Michael Yaki, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, offers up this insanity that demonstrates perfectly my post from yesterday:
We don't know for sure what the motives of this particular madman were. There will be many commentaries on the fact that this occurred in Arizona, an "open carry" state for firearms. There will be renewed arguments about the Second Amendment, gun control, etc. There will be a call to ensure that every Member of Congress is protected by local or Capitol police when they go back to their districts. But that is just window dressing for the real issue. And for the other innocent victims of this madman, our nation needs to understand that they are more than victims -- they are martyrs, martyrs to a culture of hate speech and violence we have done little to stop. Because whatever the reason, we cannot ignore the fact that the current political climate is toxic beyond reason.
As we move from grieving to action, this nation's political leaders and the media have to face the fact that giving national prominence to extremist speech is not an extension of liberty. Corporations who advertise on all public media -- whether commercial broadcast, cable, radio, and all aspects of the internet -- need to take a stand. Americans who believe in our Constitution, a Constitution that has stood for the peaceful transition of power for over 200 years, need to take a stand and withdraw support for programs and sites that support hate speech. Now. Because events like today seek to undermine the very republic upon which we stand.
It's a safe bet Yaki doesn't have in mind MSNBC or leftist gabbers like Mike Malloy. But the scary thing is, as fellow UCCR commissioner Peter Kirsanow notes,
This is not simply incoherent and irresponsible, but a monument to self-contradiction.
He states "[we] don't know for sure what the motives of this particular madman were," but then declares that the victims were "martyrs to a culture of hate speech" and that extremists on cable news shows and radio are somehow responsible. Never let the facts (or lack thereof) get in the way of a preferred narrative.
Yep, there it is -- THE NARRATIVE TM. Yaki is the embodiment of it. He's a staunch defender of the Obama administration's handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case -- where evidence of wrongdoing is overwhelming -- yet wants curbs on "hate speech" because (supposedly) such speech doesn't "extend liberty" ... even though there's zilch evidence that Jared Loughner, the Arizona assassin, was influenced by any such speech.
Again, THE NARRATIVE TM dictates that evidence doesn't matter. Conservative speech, including metaphors that are used by Democrats/liberals just the same, are inherently bad, evil, and threatening. At the same time, it wouldn't be "just" to prosecute groups like the New Black Panthers because, as a group populated by an aggrieved minority, their anger is "justified." It's a good bet Yaki subscribes to the anti-equal rights "Critical Race Theory," which, among other things, despises a legal system "in which both the white majority and minorities profit from the expansion of rights." In addition, the theory "suggest(s) that the existing precedents are indeterminate, allowing the judiciary wide freedom to interpret them according to prevailing balance of power." In other words, since whites still dominate the United States at present, the courts need to "take that into account" when judging the actions of groups like the Panthers. And when it comes to conservative [supposed] "hate speech," it is then logical to assume that since conservatives/Republicans currently identify more with the majority population (and liberals/Democrats the opposite), the law should take that fact into account when judging said speech.
It's a dangerous idea that, thankfully, hasn't (yet) gained much of a legal foothold. But the current administration, if the New Black Panther case and myriad appointments are any indication, is doing its best to change that.