TalkingPointsMemo has the story:
"Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) on Thursday signed the first ever "Blue Lives Matter" law, which would make police officers and first responders a protected class in the state's hate crime law."
"The men and women who put their lives on the line every day, often under very dangerous circumstances, are true heroes, and they deserve every protection that we can give them," Edwards said in a statement, according to The Advocate. "They serve and protect our communities and our families. The overarching message is that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Louisiana."
"Edwards was expected to sign the law this week. He expressed support for the legislation earlier in the month, noting that he has numerous family members in law enforcement."
"As the son and brother of a sheriff, I have the greatest respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our communities, state and nation," he said in an earlier statement."
"The new law, a response to the Black Lives Matter movement and concern by some about the potential for attacks on police officers, will go into effect on Aug. 1, according to The Advocate. Under current state law, those charged with a misdemeanor hate crime can face up to six months in prison and a $500 fine. Those convicted of a felony hate crime could get an additional five years in prison and a fine up to $5,000."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-bel-edwards-blue-lives-matter
1. Black Lives Matter activists will surely hate this and there is a legitimate concern that this is part of a desire to frame anti police brutality protest as being a 'war on police.'
It certainly could be an attempt to bottle down legitimate protest.
2. But the other side is that David Edwards is the Democratic Governor of Louisiana. Who thought we'd get a Dem Governor there any time soon? Thanks to the toxicity of Bobby Jindal this is what Dems have been able to snag.
But you have to expect Edwards also will have to do some things that we blue state liberals might not love.
"Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) on Thursday signed the first ever "Blue Lives Matter" law, which would make police officers and first responders a protected class in the state's hate crime law."
"The men and women who put their lives on the line every day, often under very dangerous circumstances, are true heroes, and they deserve every protection that we can give them," Edwards said in a statement, according to The Advocate. "They serve and protect our communities and our families. The overarching message is that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Louisiana."
"Edwards was expected to sign the law this week. He expressed support for the legislation earlier in the month, noting that he has numerous family members in law enforcement."
"As the son and brother of a sheriff, I have the greatest respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our communities, state and nation," he said in an earlier statement."
"The new law, a response to the Black Lives Matter movement and concern by some about the potential for attacks on police officers, will go into effect on Aug. 1, according to The Advocate. Under current state law, those charged with a misdemeanor hate crime can face up to six months in prison and a $500 fine. Those convicted of a felony hate crime could get an additional five years in prison and a fine up to $5,000."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-bel-edwards-blue-lives-matter
1. Black Lives Matter activists will surely hate this and there is a legitimate concern that this is part of a desire to frame anti police brutality protest as being a 'war on police.'
It certainly could be an attempt to bottle down legitimate protest.
2. But the other side is that David Edwards is the Democratic Governor of Louisiana. Who thought we'd get a Dem Governor there any time soon? Thanks to the toxicity of Bobby Jindal this is what Dems have been able to snag.
But you have to expect Edwards also will have to do some things that we blue state liberals might not love.
You have to grade him comprehensively rather than over just one bill in my opinion. You have to ask not what laws you'd want to see in Louisiana but what laws you'd get with a Bobby Jindal.
The main thing is we want to heed President Obama and not become a Tea Party of the Left. Not every Dem in every state can be as liberal as some of us may be.
Some may be criticizing Edwards more strongly but I want to be a little more circumspect about it.
The main thing is we want to heed President Obama and not become a Tea Party of the Left. Not every Dem in every state can be as liberal as some of us may be.
Some may be criticizing Edwards more strongly but I want to be a little more circumspect about it.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteO/T: but in the spirit of your article here, I'm not sure all this recent focus on transgenderism is helping either the right or left. Bringing this up now just gives ammo to the right wingers IMO. I also think they look silly elevating this to "bathroom birtherism" as Bill Maher puts it. Here's a piece that Erickson does on it:
ReplyDeletehttp://theresurgent.com/rape-culture-goes-potty/
I agree with him that a true transsexual (a tiny % of the population anyway) is not likely to be detected, so why elevate this subject? I also am skeptical of the "rape culture" meme he complains about. On the other hand, I think he's being silly by thinking this stuff is a real threat to women.
Strategically, I think this issue is a loser for both sides, but perhaps a slightly bigger loser for the left. I view it as an unfortunate distraction.
It's not necessarily an issue I want to get into that much.
Delete1. But the LGBT community is an important Dem constituency and many Dem voters care a lot about LGBT rights-they see it as a civil rights issue.
2. In all honesty, the GOP has been the one escalating this with all the nonsense about bathrooms.
3. I myself would like to not delve into this too much but when Red States do this kind of stuff there's little choice.
4. Personally I myself have a hard time getting how you can be a different gender than what you were born as.
I get that some have that feeling. But does it mean that a man is a bigot because he wants a 'cis women' and not a 'trans woman'?
A lot of it is sort of hard to understand.
It's a tough issue to navigate easily politically
I agree, and I also think that there's a split on the left between some feminists and some pro-trans people. I read an article recently about a lesbian feminist being disinvited from a some LGBT event over some comments she made that were interpreted as anti-trans.
DeleteI just wonder about the wisdom of the Obama admin jumping into this full force. The bathroom birthers on the right can only benefit from escalating their silly nonsense on this subject, so it's no wonder they want to do it.
Hmm, how will Trump spin it?
"Crooked Shrillary will abolish the 2nd amendment and anyone caught with a gun will be surgically forced to be transsexuals against their will. She will take your guns and chop off your dicks!"
I know that in contrast to Cruz, Trump has been pro-trans, but we all know his opinions change from second to second.
DeleteIn contrast to Cruz who for some reason 'Caitlyn Jenner' thought would be an ally.
DeleteBut Trump did come out hard against Obama's recent actions.
For my part I admit I'm personally conflicted.
I'm not sure how it plays out politically. There is clearly a general move by the country towards much greater tolerance. Most Americans now accept gay marriage.
I have to admit I kind of take my cues from Obama and Hillary. If they are in favor then I feel that whatever my personal views I am in favor as well politically.
By the way, this is how I personally 'evolved' on gay marriage too. For over 10 years I had been for civil unions but felt like marriage was just for a man and a woman.
DeleteBut once I saw that NY Republicans were going to vote for gay marriage in the Senate I decided I had to accept gay marriage as well.
After all, I can't be to the Right of NY GOPers...
Lol... yes, it's complicated. I know gay people who are anti-gay marriage. I'm somewhat partial to some radical libertarians on this: they're against gay-marriage, and against marriage altogether as a state institution. They think the government has no business putting its nose in ANY private contracts. I have to say, that does simplify things a bit. Of course once those contracts are broken, and one party takes the other to court, even the libertarians agree the government gets involved... but still, it's a nice clean way to think of it.
DeleteThe question is this: were these libertarians anti all marriage before the issue of gay marriage came up?
Delete... I don't know, but I'd guess so. The way it was put (very off hand) as in "The government should get out of the marriage business altogether" makes me think that. I wouldn't say they were anti all marriage, just anti government involvement in it. They thought it should be treated as any other form of contract. If you think about it, that would open the door to polygamy, group marriages and all kinds of non-traditional relationships (that conservatives are always fretting about) being on an even footing with traditional ones. Probably not child marriage though. That's where most libertarians would probably draw the line (I hope). Probably not inter-species arrangements either... since one party would not know what they were "signing." Lol. I don't think these libertarians were under any illusions that such a proposal (to get the gov out of marriage) had even a modicum of a chance of being realized though (at least not for the foreseeable future). I haven't spent much time thinking about this, so perhaps there are some real drawbacks to this idea. I guess it would be akin to civil unions for everybody, or for any set of humans willing to partake in one.
DeleteI honestly don''t really get this theory either. People want to be legally recognized. How is this a libertarian issue?
DeleteNow some do argue that love is such a pure thing that no government institution can legislate it.
Those who feel this way don't need to get married. But why stop those who want to?
I would guess at least some use it as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage without being a bigot.
It''s like Goldwater in 1964. He wasn't for segregation, no way, he just thought the government couldn't put a stop to it.
I will say, I've come to think that while many libertarians are phonies, maybe some-like Sumner-are sincere.
That doesn't mean right, but at least sincere.
But a lot just use it to legitimize bigotry.
Listening to some extreme libertarians like Major Freedom, I feel like saying "I'm against child abuse. But the government shouldn't get involved.'
DeletePersonally, since it's impractical to imagine that government will get out of the marriage contract business, I'm for gay marriage. Practically, it makes sense.
DeleteNow will group marriages become a "thing" some day? Maybe. Probably not. I mean by that N men marrying M women.
I certainly don't buy into libertarian solutions in most cases (else I'd be a libertarian), but in some cases (including this one) it does appeal to me as a clean, simple solution, at least on first thought. It seems like it treats everyone equally, which I like.
http://theresurgent.com/marco-rubio-no-no-no-no/
ReplyDeleteTheResurgent echos RedState on Rubio: they give up on him.
Overall, despite me being somewhat personally ambivalent about the whole trans question this fight does look a lot like the old fight over black civil rights.
ReplyDeleteJust like then you have conservative states trying to resist national change.
Which never works. It's just spitting into the wind.
If the conservatives were smart-asking too much-they wouldn't make such an issue over these kinds of things.
Often it's counterproductive. Even Obama's new school rules may not have come now if they hadn't started the Holy War over bathrooms.
A true conservative would understand: when it's not broke don't fix it.
Like Trump's original take on the bathrooms was right. You just let people go to the bathroom they think is their gender and you have no issues.
By picking a huge fight, the anti trans folks might even accelerate the new political demands of the trans groups.
You always want to calm tensions down not jack them up