Drugs and Robert Downey Jr.
8/6/99Here is my first link to something annoying! Apparently the actor Robert Downey Jr. was sentenced to 3 years in jail for violating his parole by using drugs. He was not selling drugs, he was using them. He is currently in the middle of rehab. He claims to have been addicted to drugs since he was 8 years old. The judge said  "Is there any question that if this defendant continues to use drugs that we're going to read his name in an obituary?'' Ok, so he is not hurting or bothering anyone and he wants to take drugs. Why is it up to this judge to prevent him from killing himself even IF he would? (which I do not think he would). He is a successful member of society and contributes not only entertainment and art but lots of tax revenue. He has THREE movies coming out this year. Apparently he is able to function even on drugs. Yet he is going to jail for three years? This is only one illustration of the idiocy of our current drug laws.
 

Selling Your Organs
9/2/99This episode with the kidney for sale on eBay reminded me of how STUPID it is that we are not allowed to sell our organs. Now, of course, the whole thing was probably a big joke but nonetheless, it it is still lame that we do not have control of our own bodies in this country. If someone wants to sell his kidney, why can't he? Just because some people think it is distasteful, doesn't mean that it should be banned. There are long lists of sick people waiting for organs to be *donated*.
           Of course WE have to donate them and not be compensated but the doctors who transplant them sure aren't working for free. I am looking at this issue from a strictly commercial and personal rights point of view, but if you want to look at it in a humanitarian POV, just imagine the numbers of sick and dying children that would be helped by an abundant supply of organs! People argue that only rich people would be able to buy them. Well, that situation already exists in this country, wake up. Rich people already have access to better stuff including better health care. People can either work to get rich or go to one of the private hospitals for poor people with fresh organs purchased by do gooders and bleeding hearts looking for publicity that someone like Ted Danson or Warren Beatty would surely start. Plus everybody knows that increased supply reduces costs.
          As for the *social problem* of poor people selling their organs because they need money, SO WHAT? IF they ever did that, then that would be their choice. People should be allowed to make choices about their own bodies, even poor people! If they would rather sell their kidney than get an actual job, then we should let them. We probably need kidneys more than we need cashiers at Burger King anyhow.

9/24/99I got a few emails on the subject of being able to sell your own organs. One person likened it to pregnant women getting monetary recompense for giving up babies they don't want. I am not opposed to THAT either, however, it is not the subject I am dealing with now. One guy seemed like he really wanted to be against selling of organs but couldn't quite bring himself to accept the logic of not being allowed to. I also got an intelligently written email from a doctor who was opposed to the idea. Here is what he said:

"One thing I wanted to chime in on.... I happen to be a physician and i cant help but comment on the organs for sale controversy. Yes on one hand people should do what they wish with their bodies. However, if selling organs was permitted, then the only people likely to receive them would be the highest bidders. At least the way the system is, everyone has a fair shot. Furthermore, every operation carries with it a certain risk. In a society where everyone wants to eat their cake and have it to, there would be a further strain put on our health care dollar if everyone rushed in to donate, or should I say sell an organ."

           I disagree, I do not think that it would be any different from everything else in medicine (or any other type of business or service for that matter). I think the laws of supply and demand would apply here....more supply, cheaper product (so to speak). Also, just as we have insurance pay for everything in health care today, insurance would also pay for organs, so it is not really a highest bidder situation. There would be MORE of them and MORE people would have access to them. Uninsured people would do whatever uninsured people currently do in things medical, which is beg (from do gooders), borrow (from relatives and friends),  or steal (from government funded programs such as medicaid and medicare).
            I fail to see how this would differ from any other medical procedure. I am also offended that EVERYONE (from the doctors who "instal" them to the company who ships them from place to place) is making
a profit on the sale of organs (and it IS a sale) except the person who owns the organ! As for the current system allowing everyone a fair shot, that is simply not true. Preferential treatment is given to the young over the old and to the person who has a better chance of surviving the operation over the person with less of a chance of making it with the new organ. I agree that we live in a society of people who want to eat their cake and have it to meaning that they might want to sell their kidney to get money and then need it later causing insurance companies to have to shell out money to get them a new one, however, insurance companies would have to adjust for people who sell their organs just as they adjust for people who smoke or do other dangerous things. I am sure they already have programs in place for people who donate their organs and might need them later.

            This person still did not agree with me and sent another email on the subject:

" The problem with treating organs as a commodity however does not apply. There are other things to consider like tissue type, and organ type. As for insurance, LOL, they dont pay for what you might think they might pay for, nor do they pay as much as you might think. In fact, you probably pay more to get your hair cut than the HMO pays me per office visit. As far as the distribution of organs go, it is done by a network that relies on donations and government subsidies. It is true that insurance plans do pay us, the Dr.s for both harvesting the organs and "installing" them, but that really has nothing to do with the issue you bring up. Is the system perfect - no. Can it be made better - sure. Is selling organs on the open market a solution? I dont think so, rather I think it would cause more problems and abuse in the system instead of increasing the supply. What's wrong with donating your organs out of the kindness of your heart in order to help your fellow man?"

           Of course one has to consider organ type and tissue type, I fail to see what this has to do with being compensated for giving part of your body away. If insurance coverage is the problem, perhaps we need to be looking at insurance reform instead of keeping organ compensation illegal. However, I find it REALLY hard to believe that doctors aren't making money and are being kept down by the insurance companies! Ewwwwwww, government subsidies!!!!! Do NOT get me started on THAT. If organs were allowed to be a commodity then we wouldn't NEED the government to subsidize the program.
          Also, I cannot see HOW the fact that everyone is paid for this process except for the donor does NOT have anything to do with this issue....it IS the issue. And, what's wrong with donating your organs? Nothing, if that is what you want to do. However, you should also be allowed to get compensation for it. You are already allowed to GIVE your organs for free. What would be SO wrong with getting some money for giving up this valuable item!? As for helping your fellow man, don't make me sick. NO ONE does anything for free.
       People generally donate their organs to help their relatives. They do it because they love their family and want them to live. Even if they don't like a particular relative they do not want to be *responsible* for that persons death!  People who donate organs to total strangers get to feel all warm and yummy inside like they are so special and good for helping another person. They may even get to go to heaven for that selfless act, although if they do it to get to heaven, I guess it wasn't really a selfless act after all.  If nothing else, they will get to be on TV and have the news people gush all over them for 10 minutes.
          These may be the so called *honorable* reasons to donate but if I or someone I loved was in need of an organ transplant, I would not want to wait around for someone *honorable*  to give me one. I would want to be able to pick one right away from a large supply of organs supplied by ghoulish insensitive money grubbing bastards. Wouldn't you?

10/28/99 I got 2 more emails about this after I wrote about how it is legal to sell eggs.  They both disagreed with my similarity between selling eggs and sperm and selling organs. Here is what one person had to say:

"The problem I have with the issue is this: the people that are likely to sell organs are probably in dire financial straits such as drug addicts, prostitutes, gamblers,  etc.  They are not likely to be of sound mind and could be risking serious health issues by their desperate donation."

        I really do not think that drug addicts and most prostitutes would be eligible for organ donation. Their organs are probably in pretty bad shape after years of drug use and sexually transmitted diseases. Of course the *of sound mind* thing is absurd. Drug addicts might not be what the average person considers to be of sound mind, but to place prostitutes and gamblers in that category just because they do not act like YOU think they should is pretty damn arrogant. You feel the need to *protect these people from themselves* because they are not living their life according to how you see fit?  He went on to say:

"It's morbid to think that someone would donate a kidney so they can play some more blackjack or buy drugs.  Of course, the argument should be made that it's their decision to make but I disagree with that philosophy. "

         Obviously you disagree with that philosophy! Under no circumstances should a person whose lifestyle you disagree with be allowed to make their own decisions! Let's ban the purchase of cheeseburgers for fat people or especially from people with heart problems! Fat people live a lifestyle that  many people find disgusting. Whenever you see them on TV they are more often than not crying and complaining about being so fat. It is our social responsibility to protect them from themselves. We must help these poor pathetic individuals. They obviously have no self control. We MUST protect them from themselves. I am calling for a ban on fast food today! As for it being morbid, that is YOUR opinion. I am certain that the mother of the 5 year old child who needs the kidney transplant thinks it is anything but morbid. Besides, since when do we outlaw things because they are *morbid*?

"People would be inflicting damage to themselves and not know the consequences of their actions."

        Are you saying that prostitutes and gamblers are stupid idiots and not  responsible?  And fat people are not responsible when it comes to food and smokers are not responsible when it comes to smoking and people who work in coal mines are not responsible in their choice of professions. These things must all be banned today. These people are ALL inflicting harm upon themselves. He went on to say:

"No laws are fair to the entire population.  Laws are enforced to protect those that would otherwise abuse themselves or others, even if it is a minority of the population.  "

           This is totally wrong. THIS is the main problem with society today. We refuse to take responsibility for ourselves and want someone else to do it for us. We don't even want to have to make the decision on if we should sell our organs or not. We want it to be illegal so we never have to face that question. The law is there to protect individuals from having their rights infringed upon by OTHERS.  The idea of laws protecting ones own self is insane. That puts responsibility for ones own actions into the hands of others.  It removes our own rights to do as we see fit with our own lives. Who is to say what is the right way and what is the wrong way for a person to live their life (OBVIOUSLY I am not talking about living your life in a away that harms others, but some moron is going to email me about it, so I had to put in the disclaimer)? Who gets to tell the rest of the population what things they are allowed to do and what things they are not allowed to do to their own bodies? The president? The congress? The voters? Yikes, scary.

          I also got a similar email from someone else on the topic. He said this:

"I must say, that while I disagree with you about the organ donation thing (selling organs just becomes another way that the rich (who can afford to buy them) prey on the poor (who can't afford not to sell them))"

         Perhaps he did not read my comments on the rich people being the only ones to be able to afford organs thing before. I stated that it would probably operate the same way things in medicine operate already, people would use insurance, begging, borrowing or stealing to get them. Either reread that section below or tell me how I am incorrect in thinking this is how it would work. As for the *poor* needing protection, here we have another arrogant person who thinks that just because a person doesn't have as much money as he does, that that person has no brains and is incapable of making decisions. Now we have poor people to add to the groups of irresponsible idiots who need our protection. They too are CLEARLY incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to sell their organs or not.

11/4/99 This is the issue that will not die. I got some more email on the subject of selling organs. I will post it and respond to it and this is the last time I am going to discuss it cuz I am sick of it. Don't send me anything else on the topic. Here is one of the things that was sent to me:

"Well, being an organ transplant immunologist and working at a blood center, there are a few things you might want clarified (since you did ask for discussion).
 You cannot sell your blood for money.  At least not blood that will be used for human transfusion--it is a felony to pay or accept money for blood used in this way.  You *can* sell your plasma at plasma centers.  They use this plasma for manufacturing biochemical products like albumin (for growing bacteria cultures). "

             Well, of course I think it should be legal to sell your blood, too.

He then quoted me:
"Preferential treatment is given to the young over the old and to the person who has a better chance of surviving the operation...."  and said:
"This is not true in organ allocation.  There is a system based on points.  Points are given (in order of preference) to
1) people who have been waiting for the organ the longest,
2) people who most closely match the organ's tissue type,
3) there are some points given for racial preferencing due to lack of donation by certain ethnic groups--these points are "supposed" to even out the allocation so no particular ethnic group gets slighted (I don't agree with this last area for allocation--if your race isn't big on giving their organs--too bad for you!  You should convince them to give more!).  These have nothing to do with age or condition.
There are certain times when the sickest people on the list (those who will die in a matter of days) are given priority for organs--but even given priority many of them still do not receive.  The only thing involved with "chance of surviving" is the fact that they don't transplant someone if they are sick and not in good enough condition to be transplanted, or the results of a crossmatch between the donor blood and the potential recipient's blood which (if positive) means that the recipient will reject the organ and therefore the transplant cannot be performed. "

          Yea, like I said,  preferential treatment (sorry I was mistaken in the way the preferences are arranged) which would be lessened with more of a supply. You COULD try to convince your ethnic group to give more, but you could also give them financial incentive to do so which would work a lot better.

"Most drug addicts and such not probably wouldn't be in condition to donate.  But, what if they were occasional users, or occasionally had an alternate sex life?  One of the things discouraging the sale of organs for transplant (and blood) is that there is also a donor history screening process asking about IV drug use, sex practices, etc.  This is because no test is perfect and the HIV test for one (as well as other tests--Hepatitis, Herpes, etc) has a "window of non-detection" wherein the blood may be infected but would not show up on a test.  That's okay for your test or mine--we can get retested later to make sure.  But donors (at least the dead ones, and the live ones you pay and then who disappear) don't get tested again and again--and even if you tested a prospective live donor every month for a year before buying their organ, what happens if they contract a disease the week before the operation--oops!  If you're paying these people for their organs, what is the chance they might lie about their history to get the money?  Then what do you do?  Lawsuit?  prove you got it from them.  prove they didn't just do it after the operation."

            I would HOPE that there is already a system in place to screen the organs that are given away for free and I would assume that the same safeguards would be in place if people were compensated for giving their organs away.

"There are a lot of problems involved with selling organs.  Yes, ideally you should be able to.  We do not live in an ideal world, and it's all those other things that screw up your right to sell your organs."

         Once again, I think that since it is ALREADY LEGAL to give away your organs and blood for free, there is ALREADY a way to do it that is safe. I merely have a problem that people can not be monetarily rewarded for giving away such an important thing.
 

Selling and Buying Model's Eggs
10/26/99I got some email about the internet site that is selling the donated eggs from beautiful women and altho I had heard about it, I was not that interested in the story. I mean, people buy and sell and donate and receive sperm and eggs all the time, right? It is a common practice for people unable to conceive their own children. Well, apparently I underestimated the American Public's ability to work themselves into a frenzy over these things. Of course I immediately thought of my favorite subject, the illegality of selling organs  and wondered why selling sperm and eggs is legal. It is no less ghoulish. It is no less profit motivated. I dunno...maybe someone can tell me what the difference is.
             Then I began to wonder why everyone was getting their panties all in a bunch over  this. I suspect it has partly to do with the fact that it was advertised on the internet (ohhhhhh evil!) and partly because it had to do with physical beauty (another evil thing). I watched a lot of media coverage about it and found no one who had any real REASONS for disliking this idea of selling the eggs of beautiful women. Of course that was probably my own fault for thinking I could find anything intelligent on TV.
              Anyhow, I only have a mini rant here and it is this: when people want to buy sperm and eggs, they are already able to choose the nationality of the donor, they screen for genetic diseases (hey, ugliness is a genetic disease in my opinion, but whatever), in many cases they are also allowed to choose on the basis of IQ or where the donna went to college. Someone please tell me what the difference is between choosing on these criteria and choosing on the criteria of appearance. Of course, intelligent people know that just because a mother or a father is a babe doesn't mean that the kid is gonna come out gorgeous anyhow.  Can't wait for the first law suit by the parents of one of these babies made with the beautiful eggs when the kid turns out to look like the love child of Ozzy Osborne and Phylis Diller.

11/11/99 No one seemed to have a problem with my opinion on this issue. Of course, they are all guys who write to me, so what did I expect?.....;)

11/25/99 Something new sent to me:
"What are your views on the "moral" implications of selling eggs?  Would you feel a responsibility for a little pixie running around somewhere in the world that was born from one of your own eggs?  Or would you happily sell an egg of your own in the appropriate circumstances?"

            First of all, I would probably never sell eggs. I hear it is extremely painful. I have better ways to make money and I always will. I have no moral issue with it if someone else wants to do it for whatever reason. I do not think that people should feel responsibility to the children born of these eggs or sperm. The parents are the ones who raise the child. They are the ones with the responsibility for the child. I think this whole fertility thing has gotten pretty out of control, too. The measures many people go to to have a child are extreme. Maybe some people just aren't meant to have children. Get over it and find something else to do. I also think that it would be a good idea to offer monetary compensation to women who become pregnant and do not want the child if they give the child up for adoption. This would produce a *supply* of babies and eliminate a lot of the rampant fertility *solutions* that are extremely expensive, do not always work and cause heartache, and produce unnatural things like multiple births. It would also cut down on abortion.
 

Transsexual Teacher
10/01/99 Here is a new topic sent to me today:
"by the way, what do make of that male teacher who came back to school as a woman in Los Angeles? did you hear about her?"

               Yes I did hear about him/her. I think people need to take more responsibility for themselves and not do outrageous things just because they think it is their right without thinking about the impact on others.  The man/woman should have found a different teaching job somewhere else where people didn't know she was formerly a he. That would have been basic politeness and tact and it would have saved him/her a lot of grief and embarrassment. Or he/she should have just lived with being a man. I know people will NOT take responsibility for their actions in this day and age because we live in a society where it is not required. Everyone wants to do whatever they want to do and thinks everyone else must accept it. That causes other people to be uncomfortable. It is bad manners.
                 Now, that said, since this is a PUBLIC school we are talking about he/she must be allowed to stay. Anything in the public sector IS required to be accepting of just about everything and everyone. We all pay taxes, we are all included in the Declaration of Independence and The Bill Of Rights. We are not allowed to discriminate against anyone or anything that concerns the public sector. This presents a problem if you do not have the ability to accept people's differences. This teacher is not a murderer, he/she is not dangerous (unless you feel he/she IS dangerous to the kids mental state...but, do not get me started on mental and emotional distress...get over it, learn to deal with life without getting your panties all in a wad and claiming emotional distress just because something makes you
uncomfortable).
                  If you want to send your kids to a school where there are no transsexuals teaching, then send them to private school where they ARE allowed to discriminate against people they do not like. If you cannot afford private school or don't want to spend your cigarette money on your kids education, then it is YOUR responsibility to teach them about such things as transexualism. They are likely to run across it sometime in their lives. You have to teach your kids about your values (even if they are ignorant values and include reasons why transsexuals are "bad") and at the same time about the country we live in where differences are tolerated. You might want to remind them that one day maybe someone won't like what THEY are doing and will try to discriminate against them and they will be glad that they are protected by the Constitution. Duh, I think I learned that in my 3rd grade Civics class. Of course most people are morons and are incapable of doing that, they are only capable of running around with a picket sign and acting belligerent. Interesting that the kids were on the other side and wanted the teacher to stay. Maybe if they kick the teacher out, the kids will riot and shoot up the school ...;)

11/4/99I  got a reply on the transsexual teacher. Here it is:

            "I wholeheartedly agree with you that the proper course for this individual would have been to seek employment elsewhere and begin his/her life anew with his/her new body.  But, as we both know, people today are not that considerate, thoughtful, conscious, etc.  I disagree with you when you say that due to the fact that this individual worked in a public school, he/she should be protected from discrimination.  I believe this to be a misreading of the Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and its progeny. The Equal Protection Clause protects certain classes of people from discrimination by the government under certain circumstances, depending upon the state interest that the law or regulation seeks to protect. There are different forms of  review to determine if the state has improperly violated the protection.  In order for the blanket protection that you assert to apply, the issue of the individuals transgender status would have to be determined to be fundamental and the Court would apply the strict scrutiny test.  However, transgender is not an immutable trait such as race, national origin, gender, etc., which are given such protection.  Therefore, I believe the state, assuming that
they can show a legitimate interest or concern in having such people in schools, can dismiss them.  I do not pretend to know if such a threat of harm or a concern exists, rather that if one does, then the state, constitutionally can terminate the employment."

           See, this scares me. Who exactly is *the state*? Why do they get to decide if this person is dangerous? It is ludicrous to think that this person is a danger. He/she is a freak of nature but so is a siamese twin or a person born with 6 fingers. We would not be able to discriminate against a siamese twin or a person with 6 fingers. We do not discriminate because people are not *normal* unless they are dangerous. If you have a moral issue with this person, that is your right (or your problem as many people would argue). As you know, with rights come responsibilities. You have the responsibility to teach your children your values (no matter how warped and wrong anyone else thinks they are). You do not have the right to remove people from the public sector because you do not like the way they live their life.

         "That is my reading of the current state of the law.  I want to commend you for actually having read the constitution, a feat that seems less and less accomplished today.  It seems that in modern America, the constitution gives everyone the right to do everything and guarantees them protection from everything (including themselves)."

           The constitution was written vaguely on purpose to compensate for changes in the culture. We have a lot more rights than we ever used to but many people refuse to take responsibility for themselves or their children. You must be tolerant of others, which is NOT to say that you have to embrace them or like them or accept them or their lifestyle. This  is one of the challenges of life. It is a fine line but intelligent people can deal with it. The ignorant must not be allowed to rule and be allowed to pass all sorts of laws restricting what the intelligent can do.

11/11/99 I misinterpreted this person's point a little bit, so he emailed me again clarifying:

              "I wanted to clarify what I had stated yesterday regarding the constitutional ability of the state to hire or fire people who are employed in the public sector.  First, the US Supreme Court has specifically held that an individual does not have a constitutional right to a government job (to me that's axiomatic but the late Justice Marshall and I hardly agreed).  Secondly, what I meant by the "state" was the governmental body, be it federal or an actual state.  Finally, I believe that in order for the governmental body to terminate him/her they would first have to show that he/she violated some rule, law, or policy or that there is some danger.  It is the amount of danger that
would be important.  I don't believe that simply saying "we don't like him/her" or "that type of lifestyle is detrimental to children" would work.  They need to show that the detriment actually exists.  Then this person would be entitled to some sort of Due Process hearing.
          I emphatically do not think that the government should have any ability to tell anybody how to live their lives and nor should we expect the government to do so.  It is up to the citizens of a democracy (or republic if you like) to make it work and to keep it healthy.  When citizens start claiming that teachers and schools should instill values and morals in their children or that the police should so something to control their children's behavior, there is a serious problem.

ok....:)
 

Hate Crimes
11/4/99 OK, here is something new that I am sure I will get a lot of mail about. Aaron McKinney was sentenced to two life terms in prison for the killing of "gay college student Matthew Shepard". He got one life sentence for kidnapping and one for the actual murder. From the  reports I have read, there was no *hate crime* criteria used for this case. Maybe someone who knows the details could email me with them or with a link to them. Anyway, this case (whether or not it actually used *hate crime* as a criteria) brings this whole issue of *hate crime* to my mind. This inbred freak (McKinney) got what he deserved. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.
             However, I am opposed to using the criteria of *hate crime*. To punish someone more severely because of what he was thinking when he did the crime is not a hate crime, it is a thought crime. We do not punish thought crimes in this country. Of COURSE what he did was horrible. It is also horrible for someone to kill someone else during a car jacking or a robbery or because they made a pass at your girlfriend or slept with your wife or didn't return your phone calls or belong to a rival gang. It is dangerous to start punishing people for the reasons behind why they killed. I understand that there are different degrees of murder, manslaughter etc. based on premeditation or  "accident" and that someone can be ruled innocent by reason of insanity.  These criteria are different from a hate crime criteria  because they deal with a persons EMOTIONS at the time, not with their OPINIONS and THOUGHTS. If this was a premeditated crime, it should be treated as such without the added criteria of punishing him for his opinions or hatred. It is NOT a crime to hate someone, contrary to current public opinion. It is, of course, illegal and immoral to kill someone (except in self defense, don't email me pointing out this fact, please).
              I do not know who is behind all this hate crime stuff and why the media insists on making a big giant deal over Matthew Shepard's sexual preference. All I know is that if I was killed by a stalker or a rapist it would be as big a loss to my friends and family as it would be if my gay brother was killed by a gay hater. We need to punish ALL CRIMES. If you think you are deterring *hate crimes* by making the punishments stiffer than for normal crimes, you better think again. First of all no one thinks about the consequences and no one thinks they are going to get caught when they do a crime. Secondly, it is unfair for those who are murdered in non hate crimes that their killers get off with less of a punishment. It diminishes the horribleness of their deaths. It makes it less bad to kill someone for fun or for their car than it does because you hate their lifestyle. That is wrong. That is injustice.

11/11/99 "You hit the nail on the head with the hate crimes issue.  Hate crimes change the way murder is viewed from what the perpetrator did to who the victim was.  It is hard enough to determine if he had the requisite intent to commit murder and hold him responsible for that, much less determine how he felt about a certain aspect of his victim's life.  Not to mention the bigger problems associated with trying to clarify which crimes are classified as hate crimes.  When an idiot in LA guns up a Jewish daycare it's a hate crime.  When an idiot in TX guns up a youth
rally, it a tragic event and grounds for more guns laws (a/k/a government coercion and intervention).  This country does not need any more reasons to try and Balkanize ourselves by providing an opportunity to grandstand for certain victims of crime."

              Yea, I agree that ALREADY we are deciding that in similar crimes sometimes it is a hate crime and sometimes it is not as illustrated in his example of the shooting in CA vs the shooting in TX. These were almost the exact same situations yet one is all over the news as a hate crime (no one was even killed there by the way) and the other is practically non existent in the news (seven people were killed). I could not even find an archived story about the shooting in Texas, it was lumped in with a story about ALL the multiple shootings that took place in 1999. What makes one of these a hate crime and not another? I will tell you what, it is the opinions and attitudes of the shooter. Hate crimes are thought crimes. Of course, now everyone wants in on the thought crime gravy train.  We ALL want tougher sentences for criminals. Why do we have to invent a new kind of crime (and one that is dangerous to everyone's civil rights) to get these sentences?

             I also got some mail about other crimes (not murders) that are considered *hate crimes*:

             "You neglected to mention in your rant that the legal term "hate crime" does not apply strictly to murder. A hate crime is defined as ANY crime against somebody because of their race, religion, sexual preference, whatever. And it can make a big difference in incidents that, in another light, might be construed as harmless.
              For example:
- Spray-painting "HI THERE!" on a neighbor's house is mere vandalism, a misdemeanor.
- Spray-painting "YOU FUCKING JEW" on a neighbor's house is a hate crime, a felony.
              See the difference now? If somebody had painted the latter expression on your garage door (whether you're Jewish or not), your reaction would be QUITE different than it would if it had been the former expression, wouldn't it?
             And if the perpetrator was treated by the legal system as a mere vandal, not a "hate criminal"... well, wouldn't you be a bit angry about that?

          I do not agree. My REACTION does not much matter as far as the law goes.  And besides, I'd be a lot more peeved for example, if someone drew an elaborate and ugly mural all over my garage without my permission than if he wrote "you fucking jew" in one inch high letters on there. I would be extremely angry if a gang banger *tagger* wrote all over it with something that didn't even make sense. Does writing "you fucking nazi" qualify as a hate crime? How about "you fucking blonde"? or "you fucking chevrolet owner"? "you fucking child molester"? "you fucking fat cow"?...where does it end? Who gets to say where it ends? And if you want to start punishing crimes in terms of people's reactions to them, we are gonna have some seriously screwy laws out there. As you know, everyone's reactions to things are different. Vandalism is vandalism, no matter what was written. To decide that one is a hate crime and one is not is absurd. You CANNOT go around punishing people (more harshly) for their opinions, you can only punish them for their actions.  And, yea, a felony for graffiti, that makes a lot of sense.

1/27/00 I have not updated this page in awhile because I have not had anything to write about. I got this email several weeks ago and filed it away for when I next did an update. This is a rather old issue now, but it is still interesting. Of course I started out talking about hate crimes in reference to murder charges and people keep writing to me about graffiti. Whatever. Anyhow, here goes:

            "Hate crime legislation would not punish a perpetrator for his mindset ("thought-crime" was how you labeled it) anymore than any other criminal legislation.  The law defines a criminal act by two combined measures: the deed you do and what you intended while you were doing it.  It is this dual mechanism which enables the law to distinguish between criminal acts and accidents. "

            I believe the law punishes based on the circumstances, NOT what you were thinking. That is what the degrees of murder are all about. The degrees range from accidental to premeditated and are not about the murderer's ideas and opinions but about the way he did the crime. If it is an accident, it is a lesser crime, if he planned it out elaborately it is a higher crime. It does not matter what he was thinking about or why he did the premeditated murder, if he planned it out it is a higher crime (thetas where the intention comes in).  If there is kidnapping and/or sexual assault there are special circumstances, regardless of his mindset or *why* he did those things. Intention means intention to kill or rape or DO a particular action. It does NOT mean the reasons WHY he did it or what his ideas or opinions of the victim were.

             "Case in point.  I drive down the road at 30 mph, make a mistake, and run over the unctuous, condescending law student or lawyer who wrote you regarding the transsexual teacher.  It was dark and I didn't see him.  It was an accident.  If the law is working, then I will not go to jail unless I was extremely, inexcusably careless.
              Let me change the scenario. I am angry at the unctuous law student for the condescending tone he took towards those who haven't read the U.S. Constitution.  I drive around his neighborhood until I see him.  Then I purposefully run him over at 30 mph.  It was no accident.  I was illegally reducing the world's condescending portion of the population by one.  I go to jail.  There are several differences between the two situations.  One of the differences is mindset."

             Mindset may play a part in why you did something but does not matter in the eyes of the law in this case (and shouldn't in any case).  Of course the first scenario would be an accident. The second would be premeditated murder. This is obvious. Should the second one also be a *hate crime*? If so, then just about every crime would be a *hate crime* wouldn't it? What if the victim was also gay? How would the court prove that you did it because he was unctuous and not because he was gay? Do you deserve to go to jail for a longer time because he was also gay? Would it matter why you did it at that point?

            "Please consider the following situations: (1) a woman deliberately killing her husband during an argument by stabbing him; (2) a woman mistakenly killing her husband by drunkenly gesturing with a knife during an argument; (3) a woman carefully killing an abusive husband by stabbing him while he was eating; and (4) a woman killing her husband with a knife in self-defense during his beating her.  Some would say that the difference between the above are different actions.  However, the law would distinguish between the above partly by the mind-set behind it.  Was there malice aforethought?  Was it planned long in advance?  Was it the result of a passionate flux?"

           She would still be judged on her actions. She would be charged on whether it was premeditated but not on the reasons she did it. The malice and the planning would be used to prove she premeditated (which is a higher crime than an accident or unplanned killing) it but not to prove anything else about her ideas or opinions.

            "The law is not merely meant to prevent criminals from doing crimes.  Some would that the law's effect on criminals is tertiary.  The law is meant to reassure us law abiders.  Hence the ring to the phrase "justice was served."  The law is supposed to enable good people who are tempted to stray to the antisocial to find a reason to avoid it.  Since most of us are good, most of us will use the crutch of the law to steer clear of the wrong thing as we, The People (eat your heart out, Unctuous Law Student Guy), define it."

         I am not even going to get into those ideas. I'll save it for another day. Anyone who would like to venture an opinion on why laws exist please email me and I will write a separate rant about that.

        "In order to reassure us, we must believe that the law punishes crime in proportion to the harm it causes its victims.  As a result, how the law thinks you (as the butt end of a crime) would react is very important.  The gentleman with the graffiti example makes an excellent point.  You may believe there's no difference between "Hi There" and "You Fucking Jew." But if you weren't Jewish, then the harm inflicted would be far less and there would be no difference.  So you don't need extra protection under the law. "

        He is talking about the law like it is someone's daddy, there to comfort us lowly and insecure citizens. Crimes should NOT be punished according to how the victim reacts. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Everyone reacts differently to every circumstance. I do not believe in the idea of some people needing/getting "extra protection under the law". That is a totally unfair concept and totally un-American. EVERYONE deserves to be protected from criminals and all victims deserve to have their perpetrators equally punished.

         "I am black.  I can tell you now that to me there would be a massive difference between "Hi There" painted on my car and "You Fucking Nigger" painted on my car.  First, I would be the victim of graffiti just like you.  Like you I would have to pay to have it removed.  I'd have to miss work to take the car in.  Like you, I'd be annoyed, feel singled out, and I'd be pissed off.  Unlike you, the act would also be deeply personal and hurtful.  In addition to feeling singled out in the neighborhood as a car owner, I'd also feel singled out as a black person. "

       People are assholes, they are mean and ignorant. Your reaction is YOURS to deal with. It is part of living your life. Things are not easy. Everyone has unpleasant episodes to deal with.   Either ignore it (I'm talking about the grafitti thing now) -remember "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?"- or go and confront the person, or try to become friends with the person so that his idiotic ideas about black people might change. There are a million better ways to deal with a situation like this (including a civil law suit where you probably get enough money to fix the damage and for your *pain and suffering*) than by calling daddy law out to deal with it. The law is not here to comfort those who have their feelings hurt.

        "The difference between phrases would be very real to me.  Because the crime happened to me and not to you, because there is a difference between me and you, because both the crime's nature the mindset behind it are different, the crime becomes different too."

        Last time I checked, the law was supposed to apply the same to everyone. Of course this doesn't always happen (OJ Simpson) but we should be working in the direction of making the law apply the same to everyone instead of away from it with these idiotic hate crime laws. We are all frustrated with the way that criminals seem to get away with murder but we should be striving to punish all crimes more harshly instead of squabbling over why one instance of a crime is worse than another instance of the same crime.

           "In my righteous days, I would have demanded that the difference be real to you as well.  Now, I am far more sophisticated.  Now I ask only that you think about it and try hard to see things from the victim's viewpoint.  Because believe it or not, Matt Shepard's death really was more tragic than if someone had killed him merely for his wallet.  There really are gradations of tragedy.  I imagine his parents (the other victims of the criminal's self-negating, homophobic act) feel that this gradation looms large.  Do you really think that his parents would feel the exact same grief if he'd been robbed for his wallet and the robbery went horribly wrong?  Should we dismiss this difference as emotionalism or should we act to mete out a harsher punishment in response?"

       I do think that Matthew Shepard's  parents would feel the same grief no matter how he was killed. In fact just to check my above premise, I asked my parents who have a daughter who is exposed everyday on the internet to strangers,  a gay son, a son who works late hours and drives home on the freeway and a son who drives a fancy car how they would feel in similar situations. Would they feel worse if I was killed by a crazed stalker, my gay brother was killed in a *hate crime* because he was gay, my other brother was killed by a drunk driver late at night or my other brother was killed in a car jacking gone wrong. Of course, like any normal parents they would be equally grief stricken in all those scenarios. I think most people would feel the same sadness and frustration at having their child murdered. The parents of ALL murder victims deserve harsh punishments for the killers.
       It is unfair to everyone (not just the criminal who most people have no concern with anyhow, but to the victims of similar crimes) for the same crime to be punished differently based solely on who the victim was or how he and his relatives *felt* about the crime.

           "Whether the hate crimes should be punishable by a harsher sentence, I do not know.  But I do know that hate crimes are different from the base crimes they shallowly resemble.  Please consider this .  .  .  ."

           I HAVE considered this. I have also considered the many groups who feel entitled to special privileges and special protections. I remain convinced that this is totally unfair.  The law should apply the same to everyone. Black people, gay people, women should NOT be entitled to special protections under the law. The same crimes if done to different people should be punished in the same way. I do not understand how people can stand up and say we should all be treated equally and then demand special privileges and special protections. This kind of thinking does not make any logical sense. It causes more divisiveness and makes people resentful. We all deserve to be protected from crime and to have criminals punished. One murder is not worse than another murder because of why the killer did it.  Ask anyone who has lost a child in this way.

2/17/00 The person will not let up. He sent me another note about this subject. For someone who isn't trying to get me to agree with him, he sure has sent me a lot of email trying to get me to agree with him.

            "I've read your responses to my responses on the Shepard case (this sentence certainly needs work).  There is one thing that I need to point out: criminal law is about punishing mindset.  The proof can be found in any legal dictionary or criminal law hornbook.  A "crime" is made up of the following interlocking elements: (1) the physical act of the perpetrator (the "actus reus," aka the deed), the mental state of the perpetrator (the "mens rea," aka the intention), and the concurrence of both the act and the mental state (aka the crime).  The ink may still be wet on my law degree (my admission to ignorance), but what I'm regurgitating is criminal law 101!      :)
           Crimes are even differentiated based on the intent of the perpetrator (e.g., the difference between common law murder and voluntary manslaughter).  The level of culpability also hinges on the intent of the perpetrator (e.g., not guilty by reason of insanity).  Of course, you don't have to take my word for it .  .  .  any legal text you lay hands on will give you the same answer. "

         I understand these elements. However, "mindset" and "intention" refer to the mindset of the perpetrator as far as if he is "insane" or not or in control of his actions (drunk or on drugs or not) or not and things like that.  Intent refers to what he intends to do, NOT WHY he intends to do it. If someone intends to kill you while robbing you, the punishment is greater than if he is just arguing with you and accidentally kills you. Intent has nothing to do with WHY a criminal commits a crime, only on WHAT CRIME he has set out  to commit. Nowhere in the quote above does it say a crime has anything to do with the opinions of the perpetrator or why he chooses to commit the crime against any particular victim.

I also got a very well written email from someone else. This person stated my case better than I did. No fair!...:)

          " I just have to pitch my two cents in on this hate crimes issue. I agree with you completely. The person stating that crimes motivated by racism or homophobia are worse than others because of the fact that the victim feels worse about them is looking at the issue in the same way that all people who willingly live their lives as victims look at the issue. If the problem with "hate crimes" is that the perpetrator commits them because of who or what
the victim is, then there should be more protected categories.
         For example, I'm a fairly skinny guy. Does that mean that if someone calls me a "pussy" before beating me up, he has committed a hate crime rather than a simple assault? After all, I can't help it if I'm a "pussy", and I do have the right to be a "pussy". Or if a militant straight-edge punk jumps me for smoking a cigarette, is that a hate crime?
         If the people who make and advocate these hate crimes laws were at all interested in consistency, they would realize that every crime has to do with what the victim is. If I car jack someone it's because they are the driver of the car I want. If a man kills his wife it's because she's a person prone to upset him. The fact that he was prejudiced against her is a given. Every murderer is prejudiced against the people he/she kills, otherwise, they would kill indisriminantly.
      Even the killings we call indescriminate are not completely indescriminate. The kids who shot up their high schools passed some people on their way to the school without shooting. Were those "hate crimes" because they picked out people at their school instead of just shooting up the first crowd they
came across?
      The fact is, the groups protected by hate crimes laws are groups with powerful and vocal lobbies. Lawmakers need a way to placate these lobbies so they can deliver votes on election day. Hate crime legislation is a good way for a congressman or president to say "look at how much I care about you! I made sure that if a crime is committed against one of your group, the perpetrators are punished worse."
     The real tragedy of the whole thing is not that violent criminals are going to jail longer, but that SOME violent criminals are going to jail longer. If the sentences are too short for someone who kills a gay jew because he's a gay jew, then the sentences are also too short for someone who kills a stupid hillbilly because he's a stupid hillbilly. The net effect of extra protection for one group and not the other is to say that it's somehow worse to deprive the
world of a gay jew than a stupid hillbilly. Granted, some may believe the stupid hillbilly to be a more tolerable loss, but the law, to be effective,
must remain neutral.
     People decry the inequalities in sentences when a black man kills a white man vs. when a black man kills a black man (and rightly so), but the idea of extra punishment for a "hate crime" operates on the same logic. But then nobody ever did accuse the American public of being
difficult to manipulate or even particularly bright."

3/17/00  Ok, no more mail on hate crimes. I am sick of it. It is getting almost as bad as the thread on organ selling. This is the last thing I will publish on this issue:

              "I didn't think this discussion would last as long as it did, but I feel compelled to add a couple of words, since it's still a fairly hot issue on your Rant page, and since I was the one to write in with that "graffiti" scenario in the first place. I think the point that I was trying to raise was missed, and later ignored by some of the other people writing in.
              First of all, I am NOT a proponent of the hate crime label. I was just playing devil's advocate and trying to explain why some lawmakers feel the need for the label. Though I still contend that my putting this issue in the light of a crime not as clear-cut as murder was significant. You claimed that you would rather have "you fucking Jew" written in inch-high letters on your house than some tagger's random mural. Well, why not take that example to the extreme and say that most anybody would rather receive a diamond bracelet that said "you fucking Jew" than find the words "I LOVEYOU" smeared across their garage door in dog shit? Such examples skirt the issue. The way I see it, if somebody had "hi there" written in one-foot-high letters on their door, while their neighbor had "you fucking Jew" written in one-foot-high letters on THEIR door, it's hard to imagine anybody not seeing an obvious difference in the effect (both intended and perceived) of each act. Again, I'm not saying it's legally justified to delineate. I'm just saying how and why, with the hate crime label now a part of our legal system, such a discrepency would be made.
               The person who claimed that the hate crime moniker existed primarily so that lawmakers and politicians could placate special interest lobbies is off base. I seriously doubt any American politician is that concerned about placating the homosexual "lobby" (whatever that is) and getting their vote.
               It's also insulting to compare skinny guys or smokers (or blondes or Chevrolet owners, to quote your original example) with the REAL common targets of hate-related crimes: immigrants, blacks, Jews and homosexuals, who have all suffered from centuries of widespread abuse because of who they were by birth. I think the message behind the hate crime label is to inform the public that the law really DOES give a shit if you kill a homosexual out of hatred. Frankly, much of this country (you and I are a bit spoiled, both living in liberal LA) still doesn't understand that the
life of a black person or a gay or a Jew is as precious as the life of a white heterosexual Christian. There are many Americans who clearly and fondly recall the time when homosexuals "deserved" to die and blacks sat in the back of the bus and kept their mouths shut, lest they get beaten.
              That's what I'm getting at. I don't think lawmakers really care as much about teaching the perpetrators a lesson as they do in making an example out of those perpetrators, presumably to force our society into tolerance by using the stick instead of the carrot. Whether that's a reasonable, ethical, or even effective idea is another conversation.

         I am afraid of what you are saying when you say anyone would rather have *you fucking jew* on a diamond bracelet than have it written on their garage door. I would think anyone who gave me such a gift was mentally ill and would probably get a restraining order against them. Any Jewish person who would like such a gift (or not mind it as much as grafitti) is either a gold digger (is that what you meant!?) or an idiot. It would be a huge malicious premediated insult to give someone something like that. Grafitti is just grafitti and is usually perpetrated by vandals who are trying to get a rise out of someone.
        Just because someone has not *suffered centuries of widespread abuse* makes it ok to hate them and grafitti their garage with obscenities or mean comments? Where is the logic in that? I am totally opposed to giving special privelges to certain groups and making laws aimed at protecting certain groups. It is totally unfair. If someone can tell me why it is fair to protect certain groups and not others, I would love to hear it.
        Once again this person gave me his opinion without any reasons for it, except some vague centuries of suffering crap. I'm getting tired of this. From now on I am not publishing anything that doesnt make sense (It doesnt matter if i agree with it or not),  I won't publish things that do not give actual concrete REASONS or rebuttals to MY reasoning. Go ahead and find flaws in my facts or logic but stop sending me crap about your feelings and the feelings of those poor oppressed ethnic groups.

3/18/00 This page was posted for about a half a day before the mail started coming in. The person who keeps sending me the stuff about grafitti will just NOT let up. Now he claims that he doesn't agree with the enforcement of hate crimes anyhow. He also accused me of not letting any other points of view be heard. This is absurd considering I post everything I get on these issues and have posted 3 or 4 of HIS letters. His email is treading very close to belonging on the email from stupid idots page elsewhere on this site, but since it is on this topic I will continue to discuss it here. First of all he sent me an email saying this:

            "So much for trying to have an intelligent discussion."

 I was having an intelligent discussion. Sending me something like that is NOT having an intelligent discussion but is attacking me and saying NOTHING. So I replied saying this:

             "must you always be so bitchy when I dont agree with you? You said yourself you dont agree with hate crimes yet you continually try to argue for them...I made my point about the whole thing months ago and you keep sending me mail, sheesh what do you expect?"

The *bitchy* comment was in reference to him calling ME bitchy at one point in a different and unrelated email awhile back. He sent the following (notice that he is now attacking me and NOT having the *intelligent discussion* he claimed to want so much):

        "I was under the mistaken notion that you allow for other opinions and clearly you do not. Now I know what to expect and I will say no more."

Can you say passive aggressive? STILL not engaging in any *intelligent discussion*. I sent this:

        "Of course I allow other opinions...I posted every single of your emails to me! I post everything that everyone sends me. YOU are the one who cant stand another opinion. Altho, evidently you dont seem to even know where you stand on this one, since you claimed to not agree with hate crime laws, then went on to defend them and are now attacking me over my opinions! I will never think that it is fair to punish  people differently based on their opinions of the victim. I challenged people to explain to me WHY it IS fair in a logical manner and no one was able to give me anything besides reasons like "we need to protect people who have been opressed"...this is illogical to me...we need to protect EVERYONE. Why is it ok to only protect certain groups and not others? I do not understand this mentality and no one (not even you) has been able to explain it to me."

That was concise, logical and to the point. I expected a reply that was equally logical, concise and to the point that argued against my opinion, told me why my opinion was wrong and explained why we SHOULD protect some groups more than others. I asked a question and I expected an answer from someone who was so passionate about this issue. I did not think I was asking for too much. I got this instead:

             "For starters, I'm very clear on my stance on hate crimes. I don't believe in enforcing the term as a legal difference in a crime, but I can understand where the rationale behind them comes from. I'm not a Republican or a Christian or a Communist either, but I can understand their rationale(s). As I mentioned, I was only trying to play devil's advocate and show an example of why they exist in the first place. I felt the point I was trying to make was misread. And then when I tried to clear it up, I feel your reply placed my statements wildly out of context. I'll quote:
             I said: "You claimed that you would rather have "you fucking Jew" written in inch-high letters on your house than some tagger's random mural. Well, why not take that example to the extreme and say that most anybody would rather receive a diamond bracelet that said "you fucking Jew" than find the words "I LOVEYOU" smeared across their garage door in dog shit? Such examples skirt the issue."
             You replied: "I am afraid of what you are saying when you say anyone would rather have *you fucking jew* on a diamond bracelet than have it written on theirgarage door. I would think anyone who gave me such a gift was mentally ill and would probably get a restraining order against them. Any Jewish person who would like such a gift (or not mind it as much as grafitti) is either a gold digger (is that what you meant!?) or an idiot."
            First of all, re-read my quote. I did NOT have "you fucking Jew" on a garage door. I had "I LOVE YOU." You twisted my words around unfairly. Second - you actually took that statement SERIOUSLY? I was making a ridiculously extreme example! I was mocking your original statement, where you yourself said you'd rather have "you fucking Jew" painted in inch-high letters on your garage than a huge spray of nondescript graffiti. I had felt you were avoiding the issue by putting it in such a silly, obvious light and I was using exaggeration to make my point. I'm amazed that you
thought I was actually CONDONING what I said, because that's antithetical to the whole reason why I said it.
            As for whether I meant that Jews are gold diggers... That's crazy. You said: "Just because someone has not *suffered centuries of widespread abuse* makes it ok to hate them and grafitti their garage with obscenities or mean comments?"
           Of course not. Did I say it's okay to make hurtful comments to anybody? Anywhere? In any of my comments? Anything even close? Hmmm... NOPE! The theoretical graffiti in my example was either "hi there" or "I LOVE YOU" - neither of which could be construed as an "obscenity" or a "mean comment" except by the deranged.

           Why would someone who didn't believe in enforcing laws about hate crimes go to ALL THIS TROUBLE trying to convince me that they SHOULD be enforced? He claims he was trying to show me why other people think they should be enforced. I ALREADY know why other people think they should be enforced and stated those reasons in my first set of comments on this issue. I also stated why I think those people are wrong. I do not need to be *taught* about why people think there should be hate crime laws. I am not STUPID and neither is anyone who reads this page. The things he is saying don't even make any sense. They barely refer to his original points and do not refer AT ALL to MY original point. I will once again and once and for all repeat my opinion on this issue:

I do not think that people should be punished more harshly for killing, hurting, abusing etc. a person of a particular group (black, gay, jewish, or anything else). I think all criminals should be punished equally for equivalent crimes. I think that punishments should be a lot more harsh for ALL criminals. I do not think that certain groups should be protected more than other groups. This difference in punishment and protection is UNFAIR. We ALL deserve to have criminals punished harshly and we ALL deserve equal protection from crime. Equal treatment under the law is at the crux of our society.

This is a simple statement, 7 lines long. I stated my opinion and why I hold that opinion. Once again, if you disagree send me an email. Send me an email that is no more than 7 lines long and states exactly WHY you disagree. I need REASONS. I will NOT publish any more vague, roundabout, emotional, meaninless garbage like the stuff I have been getting. If you feel strongly on this issue I assume you have a reason for those feelings and I really would like to hear it.