WASHINGTON – The Senate on Thursday approved the most sweeping expansion of federal hate crimes law since Congress responded four decades ago to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
The legislation, backed by President Barack Obama, would extend federal protections granted under the 1968 hate crimes law to cover those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
about time
Wow... I'm surprised actually. I really doubted it would ever happen.
What about job protection?
Senate votes to expand federal hate crimes law
By JIM ABRAMS (AP) – 18 minutes ago
AP
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmxKiiSIsM-k7nX2yECb7kGw1qhwD99G915G1 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmxKiiSIsM-k7nX2yECb7kGw1qhwD99G915G1)
QuoteWASHINGTON — People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of hate crimes law.
The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue hate crimes.
Post Merge: July 17, 2009, 10:16:52 AM
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act - Text (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.909:)
Related:
HR 1913 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1913:)
On to the President. And then it is a law.
:icon_dance: :icon_dance:
Janet
It's not that easy, its really only an attachment to a defense funding bill.
Finally! But what about job protection, like Lori said?
It will pass, and should. One can debate the merits of hate crime legislation at all - but if it is to exist, it definitely should protect all threatened people groups.
I should think protection in terms of jobs and housing and so forth would have to be an entirely seperate action. But I wouldn't be surprised if something is perculating in some sub-committee somewhere.
Quote from: Patrick on July 17, 2009, 01:28:52 PM
Finally! But what about job protection, like Lori said?
This has nothing to do with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Job protection is not a function of the Mathew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity job protection will be taken up by ENDA later this year.
-Sandy
Fact is, they only put this stuff in to get the F-22 funding past, so I bet Obama will veto it.
It's attached to what is being called a "must-pass" defense spending bill. The challenge was to get the bill attached to this. It's almost certain to pass the House and be signed into law.
As to employment, it's pretty much settled case-law, as exemplified in Schroer v. Billington (Cv-05-1090), that job discrimination against transsexuals is illegal discrimination on the basis of gender. However, proving that one was fired (or not hired) because of being transsexual, rather than whatever pretextual reason the employer states to be the reason; that is another matter entirely.
Quote from: tekla on July 17, 2009, 01:48:19 PM
Fact is, they only put this stuff in to get the F-22 funding past, so I bet Obama will veto it.
If people really knew the status of our air arsenal, they would see we actually need it.
This has nothing to do with where we are fighting and such, just that our current aircraft are in their golden years, ready for retirement. Not due to their ability to fight more modern aircraft, but because they were only engineered to fly for so many hours under stress and most are perilously close to that time. Time overseas only accelerates this. It is already going to be close on the F-16's by the time the Joint Strike Fighter is ready, much less ready for war.
The same applies to our Navy which is starting to be replaced. Many of our ships are reworked WW2 era ships.
The F22 is needed to replace an aging fleet of planes and the possible "replacement" (F35) is not ready for wide deployment as of yet. The real question is how many of the F22s are really needed and what exactly are the plans for the deployment of the F35 and the training of pilots?
F-22 replaces the F-15, the F35 replaces the F-16, both orginally built in the early 70's. The third to last generation of F-16's, which make up the majority of the F-16 inventory, were built in the late 80's are nearing the end of life. The newest generation of F-16's were actually sold to other countries, the U.A.E. in particular. We do not have any of them in our inventory.
According to Air Force officials, a minimum of 381 F-22A aircraft are needed to satisfy today's national security requirements. We have 141, which is 7 squadrons. 2 of those are for White house defense. Leaving the other 5 to rotate overseas duty. We are only expected to get 187 and 10 are for parts and some are test planes.. Basically the Air Force will only get one more squadron worth. They are trying to keep another 180 F-15's in the air to augment that number. They have no other choice. It costs lots to keep them airworthy, parts costs will go up, as will the amount of repairs and labor needed to do so. As it is, parts for the F-16's (and likely the F-15's) are in high demand (we had a 3 week wait on simple fire sensor, after 4 weeks down, the aircraft requires re certification by the F.A.A.). High wait times are normal on many simple parts.
While this sounds like a lot, keep in mind, we have two bases in South Korea to staff (80 planes?). We have a base in Alaska that needs to be staffed (another 40 planes most likely). Plus, what is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (anywhere from 80-160 planes). These are just where we have planes in combat zones. We have planes in many other countries as well, augmenting their defense. This doesn't leave many to spare.
You also need people here in the states to relieve those overseas and you need planes to train with. Ideally you really want about 4 or 5 times that at home in training and reserve. If over half our inventory is overseas and on alert it makes life pure hell on troops.
Then there is the aging f-16 fleet, which is in worse shape than that.
Just so people know, just because a plane enters military service, it can be years before they have enough of them, and allow it into a combat zone. It has to prove itself first. It took years for the B1 and B2 to be authorize for warfare and the B2 was rushed. The F-22 was criticized for how fast it was pushed into combat, it was one of the fastest "non-wartime" combat certifications in history. Take a look at the history of the F-111 if you want to see why rushing a plane into combat is bad. So while the F-35 may roll off production lines in 2011, it will be years before it replaces enough F-16's to be viable, and even then it still has to be proven worthy for combat. It could be 2020 before that happens.
Our aircraft replacement program would be behind schedule even without Iraq and Afghanistan. As it is, they are many years behind now.
Weapons systems should be - or ought - be built to counter specific threats, and so far (and on the horizon) there is no threat that the F-22 is built to counter. To that degree it's a 'plane without a mission' and given that most defense experts see future conflicts as being 'low intensity' (much like Iraq/Afghanistan) and not full out engagements a la WWII, we'd be better off using that money to buy more Apache helicopters. But, that would be funding for the Army and not the Air Force, and it doesn't matter much anyway since our defense funding is largely in the hands of the contractors and not the military planners.
Quote from: tekla on July 19, 2009, 10:29:30 AM
Weapons systems should be - or ought - be built to counter specific threats, and so far (and on the horizon) there is no threat that the F-22 is built to counter.
How do you figure?
By that notion we have no need for the F-15, since it is meant to replace them.
I will admit, we could possibly get away with just having newer F-15's made. However the basic design of that plane is now over 30 years old. Technology marches on. Vectoring thrust, supersonic cruise, stealth (arguably useless) are now available, none of which the F-15 has.
Many other countries have built much newer planes that are at least as capable of the F-15 and F-16. While many are aware of the Russian built Mig-29, not as many are aware of the Sukhoi planes, the Su-27 and SU-35, while an older design, but newer than the F-15, they are impressive planes. Then there are the newer generation of planes altogether. Europe has the E.F. 2000, the French have the Mirage 2000-5, even China has a newer plane. All of which are
decades newer than our planes, and sold to countries which are not exactly considered allies.
The F-15 is an air superiority fighter, same as those listed above, which is what the F-22 is to replace. I fail to see how there is nothing for it to counter.
True story here.
When the Brits went to attack the Bismark they had to send in these antique biplanes called Swordfish, that was because Britain never re-armed after WWI (the war to end all wars, remember?) So all they had were these old piece of crap biplanes that were slower than sh*t. So, here they are dive bombing the Bismark, the most powerful battleship (as opposed to a battlecruser, and I assume you know the difference) and - this is the funny part here (unless you were on the Bismark) the guns could not hit them, they had been set for attacks with planes that measured up to the ME-109 and the FW-190, they just never envisioned anything so slow attacking them, and given the heat of battle - and the sinking of the Bismark was one of the classic battles) they didn't have the time to re-calibrate them.
Now the Swordfish, and the rather ancient torpedoes they launched did not sink the Bismark, but in a fluke, a stoke or just pure luck (which has effected the course of many a battle) one of those things did damage the steering so that all the Bismark could do was cruise in a giant circle, at which point, its fate was sealed.
So, it is possible to say - because I'm about to say it - that the Bismark was sunk, in large part because its defensive capacity was set too high to counter a low level attack.
OK, still with me? Good. The F-22 flys so fast they they EXPECT the pilot to pass out during steep bank turns, so it has this sophisicted fly by computer system built in. But, and humor me here, where exactly do we need a plane that fast? Who else has a weapon that would need that kind of defense system to counter?
So I'm all in favor of more F-15s, F-16s (highly capable planes) and F-18s (which are so, so beautiful in those Blue Angles colors), but I see no need for the F-22. Given the wars we fight now, its gone over the battlefield so fast that it can't do anything. And versus the 15/16/18 its not proven. That a lot to spend - $70 million per plane, not counting crew and spare parts - at this time. Because the line is up and running, and the trials done, the cost of an f-16 is about $10 million now, and I'd take 7 F-16s over one Raptor any day.
Every fighter jet since the 60's has been capable of making a human pass out at high speed cornering, so it's not exactly a valid argument. It only take 4 g's for a normal person and a trained pilot with a G-suit can do 9. We have had that for a very long time.
What is improved over the F-15 is FAR better low speed agility, improved targeting, stealth, more efficient engines, fewer parts to fail (I can get into it, but I won't, but it's important). It also has the ability to fly supersonic without wasteful afterburners allowing them to get to a target faster and stay there. It also can fly as slow as a Piper cub and still corner like crazy thanks to thrust vectoring.
A lucky shot by a plane that should be retired may have won a battle, but winning a war is quite different. That lucky shot could have been made by almost anything.
By your thinking, maybe we should go back to Sopwith Camels, since no one knows how to really deal with those anymore either. Who would expect us to attack at 100mph instead of Mach 2, imagine the surprise! If it ever reached the battlefield before the war ended, I'm sure every tank drive will be quaking in his boots.
It's not like this plane is going to make modern jets look like prop-jobs.
Bout freaking time the senate passed this.