I'm just weary of shrieks, howls and moans of many of the idealists who see/saw in Obama the embodiment of all their hopes and dreams and now complain he has "changed" or "shifted centre" or "shifted right."
But I'm genuinely torn between wishing to experience the camaraderie (though perhaps it wouldn't be camaraderie for a DKos apostate) and feeling like this whole thing turned into a giant Dress It Up Purty But Keep the Democrats' Status Quo movement almost moments after the first YKos closed up shop...
I guess what this reminds me of is nothing so much as not having been invited to a classmate's party in middle school whose attendees all hated me and where I would have been uncomfortable at best and absolutely miserable at (realistic) worst.
I am wistful for what might have been, not for what actually is.
While codifying laws against hate speech or hate thought presents dangerous precedent and the potential for governmental infringement on free speech and free thought, the absence of such laws does not infringe on the right of juries and jurists to take into consideration those elements in the commission of crimes when meting sentences and punishment. It is perfectly proper for a prosecutor to expose the hideous nature of a defendant's motives for murdering someone because of his race, sexuality, gender, religion or nationality, and perfectly proper for a jury to consider those motives when rendering verdict and sentencing recommendations. Indeed, such has always been the way of the justice system in this country.
The application of the term "hate crime" to an indictment or prosecution essentially creates a double standard, as the crime itself and the "hate" beside it can only be interpreted as dual crime -- hence the term "thought crime" as applied to such cases -- whereas a crime committed and not labeled as a hate crime perforce becomes a lesser crime, merely by virtue of what the defendant was not thinking at the time of the commission.
Consider the absurdity of such a notion: Two white men stand accused of murdering two black women, both their crimes exhibiting the hallmarks of our standard of heinousness (torture, long duration of captivity and so on); yet one is classified a hate crime based on the killer's motivation to commit the crime because of the victim's race and the other is not. Did the latter victim suffer any less because her murderer was not motivated by her race? Should her murderer receive a lesser sentence because he wasn't a racist?
Tempting as it is to legally prescribe adding more years to the sentence of the racist, not only does that action belittle the seriousness of the other's crime, it necessarily creates a standard of judgement that relies on what the criminal was thinking when he committed the crime and that is a wholly unreliable standard.
I attended British schools till I was 11, and never broke the habit. Though obviously I'm ABLE to, I retain those spellings because I am enamoured of them (see?) and because I am not a little pretentious.