The White Peril 白禍

I consider his support of hate crimes one of Michael's quirks. (I do agree with the push to prevent "gay panic" defenses from succeeding at scoring reduced sentences, but that doesn't happen all that often.) He's clearly given it a lot of thought, but I still think his conclusions are wrong.

So when someone says, "All crimes are hate crimes" a lot of us accept it without thinking about it.

All crimes are not hate crimes. And all dangerous criminals are not equally dangerous.

People argue that we shouldn't tack on extra time for what a person "thinks." But we already do that. An obvious example is murder. The sentencing for First degree murder is largely based on pre-meditation, or what the perpetrator was thinking at the time of the murder. Second-degree murder has a shorter sentence because, basically, less thought was put into the crime. Manslaughter gets a lesser sentence because a person acted "out of passion." The sentencing for each of these varying degrees of homicide is based in large part on what the murderer was thinking at the time of the act.

I happen to think "all crimes are hate crimes" is a stupid, slushy formulation, but I think Michael's being equally slushy about types of "thought." What matters to society in distinguishing degrees of murder isn't just how long and intensely the perpetrator had it in for his victim; it's whether he's likely to do it again. All other things being equal, the sort of person who's capable of coolly and rationally planning to whack someone is more of a danger than the sort of person who just cracked when pushed too far.

One could imagine similar degrees of hate crimes. You could have first degree (has been denouncing queers publicly since elementary school and is on record as looking for the opportunity to whack one), second degree (suddenly realized when he saw that dyke crossing the street what a menace to the social order she was and flipped out), and third degree (uh...I guess that's feeling free to be more reckless in a gay neighborhood out of an unarticulated feeling that we're expendable?). But that's not the way proponents of hate crimes legislation usually talk about "thought."

To my knowledge, the laws that have actually been enacted provide for penalty enhancement: if you commit an existing crime, you can get added punishment if you were found to be motivated by bias against a particular pre-approved group. The idea is that you've done harm that extends beyond the person or persons you directly victimized; you've by extension done harm to the whole category. The courts--I think in every case, though I could be wrong--have ruled that such laws don't violate equal protection or due process.

So what's the problem? For one thing, the concept of group harm is tricky to negotiate. For another thing, it's difficult to know what someone's thinking. Michael gives a hypothetical example:

In order to understand a hate crime, you have to get inside the mind of the characters. Joe hates blacks. Joe hates faggots. Joe hates Latinos. When the guy at the bar has dealt with the man who spilled his drink, he will probably be finished with it. He’ll get a fine or a short jail term. Most likely, he’ll consider how stupid it was the next time someone touches his drink.

...

Is a simple fine or a night in jail going to make Joe think about how stupid this hatred is and how much trouble acting on it can get him into? Doubtful. Joe will sit in jail and stew about how some queer got him locked up. When Joe gets out, who is going to pay for his time in jail? Is it going to be the same black guy, or gay man, or Latino that he beat up in the first place? This is where the difference is. To Joe, it doesn’t matter. To him, one fag is as good as another.

Sounds good while you're reading through it, but is it corroborated by real life? It's possible to imagine someone who got into an out-of-character barfight being all contrite and realizing that, hell, he doesn't really have anything against the drink-spillers of the world, and going away and never doing anything like that again. But it seems equally plausible to figure that the sort of guy who would deck someone for spilling his drink would also get into other dustups--someone took "his" parking space at the supermarket, or complained that his music was too loud, or whatever--because he has little self-control and deals with problems that way. America has no shortage of hotheads who are the despair of their local police, after all. Perhaps there's research to indicate that the degree of viciousness or the recidivism rate for bias-motivated criminals is higher than that for garden-variety troublemakers, but if so, I've never seen it publicized.

Of course, the theory also is that hate crimes hurt the whole group. Here's the Anti-Defamation League:

Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups — and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them — these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.

Thinking just in terms of pragmatics, do gays really think it's wise to buy into this? That you can intimidate the whole lot of us by beating up a single gay man on the way home from the clubs? That we see ourselves as outside mainstream social and legal institutions (a.k.a. "the power structure")? And wouldn't the tacking on of gay-specific jail time or fines be likely to make Joe even more resentful of homosexuals than he would if he were just charged with assault?

If the police are responding listlessly to crimes in gay neighborhoods, then residents should be angry; but that doesn't mean that hate crimes provisions are the only possible response. There are neighborhood crime watches, there's the Pink Pistols. Anger can galvanize you into action, not send you into a spiral of fear.

...and the whitewashing of James McGreevey's coming out story is apparently complete. This is from The Washington Blade:

Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned after revealing that he was gay, says culture is outpacing politics in the acceptance of homosexuality.

McGreevey, who was in Santa Fe this past weekend to speak at a fundraiser for the Human Rights Alliance, called his decision to come out "one of the most painful but honest decisions of my life."

Even though the revelation of being gay can hurt family and friends, McGreevey said Friday that people must learn at an early age to be open about their sexuality.

"Hopefully, this generation will be the last generation of American youth that has to choose between their heart and their career, between love and acceptance," he said.

Hmm..."resigned after revealing he was gay" certainly gets the temporal order of the two events correct--give the reporter that. But the whole "amid allegations that he'd used his position to give an unqualified but hot foreign national a key counter-terrorism post" isn't part of the story anymore, I guess?

I don't think the entire distasteful saga needs to be recounted in detail every time McGreevey's name is mentioned in the media, but is it too much to ask that the gay press not uncritically let pass remarks about how his "decision" to come out was all "honest"? Coming out doesn't cancel out corruption.

Added later: It's perfectly obvious from the dateline on the article, but just in case the citation above is misleading, the Blade was reprinting an AP story. I did notice that initially but apparently forgot--this'll teach you to post at midnight--in the process of typing and magically converted the AP into the "gay press." (It's rare to see addenda given on wire service stories.)

Come to think of it, maybe it's even more disturbing that the non-gay press is buying the line that McGreevey's resignation was a gay issue.

So--apparently, there's this guy, right? And over the last ten years or so, he's changed some of his social and political positions. He's trying to persuade his fellow citizens, through argumentation, that his new positions are better.

Where does he think he is--America or something?

As usual when it comes to these things, Eric says most of what needs to be said. I will only add that I think my parents did me a disservice by teaching me a niggling, narrow little definition of hypocrisy. They gave me to understand--those fuddy-duddies--that in order to be a hypocrite, you had to act in ways that were inconsistent with beliefs you purported to hold right now.

But if we expand that definition, we can have all sorts of self-righteous fun by pointing out that the way someone lives now conflicts with the way he lived years ago. After all, no one ever sincerely changes his mind about important issues as he ages. Especially not in a free society where we all have access to lots of information and are taught to think for ourselves.

I suppose it might be just possible to accuse Matt Sanchez of being hypocritical if it were proved that, say, he was still earning income from movies he made despite being down on the adult film industry. Even that's tenuous, though; the guy's not a vociferous anti-porn crusader, to my knowledge. He just thinks it's an exploitative business, and he's glad his time in it's behind him. It would be lame of him to be mewling about invasions of his privacy, considering the nature of the work he did, but he doesn't seem to be doing that, either. What exactly do these people in hysterics think he would need to do to reclaim his integrity--contribute a few hundred grand to Ken Ryker's retirement fund?

Way to underscore the point that gays are reasonable adults, guys.

For the first time in a dozen years, I woke up this morning wondering whether I was a faggot.

See, Eric is trying to figure out what Ann Coulter's explanation of her remark at CPAP would mean if applied consistently:

At any event, it would seem that Ann Coulter is urging upon us the following, very novel definition of "faggot."

• Correct usage: a) a schoolboy who is considered by another schoolboy to be "weak or timid" and b) pretty much every Democratic politician — male or female, specifically including Hillary Clinton. (Um, does Bubba know?)
  
• Incorrect usage: any homosexual.

While I guess I should be glad that Ann Coulter has taken it upon herself to unburden homosexuals from the yoke of this rather unpleasant word (as well as change the word's gender), there's that stubborn common-sense part of me that just doesn't quite understand.

...

There was a time not that long ago when calling a heterosexual man a faggot was the worst insult you could bestow on him. It was considerably worse than calling him a "wuss," and that's because not all wusses are homosexuals. According to the popular stereotype prevalent at the time, however, all homosexuals were wusses. So, if you called someone a faggot, it carried extra weight.

Now we are told it no longer does, because the word "faggot" does not carry the imputation of homosexuality. It only means "wuss" — and the "wuss" factor is completely detached from the gay factor.

Hmm. Maybe I'm not the best judge, but I don't think I mince or flounce or anything. And I think I'm good at facing problems squarely and doing what needs to be done about them. Does that mean I'm a homosexual non-faggot? I'm pretty sure that fantasizing about Bobby Cannavale makes me a homo; could the specific things I fantasize about doing with Bobby Cannavale push me back over the line into faggotry? Will I become a faggot again if I wear purple three days in a row (no difficult feat given my closet)? Does it matter whether it's plum or lilac?

This is all very disorienting, so to speak. Next thing you know, someone's going to tell me I'm not actually a bitch.

I never figured Coulter was anti-gay*. I have friends who've seen her out having drinks or dinner with prominent artfags, for one thing. And for another...well, generally speaking, a lot of loudmouthed, high-strung, unmarried urban professional women are fag hags. I'm pretty sure she's against gay marriage and abolishing the DADT policy in the military, but those are specific policy positions, not overarching attitudes. Not that I gave it much thought.

Now, of course, it's suddenly become impossible to open a browser without encountering a solemn discussion of what exactly Coulter meant when she mentioned John Edwards and the word faggot in close proximity to each other. Her explanation strikes me as sincere. "You can't understand the joke I was trying to make without bearing in mind that I operate at the developmental level of a second-grader" sounds about right, doesn't it?

So while I think she's wrong about the way the word is used in contemporary American English by adults, I wasn't particularly offended. I agree with Connie that fetishizing words is a bad idea, and I think it's especially bad in this case. The last thing we need as gays is to look yet again as if we were easily-bruised creatures who need to be protected from hurt by big, strong, kind-hearted straight people. (See, for example, that letter a bunch of conservatives wrote in protest, as posted by Michael: "Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised." Even conservatives are bleating about marginalization now? Ick. And people wonder why I cling to the designation "small-l libertarian"!)

* We're still allowed to use gay to mean "homosexual," right? Or are we now to be treated to a revival of the pseudo-Mencken mewling that it's some kind of crime against English expression that you have to find other ways to talk about the gamesome and happy-go-lucky nowadays?