class-action suits are orchestrated.rnThrough the NAACP and similar organizations,rnblacks oppressed by tenminuternwaits are alerted to the prospectrnof big money, and soon there are plaintiffsrngalore.rnBut even if Denny’s is guilty of badrnservice, why should it be a federal case?rnIn a free society, business rudeness isrnsubject only to the sanction of the market,rnthat is, loss of customer. For Denny’srnto be singled out by people who celebratern2 Live Crew seems, well, uneven.rnThank goodness most customers havernneither the ability nor the desire to sickrnfast-talking lawyers on those who irritaternthem. But the irritations of daily life arernfederal crimes if one belongs to an officialrnvictim group. And they’re a lawyers’rncash cow. Last year, Saperstein wonrn$132 million from Shoney’s, anotherrnSouthern chain serving inexpensive familyrnmeals, because it acted as if freedomrnof association and contract were still legalrnin this country.rnShoney’s, which is based in Nashville,rnhad to institute hiring quotas for blacksrnand “multicultural education” forrnwhites. Worse, the founder of the company,rnRaymond Danner—an entrepreneurrnwho helped make dining out reliablernand affordable—was forced to sellrnhis stock and resign from the board.rnSaperstein’s share of the loot: as much asrn$39 million. Denny’s too will have to payrnLIBERAL ARTSrnAND THEY CALL US THErnSTUPID PARTY!rnR. Emmett Tyrrell, from his review inrnthe February American Spectator ofrnRush Limbaugh’s The Way ThingsrnOught To Be: “Rush Limbaugh isrnquite obviously the greatest Americanrnsince George Washington, andrnLimbaugh still has his own teeth. Hernhas written a book that all Americansrnshould read, and that his dementedrncritics should have read tornthem by their probation officers orrnpsychotherapists. This is liberalbashingrnwith bravura. It must notrnbe ignored.”rnout many millions in legal fees and cashrnawards to the luncheon underprivileged.rnAnd it will have to establish racial quotasrnand indoctrination programs designedrnto make whites ashamed of their forefathers.rnWhen America was free, the RaymondrnDanners prospered instead of thernGuy Sapcrstcins. We’ll know we’ve restoredrnthe Old Republic when Shoney’srnand Denny’s can go about their ownrnbusiness and Guy can’t afford a Californiarnpsychic.rn—Llewellyn U. Rockwell, ]rrnB I A S C R I M E S WHI no longer be toleratedrnin New York City, say the proponentsrnof the city’s new “bias crimes”rnstatute. Its sponsors call it one of therntoughest such laws in the nation, and itrnwill for the first time allow judges tornaward unlimited punitive damages tornvictims of bias attacks, as well as increasernsubstantially the fines that thernHuman Rights Commission is permittedrnto assess.rnThe new law, to be sure, is largelyrnsymbolic, but a vote of 44-1 in the cityrncouncil shows how difficult it is for electedrnofficials to resist scoring politicalrnpoints of the motherhood-and-apple-piernvariety. Under this statute, the list ofrnprotected categories includes the standardrngroupings of race, color, and creed,rnbut also problematical ones like age, citizenshiprnstatus, gender, disability, andrnmarital status. Regarding the last, one isrnunsure whether it is the married, single,rndivorced, or widowed who are beingrnpreyed upon by criminals. The list ofrnprotected groups seems so comprehensive,rnin fact, that even some heterosexualrnwhite males will be covered, howeverrninadvertently.rnThe whole notion of bias crime is spurious.rnIt has never been explained why itrnis worse to attack a man because he isrnhomosexual than to attack a man becausernhe is wealthy or to attack a womanrnbecause she is beautiful. Why shouldrnthe motivation of the act add to itsrnheinousness?rnThough the proponents of these lawsrngloss over the problem, the task of determiningrna criminal’s motivation isrnfraught with uncertainty. Even if an attackerrnmakes ethnic slurs during therncriminal act, it does not follow that bigotryrnwas his motive for committing therncrime. And what about the ambiguousrncase in which a homosexual is victimized,rnnot because he is gay per se, but becausernhe appears weak, and thus an easyrnmark?rnWhen crimes involving name-callingrnare punished more severely than ordinaryrncrimes, victims will be tempted tornfabricate charges of bias. We can expectrnthe civil court system in New YorkrnCity to become flooded with frivolousrnsuits. We can also probably expect morerncases like last year’s infamous “sneakerrnpolish” incident. In this 1992 version ofrnthe Tawana Brawley hoax, two black childrenrnin the Bronx claimed they werernspray-painted white by a gang of Caucasianrnyouths. In more innocent times,rnsuch an incident would have been consideredrna prank and been promptly forgotten.rnMayor Dinkins, however, saw fitrnto hold a press conference for the purposernof denouncing it, and the storyrndominated the local headlines for thatrnweek. The police were unable to findrnany evidence of the alleged attack andrnfinally decided that it had never happened.rnA crime was recently committed inrnNew York that illustrates the slipperyrnslope we are on when we concern ourselvesrnwith the murky subject of a criminal’srnstate of mind. A rabbi dressed inrnOrthodox garb was stabbed and seriouslyrnwounded by a Hispanic man. Thoughrnthe assailant uttered no anti-Semiticrnslurs, the attack was nevertheless labeledrna bias crime. The answer to the puzzle?rnThe attacker made no attempt to takernanything from his victim, apparentlyrncausing police to conclude that nothingrnexcept bias could have been the motive.rnAccording to the Orwellian logic of biasrncrimes, if the victim, in addition to beingrnstabbed, had also been robbed, thatrnwould have made it a less serious, not arnmore serious, offense.rnConsidering the extent to which minoritiesrnnow benefit from preferentialrntreatment, there is also the likelihoodrnthat bias crime charges will be selectivelyrnbrought by prosecutors. The LarryrnBrown case in San Jose, California,rnshould surprise no one. Brown was arnCaucasian youth who was attacked by arngroup of Vietnamese immigrants, onernof whom shouted “white devil” before fatallyrnshooting him. The case passed withrnbarely a ripple in the mass media, andrnthe local district attorney declined tornpress hate crime charges.rnWe are certain to be hearing muchrnmore in the future about bias crimes.rnAfter ruling last year in R.A.V. v. St. Paulrn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn