Sunday, May 20, 2007
The End of Objective Law
In a recent post on hate crime legislation, I noted George Will’s take on this foolishness.
Today, Edward Cline, writing at The Rule of Reason, also notes George Will’s commentary on the subject, and states the following, which correctly identifies exactly why hate crime legislation is not sound.
The first and most crucial thing to grasp about what can be deemed a “hate crime” is that it is, essentially, a political crime. If this country were still ruled by objective law; if Congress fulfilled its proper role as a protector of individual rights; and if the Supreme Court acted to uphold the legitimate individual rights-based philosophy of the Constitution; then pressure and special interest groups would have no chance of having laws enacted that favored them at the expense of others. In short, they would have no political power to instigate the passage of fiat legislation.
The piece is titled The Genesis of Thought Crime.
Atheism, or at least various atheists writing about atheism, has been receiving a fair amount of press, lately. Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris have all contributed to this current pandemonium over a subject many religious individuals find offensive, or at least too heathenish a subject to discuss or even consider.
How will atheism be used in the future, at least in regards to the political playing field? The Raving Atheist makes this prediction.
The “using” will become more apparent as the movement fragments. Although at present atheists are largely left-of-center, they will eventually come to inhabit all niches of the political spectrum. The competition among factions will lead to heated debates over the true implications and imperatives of godlessness—and suspicions will arise on all sides that some of those marching under the banner of an unsupervised temporal existence with no afterlife are actually pursuing some more nefarious agenda.
Above taken from a post titled Using It.
The Etymology of “White Trash”
Derogatory names for various classes of individuals abound, though some of them we cannot utter, today, with the impunity once granted their use. You know the ones we can’t use, uttered by such individuals as Don Imus describing Rutgers women’s basketball team, or Ann Coulter talking about John Edwards, supposedly no one can utter the perjorative “nigga,” unless you’re a hip hopper or rapper that is, or Al Sharpton, oops scratch Sharpton, he can still use derogatory names with impunity for some reason.
The term “white trash” can still be used today, though, with nary a lifted eyebrow. Where did this term arise, and when. It may surprise you.