Rant to wrap up October | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Political Rant

Rant to wrap up October

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Comment

By NapaValleyRegister.com politicos

Today's Political Rant

November 7th, 2009

Let's give 'em something to rant about

November 1st, 2009

Kicking off November with new rants

October 26th, 2009

Rant to wrap up October

October 24th, 2009

A weekend to rant about

October 19th, 2009

Here we go a-ranting all week

What politically-themed issue makes you want to scream?

Let everyone know your thoughts by venting here in NapaValleyRegister.com’s weekly Political Rant.

If you have a non-political rant, take that over to the weekly Random Thoughts blog.

Remember, comments have to follow the comment guidelines.

66 comment(s)

antipc wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:32 PM:

" Curious how little the much maligned, "for profit" insurance companies actually make.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?st=insurance%20company%20profits&

My wife & I pay less than 9% of gross income per year for health insurance (PPO), but pay over 37% in taxes to the Feds alone. For re-distribution government makes insurance companies look like pikers.

Oh yeah, if you want a small sample of what government run health care will be like, just look at the H1N1 vaccine shortage. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 26, 2009 11:37 PM:

" antipc
37% to the Feds! Congratulations on a successful life! 9% of that income is quite a bit...

Have you noticed the plethora of health insurance commercials on T.V. the last few weeks? It's amazing. "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:56 AM:

" average costs of family health insurance is about 13K a year so if that is 9 percent of your gross income...seem to doing quite nicely than, well above the median income which was about 50k in 2007....

interesting how you paid 37 percent to the feds though, considering the highest tax bracket is 35 percent for those couples filing jointly making more than 372K...how did you arrive at that figure? You including the Soc Security and medicare in that figure? "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:14 AM:

" It should get to be more fun when they start bailing out\buying newspapers. then they direct their own propaganda! "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:17 AM:

" Obama says we must have his version of healthcare NOW!

Obama and the Democrats demanded bailouts and stimulus packages and they had to happen IMMEDIATELY! Of course, jobs are being lost at an alarming rate because the stimulus does not create jobs even if it was spent. Which it hasn't, it is being saved for pork projects to benefit the Democrats just before November 2010.

Our military asked for more troops for Afghanistan. Obama dithers. The Democrats blather. Obama can't afford to upset his party right now so he sits there and does NOTHING, even though this should be his #1 priority. He claimed during the campaign that he would not risk the lives of the troops unnecessarily. He lied. He can't even define what the endgame is.

Obama is risking the lives of our troops for Democrat political purposes. His despicable lack of leadership is appalling. It's time to start Obama impeachment procedures NOW. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:02 AM:

" Breaking news:

Hezbullah is firing rocket into N. Israel again.

Let us just see what Barry will do? "

cab e-girl wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:04 PM:

" FP, same thing he is doing in Afganistan, “dithering.” "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:32 PM:

" more important is what Israel will do. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:43 PM:

" FP and Cab
Let's see what Israel will do! "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:12 PM:

" Sure didn't take long for "dithering" to become the new favorite word. I never heard anyone use that word on here before Cheney used it in one of the most over the top hypocritical statements ever made. Embarrasing. "

napathinker wrote on Oct 27, 2009 5:34 PM:

" Hope the Israiles do what they did to Iraq's almost completed nuclear plant years ago. Lord knows none of our own leaders have the guts to put all these terrorists in their place anymore. It's like Vietnam all over again. Everyone wants results, no one wants to take responsibility and the result is more American's killed for no reason. Harry Truman, where are you buddy..From a Liberal Democrat. "

kevin wrote on Oct 27, 2009 5:41 PM:

" dith·er (dĭth'ər)
n. A state of indecisive agitation.
intr.v. dith·ered, dith·er·ing, dith·ers
To be nervously irresolute in acting or doing.

If the shoe fits... "

kevin wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:09 PM:

" This old Kenya newspaper headline should get all the "birthers" revved up again despite recent court setbacks:

"Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate"

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:40 PM:

" Bush and Cheney ignored troop requests over the final 8 months of their term. So what is the word for "dithering" multipled by 8?

I do look forward to the next exciting new word that a talking head delivers to you to deliver to the rest of us however. "

antipc wrote on Oct 27, 2009 7:47 PM:

" I appreciate the fact that BHO can dither. He just doesn't know when & where to apply that skill.

American soldiers in jeopardy; act swiftly.

Turning our whole health care system upside down; dither.

I guess that would be too much to expect from a community organizer. "

kevin wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:21 PM:

" President Bush decisively appointed a new commander to the Iraq war (General Petreaous). When that General recommended a large troop surge, President Bush (against the wishes of Democrats) persevered and went ahead with the Generals recommendation. As history has shown, the surge was a success... "

kevin wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:10 PM:

" Worsening job picture fuels slide in confidence

Consumer confidence slides in October as more Americans worry about jobs and salaries

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Worsening-job-picture-fuels-apf-3163576114.html?x=0

How's that Hope and Change working out for you? "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:08 PM:

" an article from 2004?..too far back....the forget the GOP controlled congress and the white house for the first 6 years of the century...(of course there is the irony of touting a Kenyan newspaper as a reliable source and dismissing papers like the NYT and Wash post as unreliable) "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:58 PM:

" Well Kevin I guess it's unfortunate that Bush had no spine left for Afghanistan. "

russ wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:07 AM:

" October deadliest month for US in Afghan war" Associated Press, 10/27/2009

Obama dithers and plays golf while Americans die and the commanding general asks for more help.

When will Obama become president? When will the buck stop in his oval office? "

Little Lord Fauntleroy wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:57 AM:

" I gave up on humanity in my 20's. Doesn't matter what the few of us do to conserve, revere, or protect, the rest will eventually, devour, despise, and destroy. That's why I've decided to live the rest of my life as an evil person. I no longer think, I plot. I no longer negotiate, I connive. I no longer console, I mock. I am human, hear me fart. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 7:03 AM:

" See why ABC fired John Stossel:

ABC's John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 29, 2009 8:15 AM:

" Clunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car
From: CNN Money

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:38 AM:

" LLF -- You provided me with the requisite chuckle to start my day! "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:41 AM:

" Geithner said the recession is almost over (this administration has given us the "mission accomplished" line how many times?). The reason for the swift recovery is the stimulus money, which has not created very many jobs.

As of Oct. 26:
http://projects.propublica.org/tables/stimulus-spending-progress
it appears $120B has been spent.

So, we can look forward to the Democrats canceling the balance that isn't needed now, right? No, it's going to be spent on huge pork projects just in time to make a phony economic bubble just before the 2010 elections.

"Change we need" evidently translates into "business as usual" for the Obama administration.

Now Pelosi says the House healthcare bill will cost $895B and will trim the deficit by $30B. That's a nice trick. I'd like someone to explain how that happens so I can do it with my own budget. I'd like to borrow $895 but somehow owe $30 less than I do now.

The fact is there's no explanation for how we can spend money we don't have and owe less in the end. Once again, Pelosi just hands out the rhetoric and no matter how ludicrous the claim we are expected to believe it or else we are accused of all sorts of evil thoughts and deeds.

Finally, the Cash for Clunkers fiasco is revealed to have cost the taxpayers $24,000 for every car sold - despite the fact that those cars would have been sold eventually anyway, without the government spending.

Still no decision from Obama about Afghanistan. He says he won't make a quick decision when our troops lives are at stake. He evidently doesn't realize that our troops who are there have their lives at stake. But politics must be served first. It's business as usual. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:43 AM:

" In pondering Obama’s signing in of the new hate crimes bill, I’ve concluded most Republicans will do whatever it takes to protect the right to commit a hate crime against homosexuals, even including denying necessary funding for defense.

Including the hate crimes bill in the defense spending bill “angered Republicans, most of whom voted against the defense bill” because of the hate crimes bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804909.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Hurt our military in order to protect those who commit hate crimes. Nothing like supporting the troops.

I can understand being annoyed that one bill is attached to another – I always found that system a bit strange. But Republicans use it as well as Democrats to get their controversial bills passed. And the more I thought about it, the more I saw it as appropriate that this bill was attached to defense spending. After all, isn’t our military (as we hear over and over again) fighting to protect our freedoms and our Constitutional Rights? So this rider, which makes it a crime to victimize people based on their sexual orientation, helps to ensure the Constitutional freedoms to which all citizens are entitled, and which our military was established to protect.
Here’s what I really don’t understand though. This, reported in Washington Post:

“They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33520935/ns/politics-white_house/)

Huh? This would keep clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality from advocating crimes against homosexuals on religious or philosophical grounds, or what? Can we say, S-t—r---e---t-c-h? "

napathinker wrote on Oct 29, 2009 2:10 PM:

" There was no need to add special legislation to protect special interests from crimes. We already have laws to protect ALL humans from crimes committed against them. If you get convicted of assault, rape, murder, or any other crime, you already get punished. Why do we need another law for what we already have? Why should the punishment of a murder against one human be different for another? It's still murder, it's still rape, it's still assault. That's why they have catagories of crimes, we already have the laws in place. To hold DEFENSE SPENDING and OUR SOLDIERS IN NEED OF EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORT hostage for a special interest is UN AMERICAN and just plain MORALLY WRONG "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 29, 2009 2:28 PM:

" As usual there are those who like to S-t-r-e-t-c-h the truth. This has nothing to do with supporting the troops, which Mr. Obama doesn't seem to care about anyway.

The military was not established to ensure Constitutional freedoms, of which we have fewer and fewer these days. It's a strange argument to make - do you really want the Army taking over when our freedoms are lost? That's what they do in banana republics, except the outcome is usually not what anyone thought it would be.

I am opposed to anyone attacking someone else for ANY reason. These attackers should be dealt with swiftly and harshly IMHO. Aren't there already plenty of laws on the books to deal with that? What is the real purpose to continually add more laws that are essentially the same laws that we already have? Specifically, can you tell me which offenders would be unpunished without this particular law?

Do not even think about posting that I am somehow homophobic - that would be another enormous s-t-r-e-t-c-h of your imagination, not to mention quite untrue. I know the tactical response of the left is to immediately annihilate the character of anyone who disagrees with them but the debate would be better if arguments could be kept to the merits of the law. To be on the safe side I'm going to put on my hazmat gear, just in case. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:43 PM:

" Oh PPF you always entertain me. You take a cheap shot then immediately say the debate would be better if we just stuck to the merits of the law. "

cab e-girl wrote on Oct 29, 2009 4:05 PM:

" Wow Freeport, John Stossel reported exactly what I have heard from Canadians and Brits about their healthcare. I have spoken with about 10 Canadians in the last 4 months who have all said, you will wait 6-18 months for treatment. Not so bad if you need knee replacement surgery but what if you need by-pass surgery, what if you have cancer and need treatment immediately? Canadians also claim that their country is going broke because of healthcare and 2 of the 10 have come to the US for treatment because they had the means to do so. I know those supporting Obama/Pelosi/Reid care claim that the treatment received in Canada is free and as good as ours. Perhaps they could name a source for their information because I don't know where they are getting theirs. "

cab e-girl wrote on Oct 29, 2009 4:16 PM:

" Alucawanza, I must say I was impressed with the way Obama handled the pirates last summer. His actions were quick and decisive and I believe it stopped future incidents. Not so in Afghanistan. Very disappointing, since Obama claimed it was a "War of necessity."

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14652443 "

post-it wrote on Oct 29, 2009 5:41 PM:

" Maybe if our past administration had spent a bit more time dithering whether to invade Iraq, the military would have had the resources to fight the war the administration started in Afghanistan. Maybe then that would have made Obama's dithering about Afghanistan unnecessary. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 6:16 PM:

" "I know the tactical response of the left is to immediately annihilate the character of anyone who disagrees with them"

Hmmmm....That directly following "don't you even dare call me homophobic...."

Y'know, PPF, it hadn't even occurred to me to call you that. In fact, I was reading, thinking...."yeah, I know, napathinker and PPF have a point...."

But it must not have been me thinking that....no; it must have been some conservative that got into my brain....because as a liberal, I should have been looking for the attack....looking for a way to annihilate....but what happened to me....I let myself drift off into the uncharacteristic mode of acceptance, of listening to the other side....and see what happened?

PPF beat me to the punch !

You're really something. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 6:17 PM:

" However, PPF, I'm really confused now, because I keep hearing from conservatives that the military is fighting to protect our freedoms.

Who to believe, who to believe....? "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 29, 2009 7:44 PM:

" cab e-girl
What are you referring to? I haven't posted anything here except a simple sentence about Israel and a congratulations to atitpc for his income tax bracket.,,oh, and a comment about T.V. commericials about health insurance.

I haven't mentioned Obama and Afghanistan. I'm still waiting to see what the decision will be. Yesterday's visit to Dover may hint at what he's planning. I don't know. Mr. Bush never did anything like that. I know he did talk to families. Maybe it foreshadows a decision. I'm waiting. I'm wondering what's going on behind the scenes.
I watch George Stephanopolis each Sunday. At the end of the program he does an In Memoriam feature that lists the names the Pentagon has released of soldiers who died. Their ages are listed as well as their home towns. So sad. I know that behind each name is a grieving family. I want the boys and girls home. Why didn't we learn from the mess in Viet Nam? Do we have to lose another 56,000 before someone remembers that this type of war doesn't have a winner.... "

russ wrote on Oct 29, 2009 7:44 PM:

" It would be stupid, stupid to believe that opposing the "hate crimes bill" is unnecessary or racist.

It was already illegal to murder a transgender person. Why the new law?

POLITICS & SPECIAL INTERESTS

We need more laws. It keeps the legislators in office. "

cab e-girl wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:52 PM:

" Alu See Oct 27th at 1:43 pm. That's what I was referring to :) "

cab e-girl wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:59 PM:

" Alu- I thought you were referring to my comment on Afghanistan. At this point, our service men and women are not a priority for this administration, hence the "Dithering" reference.

And BTW, I concur with your comment on tax brackets and I like the way you addressed it. I don't think there is anything wrong with congratulating the successful. "

XMAN wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:36 AM:

" Fancy, Dancy, Ants-in-her-Pantsy Nancy just sprung a 1900 page "quickie" House bill thick as a phone book on us to enforce the rules and regulations for health care. It's just as fuzzy as the other ambiguous abortive attempts but she says this one is O.K. and contains a "consumer option" that is unlike any other option ever seen before. Nancy says, "Read the Table of Contents, you will love it." She would like to have this bill voted upon in the next day or two, if possible. She can then get on her big shiny blue jet, fly away home and forget the whole confusing mess. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 30, 2009 6:07 AM:

" "I thought you were referring to my comment on Afghanistan. At this point, our service men and women are not a priority for this administration, hence the "Dithering" reference."

I don't know how you can arrive at that conclusion. What has this administration done to warrant that charge? "

antipc wrote on Oct 30, 2009 6:24 AM:

" I finally figured out how BHO is going to fend off unemployment, 26 people working as personal assistants to Michelle........ ROFL.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13827

At long last, the transparency I've been waiting for. "

antipc wrote on Oct 30, 2009 11:52 AM:

" How very American Della. You really should should try to be a little more divisive.

I guess there is a good side to all of this though, it looks like all the gangs & Muslim extremists are effectively out of business, eh? "

Raven wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:09 PM:

" A spokeswoman for the first lady says that Michelle Obama currently has a staff of 24. That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 ...The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total was $1.4 million.....(factcheck)

context is everything...and reports indicate the workload for Michelle Obama is considerably higher than that of either of her predecessors....so the larger number may be justified... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:23 PM:

" Okay, for those who can't read without your hazmat suits on, here's what I said, and I'll interpret it for you:

"Here’s what I really don’t understand though. This, reported in Washington Post:
“They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33520935/ns/politics-white_house/)
“Huh? This would keep clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality from advocating crimes against homosexuals on religious or philosophical grounds, or what? Can we say, S-t—r---e---t-c-h? "
You see, folks, my point was it's a stretch of the imagination to think that the clergy or those opposed to homosexuality would be in any way affected by this bill, unless they have, as part of their message, that one should go out and commit a crime against homosexuals. If that's not part of their message (and it shouldn't be and isn't as far as I know), then they have nothing to worry about. If it is a part of their message, then they should take responsibility for crime resulting from anything they say to encourage crimes.

Now to clarify, I didn't come up with that part about concern that it could "silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds". That was in the news article. I said it was a stretch to think it would silence them, unless their speech enouraged crime. And that would be a crime, wouldn't it?

Those who are so quick to accuse others of insults might want to look in the mirror. And if that doesn't help you see yourselves, I have a pretty hefty list of the perpetual pile of insults you've generated; I'd be happy to give them back. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:24 PM:

" antipc, I think divisive might be in the eye of the beholder. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:27 PM:

" "I guess there is a good side to all of this though, it looks like all the gangs & Muslim extremists are effectively out of business, eh?"

They would certainly be subject to the consequences if they commit hate crimes. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:39 PM:

" Unless you are Barry's Pastor Della who spewed hate from his pulpet.

I have gone to Catholic, Christian, and Jewish hoses of worship and have never heard hate speech from one of them. It is true that most religons denounce homosexuality, they do not preach violence.

The message has always been peace and love.

hate speech has never been protected speech. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 30, 2009 2:34 PM:

" freeport -- then what are they worried about? That's my point. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 30, 2009 5:53 PM:

" They are worried that homosexuality will be denounced in a church, someone will call it hate speech and the left wing media will take over from there.

Della- the MSM is spreading as many lies as pelosi did about the Insurance company profits (2% in '08).

You know propaganda...say it enough times and the masses will believe it. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:35 PM:

" freeport:
You said: hate speech has never been protected speech. "
I'm not sure that's 100% accurate. What about freedom of speech? How do the two concepts mesh? Just curious for more in-depth clarity. I have a vision of the Nazi march in Skokie. Of course, that was 1981 but your comment says: has never. Not trying to find fault here, just interested in your thoughts. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:47 PM:

" Check out the article on Cheney and what he "remembers" about the Plame outing. It's under politics. Very interesting about his memory... "

Raven wrote on Oct 30, 2009 8:12 PM:

" tell us the lies freeport....and hate speech is still free to be tossed about by anyone, nothing in the bill changes that. What is now covered is the physical assault as a way of showing 'displeasure' with someone gender or sexual orientation. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:03 AM:

" luca-
Skokie, ah yes a courts major mistake. they have not been back have they. can't yell fire in a movie house, even under the patriot act those types of comments can be call "terrorist threats".

Will my opinion now put me in jail? If i do not care for homosexuals, transgenders....and say so is it a crime. I guess my comment really refers to how far the thought police are going to go?

If someone overhears say something no positive is that hate speech????? Too politically correct for me.

If you choose a lifestyle, clothing...etc., out of the mainstream and someone makes a comment about it, can an opnion be called hate. how far are we to go to silence our selves.

Happy Halloween! "

kevin wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:16 AM:

" Just in time for Halloween; REALLY scary new laws by Congress:

"NEW HATE CRIMES BILL CRIMINALIZES WORDS AND THOUGHTS"

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news143.htm "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:36 AM:

" Maybe if people can remember the difference between "sticks & stones" and "names", no one will get hurt. Physically, anyway. "

Raven wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:55 AM:

" what was the mistake freeport, allowing the march?

Again, the hate crimes bill doesn't outlaw any speech....just action. The bill makes it a federal hate crime to "assault" people based on sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. The new measure expands the the scope of a 1968 law that applies to people attacked because of their race, religion or national origin.

Say what you want about people you don't like...just don't take violent action based upon that belief or incite others to do so in your place. (and the yelling fire, you couldn't do that before the patriot act) "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 31, 2009 12:12 PM:

" newswithviews. Emphasis on the latter. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 31, 2009 3:48 PM:

" Thanks for the clarification Raven.

I'm thinking (as an example) about homes or synagogues that are vandalized with anti-semitic slogans and signs. Is that vandalism or a hate crime? I think there should be a distinction. The damage may be the same, but the intent is much more malicious in a hate crime. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 4:53 PM:

" Raven-

Isn't assualt already a crime? "

Raven wrote on Oct 31, 2009 6:20 PM:

" yes, freeport, but this adds special circumstances and allows the feds to step in if the locals don't or provides funding for the locals to proceed - just like enhancements for using a gun in a robbery - robbery is already a crime, the gun enhancement allows more severe penalties to be imposed. "

Raven wrote on Oct 31, 2009 6:28 PM:

" alu, this part of the state hate crime laws would probably cover that..

CAL. PEN. CODE § 422.6 : California Code - Section 422.6

(a)No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

b)No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

and there is this freeport from section c...

no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat. "

Raven wrote on Oct 31, 2009 6:30 PM:

" and the groups covered by the state's hate crimes law are..

CAL. PEN. CODE § 422.55 : California Code - Section 422.55

For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:

(a)"Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:

(1)Disability.

(2)Gender.

(3)Nationality.

(4)Race or ethnicity.

(5)Religion.

(6)Sexual orientation.

(7)Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

(b)"Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6. "

sickothis wrote on Nov 1, 2009 12:07 AM:

" Freeport: "The message has always been peace and love.

hate speech has never been protected speech."

Really? Google Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 2, 2009 1:18 PM:

" The opinion piece cited by Kevin contains outright lies in addition to simple fear mongering. It repeats the lie that Matthew Shepard was not targeted because he was gay. That lie has been refuted by everyone involved in the case, including both of the murders.

It also states the law "criminalizes words and thoughts". Another lie. Only actions and words (like terrorist threats or inciting a riot) already illegal would be enhanced. While some religions continue to stigmatize gay people, many do not. But false beliefs about gay people remain legal, and everyone is still free to espouse them. "

balance wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:25 PM:

" Haven't read the article, but based on the title, just one question: How is it even possible to "criminalize" thought?

Are we suggesting the government can read minds now? "

Raven wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:58 AM:

" balance, see equals post "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: