Welcome to Crosscut, Erica and Josh. I'm glad you're here but you might wonder about that from time to time because I have a contankerous mind that reveals itself more in stream of conscience writing than writing tempered by second and third thoughts.

So here goes. The Kathy McMorris story, viewed from one perspective, is indeed a story about women and violence and protection and whatever other values a person wishes to attach to it. But, other than issues faced by Native American women, it also contains at least two additional issues.

The first is government overlap. Why do we need state and federal laws covering the same crimes? Why do we need to build state and federal prisons to incarcerate people for the same offenses? Why do we need to borrow 40 cents on every dollar we spend at the federal level to provide community services that are already being provided by state and local governments? So, from a different perspective, the Violence against Women Act was just adding another layer of federal bureaucracy to prosecute acts that are already illegal under state laws.

The second issue is one inherent in hate crime legislation. Why is violence toward one gender worse than violence toward the other?

Folks who didn't support the federal legislation may have had good reasons for turning it down. Just as the folks who brought it to a vote may have had good reasons for bringing it forward, reasons beyond just trying to win the votes of undecided women in the 2012 election.

The economy. Deficits. Debt. Foreign entanglements. Energy. Climate issues. The environment. The federal government has lots of challenges that it and only it can tackle on behalf of all Americans. Why not tackle those things first before passing laws that duplicate local efforts?

I mentioned that my comments were untempered by second thoughts. I should have added knowledge about the specifics of the 2012 amendments to the Violence Against Women Act to that caution. Most of my comments were not relevant to those amendments so, in the immortal words of Roseanne Roseannadana, "Never Mind."

The second issue is one inherent in hate crime legislation. Why is violence toward one gender worse than violence toward the other?

It's not. Hate crimes laws add a sentencing kicker for crimes motivated by hatred on the basis of things like gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. As written, those laws don't specify which gender, orientation, or race, etc. If someone's attacked because he's a straight male, it's just as much of a hate crime as if someone's attacked for being a black lesbian.

And the kicker for a crime's motivation is well within traditional criminal legal practices. The motivation for a crime has long been a major factor in sentencing. Therefore, the (usually) right-wingnuts who call hate-crimes laws an infringement on freedom of thought are wrong; to argue that motivation is irrelevant would wipe out all sorts of distinctions in criminal law.

A quick follow-up to yesterday's Jolt re: retiring Democratic Rep. Deb Eddy (D-48) working on behalf of Republican Seattle legislator state Sen. Steve Litzow's (R-41) re-election campaign against Democrat, Maureen Judge.

You people can't admit that you made an error. And you didn't undo your erroneous "progressive" cheap shot made in two separate columns yesterday. I guess being a "progressive" means you never admit your errors. Pathetic. We'll be waiting for your next series of factual errors. They'll happen soon enough.

Pot calling kettle.... Really NotFan, I have yet to see a retraction of yours where you made a mistake, or obscured the facts.

Gary, what "mistake" are you talking about? Or are you simply the latest "progressive" to launch an ad hominem attack on me because I don't even begin to buy into the implicit and explicit claims of "progressive" intellectual and moral superiority?

Come on, you've just accused me of a "a mistake, or (having) obscured the facts." Detail your accusation, or do a most un"progressive" thing and admit that you made it up because it sounded good to you at the time.

If you would stop calling any one whose post(s) you don't like a "progressive" you might get more people to give some credence to your posts. "Progressive" is not a epitaph and you are totally misusing the term, repeatedly and consistently. Look it up. It makes you look ignorant.

Ah, louploup, so "progressive" of you to launch yet another ad hominem attack. You know, calling me "ignorant" and all? It might be more effective if you knew what words meant. It's epithet, not epitaph; look it up. Oh, and correct would be to write, an epitaph or epithet. Were you absent that day in fifth grade?

As for my putting "progressive" in quotes, I do it sarcastically. (That much should be obvious, but some people need to have the obvious explained; you are one of them.) Why the sarcasm? You see, I regard Seattle's "progressives" as a bunch of hypocritical phonies.

So I put the word "progressives" in quotation marks to remind them, including you, of my ongoing, thorough disrespect for everything they are, as opposed to what they pretend to be.

I notice GaryP never came up with an answer. How "progressive" of him to attack from behind, or perhaps beneath, that rock of his, and then vanish. Soon enough, no doubt, he'll appear here or somewhere else to whine that I refuse to have a reasonable discussion.

In "progressive"-speak, a reasonable discussion is one in which the "progressive" is not only agreed with, but has his insatiable need for emotional affirmation fully satisfied, at least for a brief moment. Not being a Montessori teacher or otherwise a child psychologist, I am not good at playing the role of nuturing "progressive." Oh well.

There is a time limit on replies? Where is that stated?

The comment refers to your statement "You people can't admit that you made an error."

Again, you claim elsewhere that you have been wrong and have admitted it. Yet when I looked at your comments over on Purgola you like most trolls on the internet just left the argument. Now I'm not saying you need to defend every last comment made to you, because really, who cares? Certainly not me, but you don't appear to be living up to a standard that you want others to.

"That much should be obvious, but some people need to have the obvious explained; you are one of them"

This is a sentence fragment and it has a miss use of the semi colon. I don't really care unless your are out to make yet another ad hominem attack. I had such high hopes that you could argue a conservative or independent view point and disregard any slights from internet trolling. I guess that you too are showing your true character.

This is a sentence fragment and it has a miss use of the semi colon.

Poor GaryP. Asked to cite the "mistake," he can't do it. (Or won't do it, which recalls an old Marine Corps slogan: "Can't means won't.") Instead, he comes up with a new complaint, which isn't even valid.

They weren't sentence fragments; there was a subject and a verb on each side of the semicolon, which I used correctly. Incidentally, it's not "miss use," unless you were referring to the unmarried Helen Use. In that case, though, it would be Miss Use. I think you meant to write "misuse." So many "progressives" had problems in fifth grade, it would seem.

Not fan = crankyoldlady

Another "progressive" ad hominem attack. Interesting Kumbaya crowd ya got. Believe me, I am far from crushed. Other way around, in fact. I'm glad to see your true colors on display.

Another "regressive" ad hominem attack. Interesting I-Got-Mine-Screw-You crowd ya got. Believe me, I am far from crushed. Other way around, in fact. I'm glad to see your true colors on display.

So, by putting the word in quotation marks, you're saying that I'm not regressive? That's interesting.

The entire GOP Congressional delegation from WA opposed the updated Violence Against Women Act. It's OK to them to carve out exceptions to victims being abused and raped, you know, like gays and undocumented immigrants. Highly offensive.

Used to be that supporting VAWA wasn't controversial; guess it's election season. Need to look tough on immigrants and gays. Insane. Unacceptable.

The issues with the Senate version of VAWA and somewhat resolved in the house version have to do with constitutional protections, preventing fraud, increasing program accountability, and other things.

Want to have an opportunity to see evidence against you?
Want to go before courts sponsored by your government, not someone elses?
Want more immigration fraud? (a full 1/3 of immigrants wanting to jump the line are denied, and most likely fraudulent)
Want accountability that the money spent is being used for victims? (17 of 19 programs audited were faulted)

Yeah, that is what the house bill would accomplish. Of course, those sucking on the public teat, but not giving a rat's a** about helping victims don't like it as well.

Next question.

The Geezer

it's not a "regressive" attack, its an "over use of quotes" attack! He loves quotes because it means he can hide behind the misuse of the label, by pretending he's using a different meaning of the word.