Anyways.

I do find it sad that beyond this story is how quickly some will just defend their religion with the whole "Well, they obviously weren't Christians after all", all the while going on about how we should kill all the Muslims, because their bad apples actually count.

I saw that the shootings here in Colorado were mentioned. The kid behind that was seriously screwed up in the head; he may have been raised in a very religious family, but I don't think if you receive the proper teachings of Jesus (and by all accounts, he did), that you end up with a kid like that because of religion itself, or with the morons in this subway incident.

I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I can't blame it for these particular incidents.

Lingster, is that you?

Did you find that in Lingster's post? My post is the post that draws you into the discussion?

The question doesn't seem to be who I am than it seems to be who are you without me.

Yeah but Mitt Romneys a mormon. Sorry

Hmmm. It is scary to think that people like that do exist in our society.

I agree, people that are searching for someone to hate only cling to religion as a accuse. The jail time one of the attacker got for attacking a black jay in 2005 had nothing to do with religion. Then it was skin color, they probably hate other minorities as well.

If you hate, you usually hate all kind of people, because hatred is a mental state and all rationalism is only a tool to allow one to keep on hating.

People choose to hate, it has nothing to do with religion this is just an excuse, as the record of one of the attacker for attacking a black person indicate.

If someone hates he usually hates everybody, at least all people that it is "safe" to hate.

To Geoff:

I'm not that bible literate myself, but maybe this website helps you:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Cheers
Ben

Firstly, I hope those kids are alright, psychologically as well as physically. They did the right thing, by taking the non-violent approach. And, cheers to the Muslim fellow who stepped in to try to protect them and break it up. As for the "christian" attackers -- well, it's just more proof that terrorists *do* live among us, and the Misadministration has been barreling in the wrong direction for years now...

Wildcat

the Misadministration has been barreling in the wrong direction for years now...

Heh, but could you imagine how low the approval rating would have been if our Misadministration had suggested the problem was with us and not with the "outside world"?

Not defending them mind you, but I can see why they wouldn't want to go in that direction.

The question is, if the next administration chooses to focus on the hate crime problem, what can they do to fix it?

Religion gives three major things to people. 1. Comfort about their place in the universe. 2. Guidance through life's journey. 3. An excuse to act like a moron and pound things when they don't go your way.

Every time I hear about something like this, I picture God looking around and thinking, "Don't try to pin this one on ME, you jerks!"

"Does Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! count as a "don't tell me if" movie?"

Don't forget about that whole sequence in the second Bill and Ted movie!!

What do you MEAN, I'm the only person on the planet who retained the power of linguistic communication whose seen that and lived?

Geoff - Just reread that SUPERGIRL issue a few days ago. Good timing, yes. For those who didn't get that, the story had the titular character trying to keep Stanhope campus from erupting into riots as blacks protested the planned visit by a notorious bigot scheduled to speak there. Supergirl winds up in the middle as she tries to protect his right to free speech, which has the blacks convinced she's on his side, as opposed to on the side of an important principle. PAD's punchline is dead-on as usual as the black students congratulate themselves - the speaker has been driven away by a violent confrontation (not to mention a bombed-out campus building). Only ... a representative of the jewish students shows up and tells them the speaker *they've* got scheduled - an Islamic(?) who is known for anti-Semetic stance - is unacceptable to the Jewish group and they'll do everything they can to shut HIM down. Of course this comes as a surprise to the black leadership on campus who seem unable to grasp that they aren't the only ones put upon and if they don't respect others' free speech, why should anyone respect theirs? What goes around ...

My post is the post that draws you into the discussion?

You give yourself too much credit, as usual.

But next time I'll be sure to put any responses to you after I respond to everybody else first. That way, it'll help keep your ego in check.

The question is, if the next administration chooses to focus on the hate crime problem, what can they do to fix it?

The justification for establishing hate crime standards isn't just controversial in general, it's controversial here. Although they have yet to do so here, most of the most vocal posters here, as well as our host, have previously expressed contempt for hate crime standards. Perhaps now that it isn't just you speaking in favor of them, they may feel free to do so now.

The first actionable rule of the Art of War is that you must follow moral law. As well as signing laws and enforcing policy, the president speaks and is heard by the public. He could make the establishment in itself of hate crime standards less controversial by framing them by protectionist standards we already live with. The police are rightly protected by standards corresponding with their higher visibility and higher vulnerability from their obvious non-conformity with the rest of the population and their interaction with people demonstrating they don't observe the boundaries of others. Once a cop tells you he's a cop, the penalty for injuring him increases substantially.

With hate crime standards, the higher visibility comes from their obvious conformity to a minority standard. The higher vulnerability comes from the people -- who we need the police in the first place to keep in check -- perceiving a greater ease in getting away with exploiting the greater population's indifference with the increased victimization the minorities experience.

What the next administration can do is dispel the misconception that hate crime standards do not set the precedent for greater protections for those who have a greater visibility and a greater vulnerability from their obvious non-conformity.

What the next administration can do is dispel the misconception that hate crime standards SET the precedent for greater protections for those who have a greater visibility and a greater vulnerability from their obvious non-conformity.

You give yourself too much credit, as usual.

But next time I'll be sure to put any responses to you after I respond to everybody else first. That way, it'll help keep your ego in check.

Yes, please try to do more to avoid leading my parade.

Although they have yet to do so here, most of the most vocal posters here, as well as our host, have previously expressed contempt for hate crime standards. Perhaps now that it isn't just you speaking in favor of them, they may feel free to do so now.

Much of that "contempt", as it were, was due to the arrogant illogic of the arguments made by a specific poster.

As Christine displays none of those characteristics, it should come as no surprise that her words do not produce anything resembling contempt.

There's a lesson there for anyone willing and able to learn. But you have to be willing. And able.

Much of that "contempt", as it were, was due to the arrogant illogic of the arguments made by a specific poster.

As Christine displays none of those characteristics...

Christine's arbitrary siding with hate crime standards, as well as the arbitrary siding against hate crime standards, literally meets no qualification of logic or humility whatsoever. Discretion is a privilege, which is neither logical or humble.

The point was that she did NOT display any arrogance or illogic. Thank you for agreeing with my assessment.

What you probably want to do is claim that you yourself do not come off, frequently, as an arrogant ass. Good luck

Just for the record, I am opposed to the notion of legislating "hate crimes." Hatred has its place in the legal system: It serves as motivation. If five guys jump me on a subway, I don't really give a crap if it's because they hate Jews, hate bald guys, hate guys with glasses, or want my wallet. I just want their asses in jail because they beat me up.

I think the moment you start legislating the specifics of what is going through a person's mind, you're embarking on a slippery slope. As much as it may make us feel good knowing that one gets extra punishment for being a bigot, it still has too many echoes of the beginnings of the Thought Police for my comfort level.

PAD

Supergirl winds up in the middle as she tries to protect his right to free speech, which has the blacks convinced she's on his side, as opposed to on the side of an important principle.

Boy, did I catch crap over that story from Steel fans. They were outraged that I depicted Steel siding with the students demanding that the bigoted speaker not be allowed to speak. Steel put forth all these arguments as to why it should not be tolerated, and fans slammed it, saying that the views Steel was expressing were moronic.

Here's the kicker: In crafting Steel's dialogue, I drew copiously--and in some instances swiped word for word--from letters, essays and speeches from black professors who sided with students during the several real-life incidents that inspired the Supergirl story. The arguments that readers contended were "insulting" to a man of Steel's intelligence--dialogue that some claimed I was putting in there just to make Steel look bad--were the words of men far more educated and well-read than I.

PAD

Mike inaccurately claims: Christine's arbitrary siding with hate crime standards, as well as the arbitrary siding against hate crime standards, literally meets no qualification of logic or humility whatsoever.

Maybe I still need the coffee to kick in, but now you've confused me.

All I mentioned was that I could see the logic (flawed, but there) of the current Misadministration directing it's attention to those outside this country. I certainly didn't condone it.

You know... I'm gonna go get more coffee before I comment any further, because my current inclination is to say something I might regret...

You know... I'm gonna go get more coffee before I comment any further, because my current inclination is to say something I might regret...

Christine, you could mainline a Starbucks and still not make sense of a typical Mike posting. That's why I gave up trying long ago.

PAD

The point was that she did NOT display any arrogance or illogic. Thank you for agreeing with my assessment.

My observation is relevant in that you are giving credit for a humility and logic no one has demonstrated. Giving and taking unmerited credit for a virtue is arrogant and illogical.

Holding others to a standard of humility and logic you refuse to be held to is hypocritical.

I think the moment you start legislating the specifics of what is going through a person's mind, you're embarking on a slippery slope. As much as it may make us feel good knowing that one gets extra punishment for being a bigot, it still has too many echoes of the beginnings of the Thought Police for my comfort level.

You are invalidating the state of mind of the accused in penalizing them for a given outcome. It's a wonder there are degrees of penalties for attacking or killing people. Going by what you say, all killings should be prosecuted as murder one.

Mike inaccurately claims: Christine's arbitrary siding with hate crime standards, as well as the arbitrary siding against hate crime standards, literally meets no qualification of logic or humility whatsoever.

In as much as you have withheld your reason for backing the establishment of hate crime standards, -- which I agree with, by the way -- your backing is literally arbitrary. Therefore, Mike's claim is accurate.

PAD wrote: I think the moment you start legislating the specifics of what is going through a person's mind, you're embarking on a slippery slope.

Agreed. Which is part of the reason I asked "if the next administration chooses to focus on the hate crime problem, what can they do to fix it" earlier. I cannot see a clear cut answer.

I think the moment you start legislating the specifics of what is going through a person's mind, you're embarking on a slippery slope.

We're ALREADY on that slope. Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment.

PAD wrote: Christine, you could mainline a Starbucks and still not make sense of a typical Mike posting. That's why I gave up trying long ago.

Good point. At the risk of being labeled a copy-cat, I think I'll follow your lead here.

Bill Mulligan wrote:The point was that she did NOT display any arrogance or illogic.

Thanks. :)

The question is, if the next administration chooses to focus on the hate crime problem, what can they do to fix it?

You simply portrayed the "hate crime problem" as a given, not as something as merely alleged to be a problem. You asked a question, and I answered it. It's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I've said.

Don't mention it. Anyway, Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

roger: "We're ALREADY on that slope. Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment."

Well, whether or not someone *had* a motive is always considered. Accidentally putting something from a store into your pocket is different than doing it deliberately. So in a shoplifting case cares whether or not you had a motive. But what that motive is? That's not part of the law. It make get you some leeway emotionally if you were stealing food to not starve, but there aren't specific laws that make certain motives for shoplifting worse than others.

Roger, what would you say is an example of motive being part of the law other than hate crimes? All I can think of is crimes of passion vs. premeditated murder, but even that isn't really motive, it's forethought. The actual motive could be the same in either a crime of passion and a premeditated case.

I'm actually in favor of hate crime distinctions. Sure, the end result for the victims is the same, but I think when it comes to prosecution we need the distinction. The standard laws for murder and assault simply weren't working for a lot of minorities, because society was pretty much at the point where they weren't even considering those acts crimes. When you start specifically labeling those acts as crimes and prosecuting them differently, it puts a spotlight on them and forces people to look at them differently. I guess you could look at it as PR as much as anything.

Also, isn't there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jackasses in the story)? I'm much more concerned about the latter.

[QUOTE]Most of the rules are in Leviticus. IIRC, there's no reference to homosexuality in the New Testament, other than that 12 guys traveling around together bit.

Interestingly, the prohibitions are against 2 men, showing that G-d likes a bit of Hot Lesbian Action as much as the rest of us :D[/QUOTE]

The laws in Leviticus were against the sin of men wasting their seed. The population of the tribe had to be kept up to keep the tribe strong. Thus, homosexuality and masturbation were seen as extremely sinful, while lesbianism wouldn't be a waste. Although, they probably still frowned on it.

As far as the new Testament goes, Jesus never said anything on any sexual topics (that we know of). The Christian sexual attitudes derive from Paul, who thought abstinence was best, but if you couldn't be abstinent, then you should marry. And by marriage, he meant a man and a woman. However, more of the less extreme Christian groups do seem to be getting more tolerant of homosexuality.

"Also, isn't there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jackasses in the story)? I'm much more concerned about the latter."

Why? If these guys have a history of violence, then they could attack someone again, but that doesn't mean that it will be premeditated. They could just get angry again. Just because a husband kills his wife out of rage doesn't mean that he won't get enraged later and kill someone again. The two situations really aren't that different.

PAD: "Just for the record, I am opposed to the notion of legislating "hate crimes." Hatred has its place in the legal system: It serves as motivation. If five guys jump me on a subway, I don't really give a crap if it's because they hate Jews, hate bald guys, hate guys with glasses, or want my wallet. I just want their asses in jail because they beat me up."

I'd tend to agree with you. Judge folks on their actions, not their thoughts. But I also believe the motivation for (thought behind) an act does have relevance in being able to properly judge the act. Won't entirely excuse the act, but knowing Jean Valjean stole some bread to feed a starving child would change my opinion of what was an appropriate punishment.

Similarly, for "hate crimes" in particular, I'm wary of the slippery slope they represent and would tend to oppose making a penalty more severe because of what someone thought. But in a recent comment on this topic posted to another blog, it was pointed out that a "hate crime" is, in a certain manner, a larger crime as it is an assault not only on the individual but on a larger group.

They phrased it better than I am here, but it gave me some pause for thought. Perhaps the person who attacks me because they don't like the Irish should be should punished more severely than the one who attacks me because they don't like me individually?

We're ALREADY on that slope. Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment.

Yes, I know that. Mostly it factors into determining WHETHER someone did what they were accused of doing. ("Why would the accused do something like this? Here's why...") Plus state of mind comes into play: Whether the person fully knew and understood what he was doing, and the possible consequences of his actions.

But ultimately it comes down to whether someone committed a crime, not the shadings of the why. From my understanding, the reason there are different degrees of murder has less to do with what the perp was thinking but instead whether he planned it in advance, because each step of the murder is another crime.

PAD

It make get you some leeway emotionally if you were stealing food to not starve,

Unless you're Jean Valjean.

PAD

"Just for the record, I am opposed to the notion of legislating "hate crimes." Hatred has its place in the legal system: It serves as motivation. If five guys jump me on a subway, I don't really give a crap if it's because they hate Jews, hate bald guys, hate guys with glasses, or want my wallet. I just want their asses in jail because they beat me up."

I tend to agree as well; the proper place for consideration of hatred in the legal system is as part of the person's motive, which can *already* change the category of crime which is charged. There's a big difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter, for instance, and it all comes down to the motivation for the act.

That said, even if there are no 'hate crimes' laws on the books, the fact of somebody's hatred for a particular ethnic group can be very relevant to their prosecution and sentencing. For a less extreme example, I would say in cases where somebody spray paints swastikas on a synagogue or burns a cross on a lawn, the prosecutor has prima facie evidence to hand of the defendants' intent to intimidate and threaten, which are crimes in themselves.

Mostly[, motive] factors into determining WHETHER someone did what they were accused of doing. ("Why would the accused do something like this? Here's why...") Plus state of mind comes into play: Whether the person fully knew and understood what he was doing, and the possible consequences of his actions.

Attempted murder is a crime solely of motive.

In what's conventionally understood as a hate crime, you still need a victim. With attempted murder, you don't even need a victim -- only an intended victim.

Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Addressing subways (and tangentially related topics) in general:

I’ve only been to New York once— in 2000 to visit my cousins— and we took the subway for a relatively short distance. Our experience? No problems. Before we got on the train, my Mom asked someone at random how to get to the right train to take us wherever we were trying to go. He pointed the way and we got to the correct train.

The ride itself was uneventful. Slightly crowded, as I recall, but not too bad. But no weirdness took place.

On the other hand... I attended summer classes outside London (at what was then called Middlesex Polytechnic in Trent Park) in 1988, and often rode the subway to get to London. At that time, instead of no weirdness, I encountered one incident. Some guy stood up, introduced himself (by both name and nationality) to the occupants of the sparsely-populated train car, and asked something along the lines of “have you accepted Jesus into your life?” Everyone pretty much ignored him, and he soon moved on to another car.

When the guy first stood up (or maybe he was already standing), and got everyone’s attention (probably said “excuse me” or something innocuous like that), I thought he was going to ask for the time or something like that. He was young, presentable in appearance, and didn’t have the aura of a kook.

Of course the fact that he at least considered prosteltyzing a group of strangers might put a question mark next to whether he was a kook, but at least he wasn’t foaming at the mouth.
Weirdness on the subways, by the way, reminds me of the Bill Cosby routine, “A Nut in Every Car”, from his debut album, Bill Cosby is a Very Funny Fellow Right!. In it, he describes the great deal of how for the cost of subway fare at the time (1963), you could get all manner of entertainment. At one point, he describes how one guy provided entertainment for a long stretch, received a standing ovation when he got off; and then got back on for an encore.

Speaking of Law & Order those same cousins I visited in 2000? I found out last month that various Law & Order shows have filmed inside their brownstone. The cool thing about that is that the money they receive goes to help Zac— a recent NYU film school graduate— and his budding directorial career.

Regarding crime in general (and attitudes toward safety), it’s interesting to compare the U.S. culture with that of other countries. After my six weeks in London, my parents came over and we spent a week touring Ireland. At one point we stayed at a bed and breakfast in or near Dingle Bay on the west coast of that country. The proprieters of that bed & breakfast left the key on a hook outside the front door so you could let yourself in if you came in when everyone else has retired for the night. Is there anywhere in the U.S. — even the rural U.S. — where such a thing would happen? Somehow, I doubt it. It may very well be that in some small farm town, such a practice would be perfectly safe; but I have the feeling that our collective impression about how dangerous it is today would preclude people from doing that.

Rick

P.S. For whatever it might be worth, portions of the Doctor Who episode “Mawdryn Undead” were filmed on the grounds of Middlesex Polytechnic (or as we called it “Camp Middlesex.” I didn’t know that when I was there, but sometime later, when I was watching that episode again, I said, “wait a minute....”

P.P.S. In looking up Trent Park online to confirm I correctly remembered the name of the community, I discovered a Wikipedia entry which states that some German generals and staff officers were imprisoned on the grounds, and treated with a reasonable degree of hospitality; and that many of the rooms in the mansion (where we had classes) were bugged, giving the allies access to important information. I never knew any of that when I was there. I just knew about the alleged ghost.

There's a big difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter, for instance, and it all comes down to the motivation for the act.

Well, yes, except the difference is that planning to commit a murder is a crime separate from committing a murder (as is conspiracy to commit murder.)

PAD

Hate crimes? Yes, I do. My hatred of such acts as violence against persons or property is widely, almost universally shared. We legislate well when we consider what is universally hated and what is not.

That is, all legislation concerns distinctions on morally slippery slopes. It is thus never a particularly good argument against (or for) a piece of legislation to say that it concerns a slippery slope. That moral fact about legislation being a slippery slope is a simple truism, telling us nothing.

What a slippery slope concerns has two edges -- first, as to the other, we have to ask whether what is hated by us is sufficiently definable, as to retain its "objectiveness", as to what "it" is that is universally hated. Second, though, and more critically, if we admit that we are moved by hate when we legislate, then we ought to guard against our passion, that our emotions may be deceiving our reason.

This second edge is like the adage "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." We must be quite careful that we do not build roads to hell for others, when we legislate. Perhaps, instead, that means that we should be building bridges to heaven, for others -- defining and punishing proposed acts as crimes according to how we might achieve, not the show of vengance of society upon the offender, but rather a display of the gracious mercy of God for the offender.

In fact, that was what I thought Christianity was all about: making real the idea and the ideal that grace and mercy, even love, should displace vengance, as the aim of society, and of the peoples thereof.

But, I have never seen such a society emerge, in the history of this world, from the principles of Christianity, as I would understand them to be. And, Christians, sadly, seem to be extremely reluctant to give up the idea of retribution and of vengance in this world -- almost as if they did not refuse to believe, in practice, in the justice of a world to come. How else could one explain, for instance, the horrid affection that many Christians (among others) display for the macabre institution that we call "the death penalty"? A Christian society would unanimously abolish such an atrocity.

Similarly, the idea of any infliction of punishment before a conviction under due process of law is most abhorrent, at least to me. Yet, on the talk shows last night, or for weeks recently, we find considerable evidence of support for the ideas and practices of "torture", in total violation of the aspirational "nulla poena sine lege" standard. But, could any truly principled Christian society even remotely endorse any act akin to "torture"? Why, then, is so much of Christianity, in America, simply saying, "well, if torture has a chance in hell of working, then it is morally acceptable"? Such blatant utility calculi ought to confront the edges of the slippery slopes that true morality commands that it face.

(It is also hard to ignore the history of Inquisitions and other public pogroms, even those carried out in the name of Christianity and of Christendom -- as to how such perversions of fundamental Christianity could ever have happened.)

Hate crimes? Yes, I do. We can't criminalize hate and indifference tantamount to it, easily, but that's what we have to do, anyway, as a society -- until the day when peace reigns over all the earth. And, how will that miracle finally happen? Oh, we know, yes, we know that we must learn to love one another, and to make it ever more possible for us to show that love, and not hate, inspires them -- when we confront our mortal selves as moral beings -- in the very ways that we write laws, to announce possible ways to Heaven, or not to pronounce on some roads to Hell.

>it still has too many echoes of the beginnings of the Thought Police for my comfort level.

What bothers me about it is that it sets up a justice triage of society telling people "your life is worth less than someone else's". Yes, realistically that's the way it is, but why institutionalize it? Police? Makes sense, but does it work? Cops still seem to be getting gunned down anyway. Not much of a deterrent?

>dialogue that some claimed I was putting in there just to make Steel look bad--were the words of men far more educated and well-read than I.

Which just goes to prove the logic behind some role-play game systems where intelligence and wisdom are considered separate attributes.

Hate crimes? Yes, I do. We can't criminalize hate and indifference tantamount to it, easily, but that's what we have to do, anyway, as a society -- until the day when peace reigns over all the earth. And, how will that miracle finally happen? Oh, we know, yes, we know that we must learn to love one another, and to make it ever more possible for us to show that love, and not hate, inspires them -- when we confront our mortal selves as moral beings -- in the very ways that we write laws, to announce possible ways to Heaven, or not to pronounce on some roads to Hell.

Well, first of all, the correct quote is "Hell is paved with good intentions." Not "the road to hell." That's a popular misquote.

And second, no: We in fact cannot criminalize hate and indifference, or at least should not. You cannot legislate what people can and should think. If nothing else, how far do you take it? Bigotry is typically learned behavior: Do you also prosecute the parents in the spirit of being accessories to the crime? After all, if they taught him to hate, why should get off with no punishment?

You criminalize actions, not thoughts. People can think anything they want, but must be judged on what they did. Or don't you believe in "hate the sin but love the sinner?"

PAD

"Attempted murder is a crime solely of motive." -- Mike

No, it's not. It's a crime of action. If all it took to be guilty of this was to think about, or want to kill someone, we'd all likely be in trouble. Not to say that everyone has had some murderous though at some time, but I think it's pretty safe to say that nearly everyone has, at one point in their life, at least wanted to or strongly thought about hurting someone.

Attempted murder is just that...it's a murder that failed...the shot goes wild, the stab wound isn't fatal, the deadly trap doesn't go off as planned. In other words, but for some intervening event that usually, but not always, is very close temporally to the attempt, it'd be murder. Attempted murder isn't a crime of motive, it's a crime of failed action.

"Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment."

No, it's not. Many crimes just are, regardless of motive. Manslaughter is one. Specifcially, it's a motiveless, or even an anti-motive crime. You could be action with the specific intent to NOT kill, and still through the course of your actions commit manslaughter.

That's not to say that juries don't, or shouldn't, consider motive during their deliberations. That's up to the individual jury, and even juror.

But notice what PAD is saying...mens rea, or motive in laymans' terms, has long been incorporated into criminal statutes. Murder is defined, archaically, as the act of killing with malice aforethought. Implicit in that defintion is that the act was intended, the perp meant to kill his victim.

But hate crimes tack on extra punishment because of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. If those kids had not been christian, but instead just attacked the other kids, they'd be eligible for a certain level of punishment. Under a hate crime system, the very same act...different only because of the utternaces of "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Chanuka"...would allow for a more harsh sentence. It's extra punishment because of the nature of the thoughts, not the nature of the crime. The crime is exactly the same...assault with intent to inflict bodily harm, let's say.

Consider that California's Three Strikes sentencing laws were struck down. Why? Because it applies punishment to the criminal based on the nature of the criminal, not the nature of the crime. Hate crime laws do the same, which should be something in the purview of the jury, not the legislature.

Alex wrote: Also, isn't there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jackasses in the story)? I'm much more concerned about the latter.

In all seriousness, it wouldn't make a difference to the wife. Whether killed by her spouse or by a predator on the street, the result is the same.

Attempted murder is a crime solely of motive.

No, it's not. It's a crime of action. If all it took to be guilty of this was to think about, or want to kill someone, we'd all likely be in trouble. Not to say that everyone has had some murderous though at some time, but I think it's pretty safe to say that nearly everyone has, at one point in their life, at least wanted to or strongly thought about hurting someone.

Attempted murder is just that...it's a murder that failed...the shot goes wild, the stab wound isn't fatal, the deadly trap doesn't go off as planned. In other words, but for some intervening event that usually, but not always, is very close temporally to the attempt, it'd be murder. Attempted murder isn't a crime of motive, it's a crime of failed action.

My comment you cite is referring to the wikipedia article:

Unlike murder, which requires an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, attempted murder requires evidence of an intention to kill alone.

With attempted murder you don't even need a victim, only an intended victim. With a hate crime, you still need a victim.

We already tolerate more severe thought-policing than the establishment of hate crime standards.

That same wikipedia page also says:

"The courts will pay particular attention to counts of attempted murder and justifiably will be highly critical of any such count unless there is clear evidence of an intention to kill. Attempted murder is an Offence of specific intent"

So if someone just *thinks* about killing another person, there won't be an attempted murder charge. He has to actually do something.

Mike: "With attempted murder you don't even need a victim, only an intended victim."

No, Mike. That is, in the simplest layman's terms, conspiracy to commit murder. And even then, you technically do have a victim. Bobb is correct in his statements regarding the matter. Wikipedia, fun for a laugh that it may be, is hardly a reputable source for anything these days. Try finding a law university site or something along the lines of www.findlaw.com or Blacks Law Dictionary.

The question doesn't seem to be who I am than it seems to be who are you without me.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), is defined as a mental illness primarily characterized by extreme focus on oneself, and is a maladaptive, rigid, and persistent condition that may cause significant distress and functional impairment.

Diagnostic criteria;
a grandiose sense of self-importance; believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people; takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends; lacks empathy; is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her; arrogant behavior.

I'm actually in favor of hate crime distinctions. Sure, the end result for the victims is the same, but I think when it comes to prosecution we need the distinction. The standard laws for murder and assault simply weren't working for a lot of minorities, because society was pretty much at the point where they weren't even considering those acts crimes. When you start specifically labeling those acts as crimes and prosecuting them differently, it puts a spotlight on them and forces people to look at them differently. I guess you could look at it as PR as much as anything.

I think society has advanced to the point now where crimes against minorities are considered crimes. And if it hasn't then why would we expect Hate Crime Legislation to be any more effective? If the problem is that laws are being ignored it will probably not help to just pass more laws.

But thanks for stating you position in a reasonable, civil matter. It's important to see that not everyone on the pro-Hate Crime legislation side is an ass.

But in a recent comment on this topic posted to another blog, it was pointed out that a "hate crime" is, in a certain manner, a larger crime as it is an assault not only on the individual but on a larger group.

They phrased it better than I am here, but it gave me some pause for thought. Perhaps the person who attacks me because they don't like the Irish should be should punished more severely than the one who attacks me because they don't like me individually?

That's a good argument, Sean. You could say that hate crimes against specific groups of people diminishes society in a way that random acts of violence do not.

I think that the harm caused by 1- unequal application of any such laws 2- the resulting antagonism between ethnic groups (or whatever is used to create the groups that hate crime legislation will be applied to) and 3- the potential for misuse and abuse of such laws will be greater than the good that will be achieved. And since the good that could come from them would be equally achieved by just better enforcement of the laws we have, the risk/benefit ratio is not favorable. In my opinion.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind. Since nobody other than you believes this to be true I simply chalk it up to another manifestation of your likely disorder.

What bothers me about it is that it sets up a justice triage of society telling people "your life is worth less than someone else's". Yes, realistically that's the way it is, but why institutionalize it? Police? Makes sense, but does it work? Cops still seem to be getting gunned down anyway. Not much of a deterrent?

But it's hard to say that there is no deterrent. Cops are also put into the position of being possible victims far often than most of us are. The average person should get through a week without having some drunk with a gun in a position to blow them away. A cop may face that daily. The fact that so few are actually shot and killed may be, in part, due to the knowledge of what may happen to the shooter. That said, I wouldn't mind it if every murderer was treated as though the person he or she killed was a cop.

1 i myself am a christian, but isn't jews Gods chosen people? so why the hate? also, christians believe in the fact that Christ chose to die for everybody. He could have stopped it. Jesus loved all people regardless of their religion. why can't christians understand that?

That same wikipedia page also says:

The courts will pay particular attention to counts of attempted murder and justifiably will be highly critical of any such count unless there is clear evidence of an intention to kill. Attempted murder is an Offence of specific intent

So if someone just *thinks* about killing another person, there won't be an attempted murder charge. He has to actually do something.

Yes, to demonstrate the motive the law does not tolerate. Hate crime laws to not depend on *thought intolerance* any more than conspiracy to murder charges.

No, Mike. That is, in the simplest layman's terms, conspiracy to commit murder. And even then, you technically do have a victim.

Where you have a victim, you have, in the most general sense, an imposition made on that victim. What imposition is inherently made on one targeted for murder?

If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.

The question doesn't seem to be who I am than it seems to be who are you without me.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), is defined as a mental illness primarily characterized by extreme focus on oneself, and is a maladaptive, rigid, and persistent condition that may cause significant distress and functional impairment.

Diagnostic criteria;
a grandiose sense of self-importance; believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people; takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends; lacks empathy; is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her; arrogant behavior.

Narcissism implies gratification. You haven't demonstrated gratification.

I think society has advanced to the point now where crimes against minorities are considered crimes. And if it hasn't then why would we expect Hate Crime Legislation to be any more effective?

The same is true for police. What justification is there for cop-killer laws mutually exclusive of the need for hate crime laws?

[cited out of order for relevence] Cops are also put into the position of being possible victims far often than most of us are. The average person should get through a week without having some drunk with a gun in a position to blow them away. A cop may face that daily. The fact that so few are actually shot and killed may be, in part, due to the knowledge of what may happen to the shooter.

The part I just bolded? That justification applies to hate crime standards.

That guy in the anti-Semitic attack article who's also going away for assaulting a black guy? He's choosing the obvious non-conformists to the majority. His attitude increases crime, and you would give him the same punishment other offenders feel the need to have some acquaintance with their victims to do.

I don't see how your generosity to those who feed off the most vulnerability segments of society just isn't plain soft.

Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.

You say that like I'm not going to immediately remember:

• my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
• your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
• today

Those posts ain't only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.

peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005874.html#373296

The posts are not only in your mind, but the actual acts of you proving something are entirely in your mind.

Mike: "If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced."

Nope, sorry, still wrong and play again some other time.

Your argument is still flawed at its core. However, having just pointed out to Mulligan the dead endedness of debating with your density and looking at the stupidity in your last few posts, I'm not going to keep going with this one. You know almost nothing of the law, you live in your own little world and you're dense as hell. Anyone else wants to discuss it, fine. Somebody else wants to waste time with Mike? Do it without me.

~B?)

If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.

Nope, sorry, still wrong and play again some other time.

You heard it here, folks: victims of crime aren't inconvenienced. Whatever, Jerry.

Narcissism implies gratification. You haven't demonstrated gratification.

Using your own bizarro standards, your lack of reply to the other points implies admission of their accuracy.

There are few things I would rather not explore than what it is that gratifies you. I can only assume they are on par with the rest of your thought processes.

Me: Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.

you: You say that like I'm not going to immediately remember:

* my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
* your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
* today

Those posts ain't only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.

Oh the posts certainly exist and, as always, I'm delighted to see you refer to previous incidents of you looking like an ass. But your interpretation? Strictly in your own mind.

And either you know this, which makes you simply an jerk who infests other people's blogs because he got tired of nobody interacting on his own--a parasite, essentially--or you honestly don't get it, in which case you are too nutty to deal with. I go back and forth on this. Are you a jerk and a bully, in which case you need to be treated as such, or are you just too far gone to understand what you are, in which case benign neglect is the kindest course of action?

At any rate, the fact that, despite your best efforts, an actual discussion on the issue of hate crimes has taken place here certainly demonstrates that, despite your claims, no "contempt" for the issue exists among the host and posters. Just contempt for idiotic arguments, made idiotically.

Narcissism implies gratification. You haven't demonstrated gratification.

Using your own bizarro standards, your lack of reply to the other points implies admission of their accuracy.

Yeeeaaah, thanks for not disagreeing I don't qualify as narcissistic.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind....

Oh the posts certainly exist...

It's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say.

Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.

You say that like I'm not going to immediately remember:

• my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
• your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
• today

Those posts ain't only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.

But your interpretation? Strictly in your own mind.

And either you know this, which makes you simply an jerk who infests other people's blogs because he got tired of nobody interacting on his own--a parasite, essentially--or you honestly don't get it, in which case you are too nutty to deal with.

I'm simply responding to accusations directed at me. If you don't like it, don't provide them.

Unless you demonstrate how holding others to a standard you refuse to be held to doesn't qualify as hypocrisy, you haven't giving me a reason to believe that that isn't what it literally takes to qualify. It's a straightforward 1:1 relationship:

Holding others to a standard you refused to be held to : hypocrisy

n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

If Hell is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.

Best of the season, whatever it may be (even to those of us who don't have a season)

Regards, the Rev.

The Reverend Mr. Black: "If Hell is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering."

Asphalt.

And besides, if someone assaults a complete stranger, causing either serious injuries or death, doesn't it stand to reason that, *on average*, it is in itself a 'hate' crime. While some people may kill out of what they think is love (example: a father in here Canada who killed his severely handicapped/retarded daughter because he couldn't stand seeing her constantly in pain) I daresay they're the tiny exception. So why, exactly, do we need 'hate crime' laws when we've already got them?

"So why, exactly, do we need 'hate crime' laws when we've already got them?"

At the risk of making myself a target for the racism badge, it's because minority groups get vocal, and get legislation pushed through that add extra protection for crimes against them. It's what some would call affirmative action from the criminal justice system. Beat a white man to death to steal his wallet, and you get say 10 years. But if a white man beats a black man to death because he's black, regardless of whether he takes his wallet, and he gets 20 years. It's symptomatic of the same concept that allows the idea of reparations to come up ever so often.

Which is not at all to say that minorities have not been exposed to discrimination for decades or centuries, or that minorities are not targeted for certain crimes because of their skin color/religion/sexual orientation. But it should highlight how out system allows for affirmative action mentality to be injected into the CJ system.

Mike, I'm not sure why I'm trying, but

"You heard it here, folks: victims of crime aren't inconvenienced. Whatever, Jerry."

First off, on attempted murder, way to miss a chance to, for once, admit you were wrong about something. Fessing up and allowing a mikea culpa might actually be a good thing for you to consider once in a while. Just for the record, I'll stack my legal training against whatever's posted to Wikipedia any day.

Now you're trying to redifine conspiracy to commit murder. See, there is a victim in this crime...but first let's look at the target of the conspiracy. If that target remains unaware of the conspiracy, I guess you can say he's not inconcienenced by it all. On the other than, at some point..say, during the trial...said target is going to be made aware that others were plotting his death. I'd say most of us, presented with that information, would at least feel a little freaked out. We might freak out so far as to wonder who else is planning to kill us? That might cause us some level of inconvience as we start jumping at every bang or crack that we hear.

But more than that, let's look at the real victim of a conspiracy. After all, what actions are involved other than some planning and plotting? Maybe some stockpiling of weapons and supplies, possibly some surveillance on the target, mapping of routes, etc. But taken individually, none of those actions are illegal, right?

Society is the victim of a conspiracy. That's a hard concept for some folks to grasp, and it does continue to be debated today. But if conspiracies are not prevented...if society has to wait to stop some planned action until said plan is in process...the cost to society is higher. Conspiring to break the law is a crime against society.

And it's not about thought. Just sitting around and talking about killing someone isn't a crime (unless that someone is the president). There have to be related actions that indicate more than just intent, just as with attempted murder.

As for hate crimes requiring a victim, that's wrong, too. If someone puts a burning cross out on the highway, in a public right of way, who's the victim? If someone spray paints an anti-semetic phrase on the side of a public building, who's the victim? Both of these acts would be covered by hate crime laws, yet both lack a target, a vitcim to be inconvienenced.

And besides, if someone assaults a complete stranger, causing either serious injuries or death, doesn't it stand to reason that, *on average*, it is in itself a 'hate' crime. While some people may kill out of what they think is love (example: a father in here Canada who killed his severely handicapped/retarded daughter because he couldn't stand seeing her constantly in pain) I daresay they're the tiny exception. So why, exactly, do we need 'hate crime' laws when we've already got them?

We don't have judges saying, "Your assailant didn't know you before he attacked you, so I'm going to tack on 5 years to his sentence." We literally do not have the fairness you are giving the system credit for having. Hate crime standards, if nothing else, establish that the assailant and his or her victim were truly unacquainted with each other. That, exactly, is why we need hate crime standards.

Violent criminals typically have some acquaintance with their victims, where the victim has some control over his acquaintance with his or her assailant, and the punishment standards have been established by precedent accordingly. If you want to frame it as increasing the penalty where the victim had no connection to his or her assailant that's fine with me. But that sure-as-fricking-hell isn't what we have now.

True Stranger Assault™ is some obvious chickenshit minorities have to go through that people who enjoy some kind of privilege are too soft to accept they don't comprehend. Where the boundaries of hate crime are violated, the victim had as little control as anyone can have over what's happened to him or her, short of refusing all opportunities to leave his house. Even with rape, a modicum of control is attributed to the victim in how she dresses (which is why such accounts are prohibited in a rape trial). What's the excuse for denying stiffer penalties for a truly acquaintanceless assault?

Stop evaluating yourselves by your privileges, and consider evaluating yourself by the privileges you can do without. There are people who go through true stranger-attacks, and the white patriarchy can't see that beyond, "but enough about you -- what about me?" You can choose to be strong.

The Reverend Mr. Black: If Hell is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.

Good attempts.

Heavan is paved with clouds. Duh!

With attempted murder you don't even need a victim, only an intended victim.

[Jerry] That is, in the simplest layman's terms, conspiracy to commit murder.

If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.

First off, on attempted murder, way to miss a chance to, for once, admit you were wrong about something. Fessing up and allowing a mikea culpa might actually be a good thing for you to consider once in a while.

The resolve to rephrase implies an admission of error.

Therefore, you are wrong in saying I admitted no error. How urgent will you make your admission, counselor?

If that target remains unaware of the conspiracy, I guess you can say he's not inconcienenced by it all.

It's a wonder anyone feels the need to portray me as unreasonable.

On the other than, at some point..say, during the trial...said target is going to be made aware that others were plotting his death.

That isn't from the action of the accused, but the court. If the judge eats, does that fill the stomach of the accused or any witnesses?

And [CtCM is] not about thought. Just sitting around and talking about killing someone isn't a crime (unless that someone is the president). There have to be related actions that indicate more than just intent, just as with attempted murder.

Hate crime standards are no more a thought intolerance law than CtCM.

As for hate crimes requiring a victim, that's wrong, too. If someone puts a burning cross out on the highway, in a public right of way, who's the victim? If someone spray paints an anti-semetic phrase on the side of a public building, who's the victim? Both of these acts would be covered by hate crime laws, yet both lack a target, a vitcim to be inconvienenced.

Uh, yeah, I'm not going to disagree that takes hate crime standards too far, but that ain't within the "sitting around thinking about" slack given to CtCM everyone keeps portraying hate crime laws as denying, either. My point in comparing it to CtCM is to demonstrate the "thought crime" angle to challenging hate crime standards is just plain wrong, and you only seem to be helping me establish that.

I think it's been fairly well established that a black who kills a white will likely get more jail time than a white who kills a black. And both probably get more time than if a Black kills another Black.

I believe it's also more likely that a man who kills a woman will get more time than a woman who kills a man and a mother who kills her kids usually gets way less than you'd think.

The other factor in all this is publicity--if the story hits the papers with a big splash it will probably end up with a bigger punishment.

As for your hypothetical...it reminds me of the old jay Leno joke about "senseless killings". "A man was killed today on broadway for $10...another senseless killing. Meanwhile, in Queens, another man was killed for $1000--very sensible"

"I believe it's also more likely that a man who kills a woman will get more time than a woman who kills a man"

Actually, I read a few years back that women serve longer average sentances for murder than men. I have no idea why, the article didn't get into the causes. Women's prisons are less crowded so there is less push for early release? Women do a higher percentage of premeditated murders? Just guesses.

As for your hypothetical...it reminds me of the old jay Leno joke about "senseless killings". "A man was killed today on broadway for $10...another senseless killing. Meanwhile, in Queens, another man was killed for $1000--very sensible"

Yeah, it's a wonder anyone should feel the need to weigh senseless crime and "sensible crime" together with equal gravity, by challenging hate crime standards.

If Hell is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.

Murdered titans and frost giants.

Mike, I'm not sure why I'm trying

Sometimes, it just isn't worth the effort of trying to convince someone that 2 + 2 != 5, as it does in Mike's world.

Mike, I'm not sure why I'm trying

Considering you haven't attributed your criticism to anything I've said, it's no wonder.

Posted by Jason M. Bryant

"I believe it's also more likely that a man who kills a woman will get more time than a woman who kills a man"

Actually, I read a few years back that women serve longer average sentances for murder than men. I have no idea why, the article didn't get into the causes. Women's prisons are less crowded so there is less push for early release? Women do a higher percentage of premeditated murders? Just guesses.

Because a man who shoots his wife's lover and/or his worthless cheating bitch wife is defending his honour and the sanctity of marriage but a woman who catches her husband with anoter woman and shoots him is over-reacting?

Cf "Miss Otis Regrets" or the Saudi rape victim's sentence (which was increased on appeal).

An attorney friend [*not* one of the all-time great comic letterhacks] says that defense attorneys - at least in the New Orleans area, where he practices - would often rather try black clients before all-white juries than black or mixed ones. Apparently (my theory, now, not something he said specifically), the way that jury selection works, backs who wind up on juries tend to be on average of higher socio-economic/educational status and to be disapproving of activity that makes the black community look bad (or palys into the hands of racists).

Y'know, Craig, it's becoming clear that your friends here are doing you a disservice.

Y'see, Peter thinks I'm stupid, and he behaves accordingly. He treats posts he sees as stupid with indifference as he does mine.

In contrast to this appropriate treatment to posts one considers stupid are your friends, who invest time venting disgust on me with the urgent need to portray me as stupid. This urgent need to portray me as stupid demonstrate I'm not stupid.

Craig, you are stupid. You seem to have no urgent need to portray me as stupid, but going by your friends' behavior, you're using the behavior that demonstrates I'm not stupid in an introspectively-deficient attempt to portray me as stupid.

I'm sorry you have to hear this from me, who has no fidelity to your inner-harmony, but you don't have friends who are looking out for you. Peter has tried to say as much to y'all, nicely, on numerous occasions, but you didn't listen.

Alright, folks, yeah Mike comes across as an arrogant s.o.b., but why reduce the blog to a long list of post amount to not much more than name calling? Just a thought.

Poor Mike. Nothing left in the tank.

But,as usual, you get it wrong. It isn't that you're stupid, in the sense of a lack of intelligence. It's that you act like a jackass. Now, one could argue that acting like a jackass is a stupid thing to do--it would certainly tend to lower the quality of life for most people. But hey, maybe you're one of those people who have no use for normal human relationships. Being the skunk at the garden party gives you the same gratification (uh-oh!) that those not exhibiting your, um, mindset get from friendship and family.

But it's yet another manifestation of your narcissism that you define stupidity as How Mike Is Treated. Only in a world where you matter, Mike. Not this one.

You seem to have no urgent need to portray me as stupid, but going by your friends' behavior, you're using the behavior that demonstrates I'm not stupid in an introspectively-deficient attempt to portray me as stupid.

I get a kick out of lines like this, because I suspect you have nfc what they actually mean.

Yet, I'm the stupid one?

Pot, meet kettle.

I really wish this site had an ignore feature, because I would definitely use it. I suspect everybody else would as well.

And in more NYC subway news:

Monday night:
A woman was pushed on to the tracks by another woman and saved by a pair of good samaritans. The shover was arrested and is being charged; the intended victim hopes to be able to thank her rescuers.

Tuesday:
NEW YORK -- New York City Police are investigating a report by a man who says he was assaulted on a subway train by a group of women who videotaped the attack and posted it on the Internet.

I wonder if that transit spokesman still thinks pole dancers are the "last thing we want". Somebody really should ask him/her.

Yeah, an ignore feature would be great--I'll pledge an extra $25 above and beyond the $10 I'm sending anyway for that feature, as long as I could turn it on and off at whim for those times when I want a moment of stupidity.

And I have no doubt that Mike would keep posting anyway, no matter how few people were listening. What options does he have?

Of course, we could all just exercise collective will and ignore him the old fashioned way...but hey, it's human nature to slow down for train wrecks, even metaphorical ones.

Craig - Where online did you find those? You have me curious. I'm wondering if that "gang of women" had a motive other than random internet video "fun"

w*w.inform.com/related_content/1312094,1

(replace the * with another w)

w*w.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/07/2007-12-07_dad_sorry_for_a_train_teens_actions-1.html

is even better--has the video as well. Punks, from the looks of it. I pity the poor father who recognized his kid as one of the beaters.

Thanks for the link.

Well, so much for my giving them the benefit of the doubt. Sheesh.

"Well, first of all, the correct quote is 'Hell is paved with good intentions.' Not 'the road to hell.' That's a popular misquote." says Peter David

If I had wished to point to a quotation, against which some standard of correctness might apply, I would have done so. Instead, I referred to the adage, as it happens to exist in popular usage -- a fact to which various dictionaries of the language attest. Hence, your remark is somewhat off-base.

You are right to cling to the idea, from criminal law, that we aim to punish a man for his acts, and not for his thoughts, per se.

However, while the target of the law is an act, the aim of the law is always the thought that a man has.

We wish, so I claim, that every man would eschew all thinking that willingly, or contemptuously, brings violence "wrongfully" upon the person or the property of others.

That is, the end toward which we legislate, as a society, is the universal avoidance of such "wrong" thinking. This latter end, though, is not at all necessarily the same as a society that wishes to impose universal "right" thinking.

Between these two places for thinking to stand, there might stretch one of Cardozo's bridges. Between these lies a chasm, which may have -- at some points -- some slopes that are steep, some slopes that are slippery.

Unless we, as a society build it and maintain it, no bridge will cross this chasm. We thus ever and always risk the slippery slopes, when we legislate. That was one of my points. We wish to define the law, objectively, as to acts demonstratively bringing "provable" harm to others. However, our legislative aim remains the thoughts of the people, collectively -- which is the thinking that we as people do, as possible legislators or putative criminals.

Hence, I raised both of my moral points -- against the death penalty and against torture. I claimed that neither of these practices was compatible with fundamental Christian principles, nor with belief in the justice of a world to come.

There is an easy, objective test to this claim. Where it is written, in the NT, "thou shalt punish, eye for an eye, ..., showing neither mercy nor any grace?" Or, where is it written that "thou shalt torture suspects, when thou dost think they know something important to thine own well being"... In fact, the NT Scriptures seem to point our thinking in a rather different direction: not toward a defense of self, but toward the extreme, of exposure of one's own vulnerability, against the possible aggressions of others. "If a man asks you for your coat, give him your shirt as well."

The point, here, would be that a Christian society would not aim its laws as negatively, towards punishment, but would focus positively, towards the dual good ends of rehabilitation of the offender and restoration of the injured, at the worst. (*As a society thinks, in its heart, in writing its legislation, so it is.*)

Yes, our aim, as a society, is always and ever must be the reformation of man -- of his ways of thinking that lead him to wrong-doing, especially to be doing-wrong, or even doing-nothing when he could be doing-good.

(And, perhaps, I should disclose that I am not a Christian, but a Jew -- but I nonethless find no significant difference arises when, instead, I refer to what a Jewish society would do, if it were truly following the laws of Moses.)

On a completely unrelated note, I spotted the following article today and thought I'd share since I don't think glow-in-the-dark cats are an every day news story...

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/science/sns-ap-skorea-glowing-cats,0,77499.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines

Have you noticed that whenever scientists want to demonstrate some funky new advance in genetic engineering they usually do it by making things glow in the dark?

http://www.rv-orchidworks.com/orchidtalk/breeding-hybridization/3452-glow-dark-orchids.html

(glow in the dark orchids)

http://freshaquarium.about.com/cs/fishnews/a/glofish.htm

(glow in the dark fish)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4605202.stm

(Glow in the dark pigs)

http://oddanimals.com/unusualanimals/glowinthedarkrabbit.html</